What is this ‘You might also like’ clutter?

[PalatineHill]

Hi MNHQ. Please just take it out. Or let me opt out of it? It looks a mess.

If here’s something that I might also like to read, I’ll find it by using the search function.
These suggestions are just encouraging the posting of the same points on multiple similar threads, and that will discourage healthy normal thread death.

It’s really distracting to look at visually, I really liked the uncluttered ‘clean’ MN format compared to other forums.

It's rubbish, people are using it because it's NEW not because it's POPULAR, they are just trying it out.
Get rid! It's awful!
Not replying to you @JaneJeffer just using your quote to add my rant on to.🙂
@JustineMumsnet can't you see what a pig's ear it is?

@JustineMumsnet

How many of those 78000 clicks were from people on this thread clicking the links to get evidence to prove just how ludicrous the algorithm is?

How many of those 78000 clicks were from people who didn't realise that they were going to be taken to an irrelevant zombie thread.

How many of those 78000 clicks were from people just trying to post a reply to a current thread and getting caught out by the "new" box appearing?

Great news that we will have the option to turn it off, and even better news that we won't have to see zombie threads in Active.

Hope the person writing the code for this isn't the same one who came up with the algorithm!

That's a good idea. Maybe someone on here can start one?

I think MN gave the troll a job to get it off their back.

And it has now morphed into the monkey on their back.

Well - there are around 150 people on this thread, so given that 33k users have clicked on it, I'd say not many!

Well - there are around 150 people on this thread, so given that 33k users have clicked on it, I'd say not many!

Sarcastic replies like this just make you look childish to be honest and don't address some of the very reasonable issues with the new feature discussed on this thread.

If MN think only 150 people don't like the new feature I think we should definitely start an AIBU poll to get some real figures

33k people clicking on it doesn't mean they liked it.

The change to trending doesn't seem like a good thing to me. It seems like a bodge to hide the real issue.

There are reasons why a thread that's older that 30 days might trend. Maybe the OP has come back with an update, or something like the recent LGB Alliance case that has had big gaps between court days.

These threads have genuine reasons to be in trending, but will now be shoved under the rug for no good reason.

This whole thing smacks of sunk cost fallacy. "We've spent a month and £5000 on this new shiny thing, we must keep it even though it keeps setting the house on fire!"

Come and vote!
www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4682399-should-mnhq-keep-the-similar-threads-feature

@AmaryllisNightAndDay I work in a data rich environment and the topic of ethics and data protection is a daily topic of conversation. Not least of all the fact that even with GDPR/DPA2018 in place, a high percentage of organisations haven't the foggiest clue about what ethics actually equates to.

Hence this absolute clusterf**k unfolding before us.

I don't even notice it now that it's underneath the New Post box.

Will be interesting to see how engagement changes over the next few days.

@fdgdfgdfgdfg I was also thinking 'sunk cost fallacy' 👍 and an inability to have the humility to admit wrong-doing and to back down graciously from a position.

Something tells me it's going to be a heck of a lot less than the 33k users / 78k clicks since it was introduced.

Perhaps @JustineMumsnet will decide it's not worth keeping a feature no one uses when she can't use the dodgy figures to defend it? 🤷🏻‍♀️

I think they're probably just hoping we'll stop moaning and forget about it.

Wow. Lovely bit of customer relations there

164 people have voted so far 91% of whom don't want it.

Ok that wasn't meant to be sarcastic - it was meant to be factual. So I'm going to leave the thread now as it's clear that I'm not helping. We'll make the improvements as promised and check in after that.

92% want it to go!!!

Ok that wasn't meant to be sarcastic
Neither is this: yeah right

Ok that wasn't meant to be sarcastic - it was meant to be factual.

Youre kidding right? If that's not sarcasm then I'd love to see you're sarcastic response!

Ok that wasn't meant to be sarcastic - it was meant to be factual.

It's difficult to conveny tone in posts, but it definitely read as a sarcastic reply to me, and i'm sure others.

So I'm going to leave the thread now as it's clear that I'm not helping. We'll make the improvements as promised and check in after that.

@JustineMumsnet You still haven't answered why you think the feature should stay. There are a lot of unhappy posters (for good reason), and it's clear the majority of users dislike the new feature.

You have the benefit on a ready made focus group giving you their feedback. Why not discuss why you think it's worth keeping the new feature, with significant tweaks and modifications, rather than the obvious solution of just getting rid of it?

Ouch. That was pretty brutal. Now I'm grabbing the popcorn.