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

[JustineMumsnet]

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

dunno

Anything is possible I guess.

i personally never ever use the archives, so it's no matter to me if they go completely.

i am curious as to how much they are used, and by whom. apparently posters are out numbered 20 to 1 by lurkers, so that's why they are kept.

seems odd to me to not let us delete our posts (individually, i mean) but keep everything open for people who can't even be holed to post and therefore are making no actual contribution to the archive. it just seems like a topsy turvy priority.

Sounds like a possibility vvv. Although maybe labour intensive?

Perhaps mnhq could blaze a trail here? and be at the very forefront of this whole new shift in perception about t'internet from = uneqivocally good thing to the all new 2009 = mostly a good thing but with great big gaping holes re copyright, privacy and security.

I do think that the moldies were ahead of their time and that mumsnet cannot be a place to support people. If people want to discuss personal things that they not want the world to know about they need to do that in private.

Mumsnet, for me at least, is the place to come for advice on smelly washing machines. I only post dull stuff now or enter theoretical debates.

i don't use the archive so it's no matter to me if it goes.

but apparently we posters are out numbered 20 to 1 by lurkers and that's the reason why the archive is kept, for them. seems odd to me that we aren't allowed to delete our posts and have to keep them for people who aren't making any contribution to the boards.

I use the archives, pretty regularly. Probably once a week, maybe more if I'm researching something specific (bf-related, more often than not!).

ah. weird. that post disappeared and then reappeared. how strange. my internet is a bit wonky this evening.

I think a real-time delete function would be a lifeline for some people.

eg, a woman in a bad DV relationship could post for advice while her DP is asleep. People tell her to copy this document and ring that number.

She deletes her (very specific and full of private details) posts before morning. She has the info she needs and her DP hasn't seen it.

Loads of other people around the world may have read that OP during the night but they wouldn't be able to id her as they wouldn't know the private details (because they're only known to her and her DP).

I can think of a few other situations where deleting posts could be protective; and others where namechanging would be enough.

I'm not convinced, btw, that MN back catalogue would suddenly be empty with everyone deleting all their posts - I've posted loads over the years and I can't think of anything I'd want to delete. But then, I do specialise in spectacularly boring posts.

Not sure how many other forums ("unclassified" in Latin, so won't touch 'fora'!) actually do allow an individual to delete a post, or even amend it, unless done within a (short) period of time. Under 90 minutes on the only one I have used which does offer that facility.

VVV "which I'm sure MNHQ are as keen to clarify" - can only say that pressure of work or whatever does seem to be making things far from "clarified" - eg on copyright being protected - after all this DM question has been running a month or so now.

While I can see the MN view about keeping threads intact, and avoiding deletions of single posts if at all possible, let alone mass deletion of all posts someone has made, I think there's a big question over how "open" MN needs to be.

On one hand, searching carried out on MN search page gets used a lot, and you need to be a member to use it, while searching with any web search engine (like Google) should take notice of a control file (robots.txt)

It's possible to implement all kinds of control over the internal search (like date limits, and blocking some subject areas through Hide/unHide) but no such control is made over external searching.

My guess is that MNHQ would not want to limit the searching from outside, as it means that they can be found by 'strangers', but that openness does mean a journalist / researcher for anyone outside can search for threads on most topics (if not all).

My feeling is that trying to date-restrict things isn't very easy, though it is technically possible (guessing at how I'd do it, would need every link to be examined and redirected to an "under X months old" section and an "over X months old" section) and an alternative, where individual threads could be 'public' or not, is again rather messy.

I'd be tempted to suggest MN have "public" areas where search engines like Google can look, and restrict access to any other areas by using the robots.txt file to prevent indexing, so while 'Site stuff' could be classed as public (or not!) there might be sections which could never be searched by Google (or other search engines, individually or all together sections of a site can be 'protected' from spidering aka indexing and thus from searches viewing those pages).

