Step forward everyone who thinks that the way webchats currently work (where the sleb ignores most of the questions and is roundly barracked for so doing) is FINE.

[AitchTwoOh]

... i'm not sure i do.

i can understand why some people have misgivings about the way that we have treated people on here, the jeering etc can't be that nice to be on the end of. otoh i feel that the schlebs are too able to skitter off the hook and treat us like dafties.

does the problem lie with MNHQ?

what are Justine etc saying to people?

are they advising them to look at MN first, or are they hopeful that they don't?

why on earth are we asked to waste our time coming up with questions that MNHQ then doesn't get them to answer?

are they even in the same room as MNHQ? cos if DG for example was just logging on from her home office (i imagine it a pale farrow and ball green, with floating shelves stuffed to the gills with byron - not tanya) then why all the 'oh she can give us a few minutes more' etc etc. why can't they just come back adn answer questions later?

and WHY do they think we're stupid?

[belgo]

In response to Aitch's comment:
'why on earth are we asked to waste our time coming up with questions that MNHQ then doesn't get them to answer?'

I think the fact that certain celebs ignore the slightly trickier questions tells us a huge amount about the celebrity and is very relevant. It makes fascinating reading what they ignore and what they pick and choose to answer. It is certainly not a waste of time.

[squeaver]

This is all very interesting.

I've never prepared a client for a web-chat but I think I would:

• get them to have a bloody thorough read of the site first before a. agreeing to do it b. actually sitting down to do it

• figure out what are likely to be hot topics and have answers already written that I could just C&P (I know that sounds cynical but at least you'd get answers!). Or answer the already-posted questions first (see below)

• make sure the client could type fast or have someone with them who they could dictate answers too.

The thing I've noticed with MN web-chats is the sheer quantity of questions that get asked in advance (don't know if this is unusual or not).

It's irritating on the day because the guest will post something like "aitch, in answer to your question..." and it relates to a question from 10 pages before (but that's a minor quibble I suppose)

What would really make the exercise worthwhile would be if the guest gave up two hours of their time; answered all the questions that had been posted in advance; cut and pasted them in at the beginning of the web-chat, then sat back and said "ok, anything else...?"

I agree, MN is a prime media but that just means they should be devoting more time to it. Believe me, if some of these people were giving an interview to the Times, they'd spend a lot more than one hour on it.

[squeaver]

Btw, Jacqueline Wilson was fab and should be used as an example for any future web-chat guests.

[belgo]

That travel writer a couple of weeks ago was very good as well. Maybe it helps if they are real writers?

[AitchTwoOh]

yes, squeaver, more time, not less. we're not not nodding in an audience, we're licensed hecklers. they can't hear us unless we're typing something, so they should be working harder to make sure that we're typing 'yyy DG you are SO right etc'.

belgo i understand that it's revealing what they choose not to asnwer, in fact i made that point earlier on this thread. the issue at the moment is that a. there's no necessity for the questions to be there in advance because the celeb isn't reading them in advance and b. the general melee lets the tricky questions get 'lost' in the hubbub.

[BecauseImWorthIt]

I haven't been involved in many because they usually happen when I'm working. But I was shocked at how little DG actually answered. Tanya Byron, from memory, was much better because I think she had taken time to read through questions that people had posted on the thread before the chat took place - then she answered all those questions first. (I think she must have written the answers out and C+P them).

I like the idea of a 'committee' who can control the questions, but I would also like the opportunity for it to be thrown open to the baying crowd the rest of us for, say, half an hour afterwards.

[AitchTwoOh]

but if the bloody slebs were just asked to answer the bloody advance questions IN ADVANCE then we could open them up to supplementaries without any committees at all. (which i do think sound pretty royalty ghastly tbh). tanya byron an excellent example, biwi.

[Tortington]

do they do their own typing? if they are a bit pants or a bit slow, wouldn't a member of the mn team do the typing?

i think the panel idea is a good one

evening webchats also a good idea

[Dumbledoresgirl]

I wasn't aware I was the subject of a webchat. Oh and I don't have a home office in farrow and ball pale green or a copy of Byron.

[Dumbledoresgirl]

Oh Daisy Goodwin

Phew.

[belgo]

Sorry aitch for repeating you - I am guilty of Not Reading the Thread Before Posting.

Maybe it would work better if questions were first sent to MNHQ and then answered in order.

I don't know what happened on the Waitrose thread, was it good or bad?

[Swedes]

We need Paxo to press them for an answer, 32 times.

[Swedes]

Yes, evenings would be far better. Daytime webchats do working parents a disservice. It's ridiculous now I come to think of it.

[squeaver]

Belgo - the waitrose boys were good and they're taking sophable and her dh on a freebie holiday fact-finding trip.

[belgo]

Good. I might have to go to Waitrose the next time I'm in England. Don't think I've been to one before.

[Lulumama]

i think the distinctly underwhelming daisy goodwin chat has crytallised a few ishooos re webchats

but i think belgo's point that what they don't answer is also relevant is a good one

agree that not answering MPs question until at the end and then so briefly was v v telling and frankly, surely the whole point of the webchat would have been to discuss that whole BUB debacle. surely DG would have expected it?

or was she hoping with all our infighting and sniping about breastfeeding, we would have forgotten all about it?

think a panel or a top ten of questions agreed on would be a good way to go in the future, but i also think that the interviewee would take fright and run on more occasions sheherzadegoldsmithi'mtalking-toyou

[Lulumama]

and definitely agree evenings are better

[funnypeculiar]

Hummmm. I do hugely agree that DG was frustrating - but, although I was in support of the idea on the DG thread, I wonder if a panel would really have helped in that situation. I think lots of us DID keep going "answer mps question please", and it didn't really make a huge difference. If someone isn't prepared to answer a question, they won't answer it.

I have two concerns with a 'formal' panel approach: I suspect it might be tricky for lesser known posters to get to ask their questions - as you say there are so many well informed people on here, and it would be a shame to end up with the same old faces (& you know it would...)
But mostly, I do rather enjoy the banter side of things - imo these are web chats, not web-interogations. I like the fact that it is fast moving - I think Tony Parsons was a good example here - it really was a webchat. He could also type fast.

I wonder if we could agree on 5/10 top questions to be answered first (these could be sent to the web chatee in advance, so they had no excuse for not having a good answer) and then once they've tackled those, chat could commence...

[belgo]

We don't want the questions too vetted otherwise we'd miss gems such as LadyTophamHatt (iirc) mistaking Tana Ramsey for Tanya Bryon and asking her a question on children and Tana Ramsey answering her .

[EugeneHCrabs]

I asked old Tory boy what his best abba track was and he pretended not to know straight away

arf

[EugeneHCrabs]

waitrose were MASTERs

I want them to be like those Oprahs giveaways she has where they all find diamond bracelets under their chairs.
can we have that?( but english style - you know a findus crispy pancake or something)

[EugeneHCrabs]

turn the sound up and you might have one too

[EugeneHCrabs]

you HAVE to watch that!!!

[BonsoirAnna]

I think that some of the guests invited for web chats here have seriously underestimated their audience . I also think that MNHQ underestimates its audience.

MNers don't like being patronised. Please only invite guests with a real mastery of their subject matter, not silly women with oversized egos.

[squeaver]

That is fecking hilarious.