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.

It would be more accurate to say AI learned to write factual content from particular sectors - structured and bulleted text is the norm in STEM industries and its equally tedious to see every structured post dismissed as "AI".

The bumps read more like a basic chatbot responder than anything more interactional/AI based. Of course they could also be bored mods cut'n'pasting stock bump for any unanswered post. In either case I don't see much point to it.

If its the forum I think it is they are busily shilling their forum on various MN satellite/overlap groups. I've had invites via other routes.

Its an odd way to try set up an 'alternative" to MN, especially when it comes with idiosyncratic forbidden topics. Presumably they think infant feeding, MiLs, veganism, welfare, immigration, racism, child rearing methods and the long list of other bunfight topics are just fine.

Anyone else find it very interesting that whilst several random posts were quickly "bumped" this has been up for quite some time now, we are on page 8 of people engaging, MNHQ and "Fliss" have been tagged several times and yet total radio silence to a genuine question from a long time user?

They'll likely say it's because it's been the weekend but surely a response should be forthcoming very shortly.

I would imagine checking site stuff is similar to checking work emails after 2 days off, it would be one of the first tasks completed on Monday morning?

Hi all - thanks for posting. It’s completely reasonable to have questions about the… bumbling.

We’re trialling something at the moment by moving threads that have been posted in the wrong topic, or giving them a bump if they haven’t received any replies after a few hours. Often, the lack of replies is because the thread is in the wrong topic. There’s nothing more exciting or nefarious going on.

On the thread you referenced, @MrsTerryPratchett,I’m not sure why that one was bumped, as it had only recently been posted. I think that was human error but we will look into it.

The comment on the very disturbing mental health thread was worrying, @BeckyAMumsnet . Could you consider only using scripted replies in these sorts of very vulnerable situations (which is what I though tyou generally did when suicide is mentioned)?
E.g. The use of "we" is very alienating marketing speak, inappropriate for a comment directly to and about a suicidal person. (Or, if the OP took it seriously, it would imply multiple people in the organisation looking at her plight.)
An 'official' HQ reply on threads like this needs to have a lot of professional caution. It won't be read in the same way as posts from ordinary punters.

That's a bit of an odd reply given that all of the threads Fliss bumped were done so in a short amount of time certainly not hours later? In fact of the other 4 posted on the same day as the one discussed earlier in the thread only one exceeded an hour before Fliss posted on it and that was only just.

These are the 4 threads. The first time is the time the thread was started?

6.31 posted on by Fliss at 6.57
8.02 posted on by Fliss at 8.43
6.47 posted on by Fliss at 7.15
7.25 posted on by Fliss at 8.38

One from the 15th is even odder as it already had a reply and yet it was bumped just 8 minutes after the OP created it?

Surely the threads can just remain in the unanswered section as they always have until someone replies or be moved without them being bumped unnecessarily?

@ThreeNewWords @Voltorb - taking a look at this now and will come back here.

The 'we' is usually used to refer to all of the Community team rather than in a marketing or Borg Mind sense, since several of us may be looking at the same issue.

Perhaps 'bunfight' topics will be tackled as and when.

@BeckyAMumsnet

Jo Mumsnet bumped a very niche one in education, the entire first page of education contains posts over a week old, so why did she/it (is Jo a person or AI?) bump a niche question after a few hours?

Your replies aren’t addressing people’s questions particularly tbh.

@Voltorb

ETA - when I replied to this thread it didn't appear back in active threads? Yesterday whenever anyone posted on it, it jumped back to the top?

yes, same here.

@BeckyAMumsnet have you taken this thread out of ‘active’ to prevent people being aware of it? If so, can I ask why?

Are you preventing people from reading it?

I see it in Active when I look.

A poster this morning didnt. So when I made my first comment I noted the exact time and went into Active to check out the ‘last comments time’ on other threads there, and this thread should have been above them but it wasn’t.

with my second comment it did appear in active. But not the first. I know they sometimes take a thread out of active, so it made me think (on a thread that is solely about weird unexplained things they are doing) if this was yet another unexplained weird thing. And yes, it is.

