Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Daily Mail - The On Mumsnet This Week Column - part 374, appendix 5

601 replies

JustineMumsnet · 06/09/2009 12:20

Goodday Mumsnetters,
Now I know we said we'd abide by the results of the poll and the poll's not quite due to close yet, so first off we hope you'll forgive us for bringing this matter to an early conclusion.

We've thought about this a bit more (thanks to everyone for their considered input - it's been generally helpful to us though not always fun) and we've decided to ask the DM not to run this column under any circumstances.

We've said all along that we were torn by the column. When push came to shove we thought, on balance, we would prefer though it to exist rather than not, assuming we had editorial control (explanation why later on). But NOT if the majority of Mumsnetters were strongly against it running.

I don't think the poll shows that the majority of MN is actually against it, as it happens - I know there's some debate here - I think it shows 43% are. But I think the whole process has shown that those who are against are very very strongly against whilst those who don't mind the column in one form or another don't feel particularly strongly about it (save perhaps Daftpunk ). The 43% odd would never be happy with the column running and I think that therefore it would cause ongoing acrimony, which is of course not what we're about.

What we are about is making parents' lives easier and we don't exclude DM readers from that. MN is open to all.

However, a weekly column could and has been interpreted as a brand alignment - and it's not really as some have pointed out the right fit for us - which is why we wouldn't have sought it in the first instance.

For anyone who's been upset by/ caught in the crossfire of this debate - MP in particular and indeed, Leah Hardy - I apologise. A Mumsnetter has just written to me to say the following (she agreed that I could quote her here):

"I feel the flames of crises are fuelled by MNHQ's over willingness to collaborate. Offering Mumsnetters an opportunity to help steer, but knowing they all want to go in different directions is always going
to be carnage. They can never be of one voice. That's what makes Mumsnet interesting and wonderful, isn't it?"

I think on reflection this is spot on - we have always tried to be as inclusive as possible here at MNHQ. Our answer to most dilemmas is usually "Let's see what the Mnetters think". But on polarising issues like this one this is perhaps a mistake. It all becomes a bit too Lord of the Fliesish, and innocent folk get caught in the crossfire.

A final thought about the nature of MN and how we go about making it viable. Much bigger beasts than us are trying to work out how they can make their websites work in terms of paying the bills. Many are mooting charging in some way for access. Mumsnet is free and we probably turn down as much advertising as we take. We do our best to operate as ethically and communally as possible but we have costs that are rising as we grow - servers, people, offices etc - and it's a balancing act.

Mumsnet is big and successful in many ways but it does not generate huge amounts of revenue and profit. We don't have and can't afford a big PR machine - it's me!

But we want to do tonnes of things - run campaigns like our miscarriage one that could benefit lots of folk, improve the site with new features, spread the word so more can have access to the good advice available here. To do that we need to get out there a bit and we need to generate some revenue.

Being in the Daily Mail every week was obviously one way of getting out there - but not perhaps, as many of you have argued, the right way.

So we'll ask them to stop and keep you posted.

Have a lovely rest of weekend.

MNHQ

OP posts:
VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/09/2009 00:41

I've just realised that I've probably set big red alarm bells going off in MNHQ at the mention of "huge arse"

I'll type OTW myself, shall I?

foronethreadonly · 07/09/2009 00:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

foronethreadonly · 07/09/2009 00:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

toolateforfuckitgoblin · 07/09/2009 00:45

bugger, I missed it too

fuzzyllamafunnyllama · 07/09/2009 00:46

pmsl @ toolate

toolateforfuckitgoblin · 07/09/2009 00:47

All right, who's got it?

< stares at Hunker >

VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/09/2009 00:48

[deluded]

BoysAreLikeDogs · 07/09/2009 00:49

I am ROARING at you lot

ahem

OTW

there ya go

FeckItGoblinFingers · 07/09/2009 00:51

hahahahahahahahhahaha

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 07/09/2009 00:51

true, bib, but i think in a community people often don't want to change their names so that they can be supported by people who know them. or people come here with a bad problem, get support and stay, and are reluctant to slide all the way down the snakes again and start with a new name.

hunkermunker · 07/09/2009 00:52

I am not that goblins.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/09/2009 00:53

Slide down the snakes?

bibbitybobbityhat · 07/09/2009 00:53

I'm asking what it is we are asking mnhq to do to prevent our posts being available for all to see on the internet.

