What’s going on with the weird MNHQ bumbling?

[MrsTerryPratchett]

A couple of threads have been bumped by MNHQ specifically @FlissMumsnetor whatever the naming convention is. It’s early on, contentious and therefore clickbaity stuff.

Is this a new thing? It’s weird and frankly seems manipulative. Are MNHQ at least checking if these bumped threads are legit posters, because one seemed very suss.

Now I'm confused about which rage bait poster as Nuisance No 1 is still here.

@BeckyAMumsnet

By list, we meant the thread lists on the relevant boards.

Chat is currently showing threads last posted on 3 1/2 hours ago at the bottom of page one (ie those about to drop off onto page 2).

AIBU is currently showing threads last posted on less than an hour ago at the bottom of page one.

Education is showing threads last posted on nine days ago at the bottom of page one.

So why bump something in education? Why not Chat or AIBU?

Oh I was presuming the one with beautifully written Chat GPT posts who was then unable to string half a sentence together in the sporadic answers, who had £100,000 given by mummy and struggled to understand……everything, really. Is there another one?

That one is also on Reddit, and people there are saying ‘you’re also on Mumsnet’. It’s a loop of frustration.

I thought it was the one who could be a bit...savage?

I've noticed this. Sometimes MN bumps a pretty anodyne post along the lines of 'Has anyone seen a similar coat for sale' with 'we haven't, but hope that bumping your thread will help get an answer' after a couple of hours. I imagine it's yet another AI intervention, because who would have the time.

Sadly I think that one might still be here.

I think @TemperanceWest has the right poster.

Their threads certainly are still here.

You know, this cryptic hinting stuff is hard for us who are nosy fuckers but also a bit dim..

Yes, I have no idea who it is either!

I want to know which poster! <stamps foot>

I feel so seen!

Reddit subs are even more of a target for bot/fake posters than MN because the platform's reach is so much greater.

I've watched once loved subs collapse in on themselves either due to the one man brigading enabled by the rule changes a few years back or on larger subs due to the sheer volume of spurious content. There are entire subs consisting of fake posters "talking" to each other as real posters abandon them.

If reports of potential fake posters do not look at the poster history and context then MN will go the same way as people give up on having a human conversation. Perhaps if this was routine where a potential fake poster was reported there would be more fake posters removed and less posts of "ooh that is AI" every time a post uses structured or bulleted text to provide factual content, or an em-dash because they learned grammar and print text at a time when it was in common use (which is where the AI models learned it...).

If the misinformation option on the reporting list is removed for lack of use (see other Site Stuff thread) perhaps it could be replaced with a fake poster option whose use could trigger an automated background summary of the poster's activity for the mod use alongside the report. I'm working on the assumption that "not a genuine poster" is for humans posting in bad faith.

The practice of only looking at reported posts in isolation is a gift to bad actors. I'm sure it used to be common practice for mods to look at the poster as much as the post.

Flissy is obviously AI or a bot. Moral of story: Don't believe everything you read on the net. 👍

this is a fairly standard community-management practice, helping an unanswered, genuine help-seeking post get seen when it has been posted at a quiet time or in an unsuitable topic. Threads can quickly drop down the list and it can be pretty disheartening to a user who doesn't get a response.

This is interesting because it suggests a level of care towards posters. And yet....genuine posters who point out obvious (obvious!) spurious posts are ignored. That is also pretty disheartening (which is why I mostly don't report now, just hide).

I reported a ‘rage bait’ poster - Debbie Savage after seeking advice on this thread so it’s possible that is the second poster MNHQ were referring to.
Sorry if I have inadvertently confused everyone.

Oh I had noticed that poster. I did think they were off but then there are so many of that type of poster on MN these days I usually just skip past their posts.

I've been on here over 21 years and never have I seen a post from MNHQ saying let's just bump that for you....

Unanswered threads:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/active?tab=unanswered

That list goes back to 12/10. Doesn't really match the 'a few hours' claim. And several towards the bottom of the list seem worthy of bumping if any are - struggling parents of small children are surely posters MN should be concerned about.