Then why call out just one and in such a perjorative way?

As pp say there are neutral ways to ban categories of discussion - "no politics" or "no religion" are not uncommon on the more controlled discussion groups. That is very different from "no criticism of Tories" or "no criticism of Buddhism" or "no criticism of bottle feeding".

If you are setting up in competition with the biggest women centred (for now) site in the UK then banning any discussion of a subject which can have significant implications for women across a whole range of areas seems an odd way to go about it.

I see the account posting the goady threads was locked for one thread while it was being looked at and is now open again. Astonishing.

Could you address whether these posts are individually made by human beings or automated in any way?

That was the question at the top of the thread. I'm sure there may be reasons for moving threads to a better topic but that wasn't the question asked.

I suspect something is malfunctioning in the standard views.

If I look at "Threads I'm Watching" and "Threads I'm On" a couple of my watched threads don't appear, despite rechecking the threads, unwatching and watching again. (and yes, cache was cleared, differing browsers tried).

I've also seen odd gaps/reappearances in the Feed and Active views but those I assumed were just the dynamics of the site.

Well it's not for me to know, but it certainly isn't something I would want to be responsible for. I belong to a performing arts chat forum, and they only really tackle specific issues when they arise. They have a very short list of disallowed topics. People abide by that, and don't (for instance) bring party politics into threads. The volunteer moderators step in and delete or block threads as necessary, which isn't often. I don't see why any other small chat forum couldn't operate in the same way.

Do they have a list of banned topics or simply set out to make it a performing arts only discussion group? If you have a topic based discussion group then deleting off topic chat is quite normal.

If you set up a generalist discussion group (as in this case) but you ban one subject and you further ban it in a very perjorative way then your potential members should consider that their discussion will only be permitted if it aligns with the group owner - that rarely ends well IME.

For me at least its off putting in exactly the same way that "no bashing of anti vaxxers", "no bashing of Labour", "no bashing of Peter Andre" would be. I would be less likely to be put off by "no politics", "no religion", "no celebs" or other neutrally worded restriction which suggest I'm not joining a group subject to the whims of one person.

Your example of "no party politics" is a common and reasonable restriction for a topic based group. Its neutral. It it said "no support for the LibDems" it would not be neutral - it would be biased based on moderator bias (which you may be fine with but I wouldn't).

Hi all, I’ve now looked properly at the threads you’ve highlighted.

We’ve been trying to give a bit more help to threads which have sat without a reply for a while. Sometimes people have posted in the wrong topic, or at a quiet time, and a small nudge can mean their question is actually seen by someone who can help. That’s the intention, anyway.

But some of these threads were bumped much too quickly, including ones which had already had a reply. Our moderator got the wrong end of the stick here, and the posts came across as out of place. We can see why people thought something strange was going on!

We’re not using AI or bots to post on Talk, and this wasn’t about trying to create activity. The comment on the sensitive mental-health thread was also a separate mistake. Support information had already been posted there and it didn’t need another intervention from us.

Sorry for the weirdness and you were all right to question it.

@BeckyAMumsnet that makes sense, thank you.

Strange how the ‘moderator’ managed to sound exactly like an AI bot or agent though isn’t it? It was very noticeable. Maybe the person who was meant to be modding set something up and it went wrong.

Thank you, @BeckyAMumsnet . I really appreciate the effort and frankness of your reponse.

(I hope the staff member doesn't feel too got at! I would probably not have posted such robust criticism if I hadn't thought that there was some sort of rogue automated response going on, rather than a human being just trying to do the right thing!)

@C8H10N4O2 It's been a performing arts discussion group for a long time, I think I joined about 20 years ago.

@BeckyAMumsnet

But some of these threads were bumped much too quickly, including ones which had already had a reply. Our moderator got the wrong end of the stick here

Would that be your moderator Fliss who has been posting as staff for ten years? And now all of a sudden she ‘got the wrong end of the stick’?

Poor Fliss. Is she at work today then?

Also, just putting it here that none of these threads were in the wrong section and none of them were moved.