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?

lol

I haven't read the whole thread but just wanted to say that while the DG chat was complete pants the Jacqueline Wilson one a couple of months ago was superb. It seemed that she had looked at the qs in advance and written her answers which she presumably then cut and paste - she was too quick to have typed them as she went along.

Some good points on here. I have found some of the best web chats to have been with people who are not actually trying to sell us something (or persuade us that they are jolly nice people really).

There was a good one with an allergy expert whose name escapes me, and Jacqueline Wilson was fab.

I don't like the idea of a panel. The spontaneous questions make or break a web chat, imo. That is what makes it different to just reading an interview with the person.

Anyone coming on to MN has to know that there are 4 or 5 questions that we are going to want the answers to. If they don't prepare answers to those in advance (and they even HAVE the exact questions) then they are numpties who don't deserve the honour of a MN webchat.

I can see that with a panel it wouldn't have been so easy to ask David Cameron about the size of his panniers, and there would be no namechanging to tongueyparsons etc. The outcome with a panel would be dull, I definitely see that.

I think we have to decide what we want most though, entertainment or information/answers?

oh the parson's thread.Is that in classics??

Oh well, I am exhausted by the MN chats now. I agree with FIS - Gale and Wilson were good, and both had something to sell - but were treated with respect.

Is when it gets disrespectful and impolite that my nerves give [delicate]

I can't, now the thread is over, understand for the life of me why DG agreed to do that web chat.

the guide lines are good, but I'm not sure they are clear enough about what the person is letting themselves in for tbh. I would highlight homework more I think, and I'd highlight the fact that as well as being bright and irreverent, they may well face some demanding questions which will require honest answers, and that ignoring the questions won't help their web chat go smoothly or help sell their product. Tell them it won't be an easy ride, no? I suppose if it sounds too scary then nobody will want to do them? Is that the worry?

Posters can be unbelievably rude and aggressive I think, like they're entitled to be rude for some reason. Is odd.

MN is much more punchy tha it used to be generally though. I blame AIBU