There is a poster that seems to be here just to harvest replies. What should I do?

[Another2Cats]

Very much as the title.

There is a poster here who made her (their?) first post on 25th April.

Since then, she (they) has made 57 posts, of which 55 are starting threads that appear to be just there for soliciting engagement. This is done by way of asking a question and providing a three or four word opening post. Or sometimes only a single word in the opening post.

Should I highlight this to @MNHQ and, if so, should I link to all the 55 threads that they have started since 25th April?

For context, I am often on the Genealogy board and it was only after seeing two threads started by this person there that I took notice and realised that they had also started multiple threads on other boards as well.

This included Chat, Other Subjects, Tech Tips, AIBU, Property/DIY, Music, Sports, UK Travel, Education, Baby Names, Living Overseas, Style and Beauty, True crime and unsolved mysteries, Bullying, Parenting, Pets, Food/Recipes, Wildlife nature & conservation, and Telly Addicts.

Starting 55 new threads in the space of two and a half weeks which appear to be very much about soliciting engagement doesn't seem to really be in line with what MN is really all about.

Just to add to that, the username of this person is a direct reference to a thread that the newspapers back then picked up on. It was a thread from 2013 that people who were here then would likely remember and the poster is likely purporting to be somebody with a history dating back to then (despite their first post being on the 25th April this year).

Without giving the name of this poster, it would be like if she had called herself something like "Isle of Wight bollards" or "stacking goats".

Am I even right to call out this sort of harvesting of replies?

Are MNHQ likely to do anything about this even if I do make a complaint?

It's interesting that you say that. From time to time there are threads like that on the Geneaology board. It's typically somebody looking to find some information about their grandparents or great-grandparents etc and people will respond as you said:

"DM me - I have access to/subscriptions for xyz and can check for you"

However, typically on the Geanology board, these will be people who are now dead. But, I take your point, that they may well have been "flying under the radar" while they were alive.

@Another2Cats

It also happens on Facebook. "trying to trace anyname who went to school in xtown in 2002".

People will post in good faith thinking they are helping (which may well be the case), but they have no qualms in saying "oh, I know her sister, think she lives in anothertown now". Or, even worse, they may tag anyname who could well be using a different name on FB.

The sensible thing to do if you know anyname (or their friends/relatives) would be to contact them to let them know that randomFBaccount is trying to track them down and then let them take it from there.

I realise that this makes me sound a little paranoid/jaded, and of course there are some lovely, genuine people in the world but it's irresponsible enough if you volunteer your own details (pet's name, maiden name, town you were born etc) let alone passing on info about someone else to a complete stranger.

I read threads on the Genealogy board sometimes, and would always swerve posters trying to find long lost living relatives. It's worth suggesting they try the Salvation Army service, but that's it.

You never know why someone has become 'long lost' in the first place, do you? There might be a very good reason why they don't want to be found.

I realise that this makes me sound a little paranoid/jaded no, not at all. I hadn’t really thought about this and it’s useful to be reminded how careful we have to be.

Because MN should be trying to protect users of the site from scams and fraud, and abuse of the site for criminal purposes.

I still cannot believe no one from MNHQ has commented on the thread?

Have they been in touch regarding the deleted threads for those who reported beyond the usual we will look into this email?

Does this now mean that any thread that’s not one of the usual MN moans “AIBU about dogs in cafes” is going to be suspect? I really liked the “childhood homes” thread, but are we not allowed to
start ones like that now?

@scalt Of course we can start threads like that, but the difference is that normal people would return to threads they started and engage with replies.

This x a thousand. I pretty much check all threads now to see all OP posts. If there is zero engagement then I take a quick swerve. If there IS any engagement, I take note of it. If it’s snarky, goady, deliberately arsey then I swerve again.

Yes, same. After a while you can just somehow tell that something is ‘off’ or very likely to be, eg a repeat name-changing poster with variations on the same script. Which makes the thread not only a waste of time but also a tad risky to engage with if the OP is collecting information.

I also think that if this poster had been on the level they’d have come on this thread & explained thrmselves, but they didn’t.

A couple of people posted on the dodgy threads with links back to this one, but no response.

Is the cartoon character thread one of these engagement ones? It would be easy enough to work out a rough age knowing what cartoons people watched.

I don't want to link to it to encourage the potential fuckers but its called which cartoon character did you fancy.

It used to be worse at weekends now it's daily. I don't bother reporting now because MN say that they're not breaking any rules. I just post a lot less, come on less often.

To be fair to MNHQ, they did delete all of the threads started by the poster concerned by about midday on the following day after I started this thread at 9.30 in the evening.

I don't think that is totally unreasonable.

"A couple of people posted on the dodgy threads with links back to this one, but no response."

Even if they did have any intention of replying (which I doubt), then there wasn't long between me highlighting this issue and MNHQ doing something about it.

But, as several other posters have mentioned, I'm surprised that MNHQ have chosen not to respond at all to this thread in any way.

They are out in full force today, aren't they?! With bizarre questions and even asking for the date in full format.

I imagine it must be bots.

@Another2Cats I think you'd have to draw MNHQ attention to this thread, possibly you have to email them or maybe report the thread. I don't think they look here as a matter of course - I don't know for sure though

I think Site Stuff is meant to be the one board they do check regularly. There’s also a thread about favourite wines but the OPs on both are engaging & the style is different.

There’s one about Bank Holidays that seems dodgy active at the moment.

It would be really helpful to see a count of posts by OP before clicking on a thread. I ignore threads where OP only posts once in the first day, but it's annoying having to check.

There’s another one that I’ve just posted on & reported.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5530691-what-first-names-were-common-when-you-were-growing-up-that-arent-anymore?reply=152349292

There’s been 3 in a row! So weird.

@EmpressaurusKitty that OP has another 2 on the go.

FFS.

Reported all three.

It's somewhat sinister if they're harvesting data

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/babynames/5525308-what-was-the-name-of-your-school-bullybullies?page=1&fbclid=IwVERDUAR2N0pleHRuA2FlbQIxMABzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAwzNTA2ODU1MzE3MjgAAR5nX_Ou8NBS2RxCHIxk8cfjFRtY5RTvCp-e3ZNIPNRv0im5AhE-g40bf-sQaemuCQngx6y8xZdK2h9SjKbhA

I wondered if this one is the same? MNHQ have even posted on it and people are STILL posting full names and in one case even the school name?! 🤯🤯🤯