If posting names don't make us anonymous, what does?

I see that Aitch is requesting deletion of the archived material after a year or so (is that right?).

So, all well and good if MNHQ agree.

In the meantime, how are you/me supposed to maintain privacy on a publicly accessible forum? If our posting names do not disguise us, what other tool can we use?

Is there a chance we are asking the impossible from Mumsnet here: allow us to post freely about all sorts of deeply personal stuff (anonoymously or semi-anonymously) on the www but protect us from anyone else from anywhere else in the world (6 billion at last count) from having a look at it. I just don't understand how that is supposed to happen.

welliemum · 07/09/2009 00:59

Yes, bibbity, it's the identifiable situations that can be a problem, and namechanging is no good for that.

eg you post in great distress to say "Help! I'm in Little Sodbury and a giraffe just ate my mooncup!"

Next day it's all over the Guardian women's pages, and the RSPCA is hot on your trail because there aren't a heck of a lot of giraffe owners in Little Sodbury.

Namechanging has its limits in terms of the protection it offers.

hunkermunker · 07/09/2009 00:59

I really wouldn't want to see a deletion of the archived stuff after a year.

Well, not the bf threads anyway

No, seriously, I think the archive has huge historical value - what were women at the turn of the century concerned about, what was society like, how were people interacting at a time when the internet was still in its infancy, etc, etc?

Getting rid of that swathe of social history would be criminal - akin to burning libraries or (GRR) ripping formula adverts out of publications to save space on the shelves.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/09/2009 01:00

Well, I'd be happy for my posts about smelly washing machines to stay....and they are the most popular searches.....

Seriously though, bibbity, I think it IS important for it to be clarified.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 07/09/2009 01:00

not necessarily, actually, bib. i'm just opening it up for discussion. you could argue that losing the archive after a year would be helpful, or maybe transferring more topics (mental health for example) into a 90 day or 180 day life span.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 07/09/2009 01:01

i don't think anyone's advocating deleting the archive from MNHQ, hunker, that would be madness. just not having it be searchable.

fuzzyllamafunnyllama · 07/09/2009 01:04

but wouldn't that lose the point of having an archive, Aitch? Or do you mean not publicly searchable

bibbitybobbityhat · 07/09/2009 01:04

Exactly, wellie.

I am wondering what mnhq can do to protect us from the giraffe ate my mooncup threads. If we post that and that makes us identifiable then ... how can Mumsnet prevent that from happening?

hunkermunker · 07/09/2009 01:04

But not having it searchable isn't much use either.

I would like very much to see what is planned for private areas on MN - has that come on any or has the DM furore taken over somewhat?

Morosky · 07/09/2009 01:06

I am interested that another poster has been able to mass delete. I was also turned down and had to spend a day going through some very upsetting posts, all of which I suspect were made when I was emotionally vulnerable and many of them quite a few years ago before newspapers were into Mumsnet.

I was told no and like oops found it very upsetting. Luckily I am in a very good place at the moment. I think all of the posts which could cause me problems have been deleted.

Of course I shouldn't have posted such things but at that moment in time I must have felt as if I had no choice or that the risks were outweighed by the benefits of support or advice. If we are being honest that is what makes mumsnet compelling or addictive the fact that people give so much of themselves - or did.

I am not blaming mumsnet for this ( although I am mystified by the some are more equal than other deletion policy), as others have said the internet is a beast that is out of control and we are all embarking on a quest into the unknown.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/09/2009 01:06

Maybe posters could have their own user archives whereby after a period of time, only the OP or MNHQ has access to a thread that is sensitive or distressing, and wouldnt necessarily be of use to the wider public.

It could be released or locked as appropriate for general viewing. If a locked thread got lots of hits on searches MNHQ could ask a poster to reconsider it's locked status?

Morosky · 07/09/2009 01:08

Wellie has said it much better than me.

fuzzyllamafunnyllama · 07/09/2009 01:08

cor, that sounds clever vvv - is it do-able?