An option (so threads that MNHQ deem so useful as to be best in public) could be to make a copy of all posts in a thread and place it in a "public" section just for search engines to visit, to have a 'feel' for the variety of posts, without necessarily access to the whole site.

Well, it's late, I'm tired, and no doubt MNHQ would never go for any suggestion like this (because it would potentially limit the availability of 'strangers' coming to a thread on MN and looking around, with the possibility they later become a member) but it would perhaps give a degree of privacy (someone would need to register before using MN's search for hunting a particular quote, and having to register would put casual probers off, as they'd then be agreeing to MN's terms on what use they can make of anything they see).

Hmmmm... just checked and it looks like there's only a bland statement about copyright and nothing saying what use can be made of material on the site.
I'm pretty sure there used to be some comment about getting permission from MN to use any material, but that has vanished.

There's a bit for Media about paying 30 quid to be allowed to make a request to members, and then there are the actual Terms which describe only how someone submitting things is responsible for ensuring it isn't copyright or likely to harm (a formula for something) and so on, and there's a bit about contributions not being obscene, and about trolls, but nowt about how MN might use the material (apart from printed copies) where this latest change about "non-exclusive" copyright is in place.

Like FaceBook etc, MN accepts items, can edit them, and retains (non-exclusive) copyright on any submission, but doesn't seem now to have any clause to cover any other publication making use of items with permission

Is my memory going (hoped I'd have another 20-30 years before going dotty) or did it previously say something about "prior permission" ?

I should have saved the page (use "print" but not onto paper, I've stored things as PDFs for years so don't spend anything on paper or ink, and invoices are online, so no printing at my end, nor stamps or envelopes).

VVV - locked threads - great idea, but not sure how it could be implemented so search engines linked to it but people couldn't see it.

Unless it was handled like the MN search page, and would say "you must login to see this".

Another complication is that someone who posted on the thread, not the OP, might request MNHQ lock the thread. OP notices it is locked, and either unlocks it, or more likely, queries MNHQ about locked status (would make sense for MNHQ to override OP on this locking idea).

MNHQ then has to keep a record for every locked thread about who requested lock, and why, and even that gets wierd, as request might be from someone no longer a member of MN, or might have passed away, but whose reason for request to lock would still stand. What then?

Not saying a bad idea, but complex in management (and technical issues, too, at a guess!), just as messy as some idea on another thread of tracking which MN threads/ posts have been linked to from social networking websites.

It can be done, but a major overhead and database effort to do it. But might be nice to have an "alarm bell" symbol showing "this thread is linked to from Twitter" so someone thinks twice before posting!

Aha - MNHQ already robots.txt using it to block several sections (all search engines treated the same cos of star against User-Agent)

User-Agent: *
Disallow: /test/
Disallow: /Pub?call=com.mumsnet.surveys
Disallow: /stats/
Disallow: /discounts/
.
.
.

I applaud MNHQ for coming to this decision. I am not in the UK and so don't read the DM but have logged on to read the MN articles. I was appalled at what seemed to me to be really shoddy journalism. It would be one thing for a journalist to see a thread, decide it was an interesting topic, do research and then publish a factual, well-written article. What Leah Hardy was doing did not qualify as that.

I hope that it is as easy for MN to get out of this as it was to let it get started.

This is an interesting debate - although you really DO need to give Justine some time to sort out the DM stuff for a few days rather than immediately beating her to a pulp with something else ...

As far as the archive stuff is concerned, I've made my view on this clear before: it's what Mumsnet IS. Mumsnet NEEDS to archive to survive - to drive new users to the site. You search for ANYTHING in Google and Mumsnet seems to come up time and time again. It's a repository of sensible and useful information presented in a very clear way. That's what drives millions of visits to the site.

Mumsnet cannot be all things to all people. It already turns away advertisers that we don't approve of (c.f. Netmums). Likewise, IIRC Netmums relies on massive state funding - which is dependent on having Health Visitors giving 'authoritative' online advice. I'm not sure that there is an online business like Mumsnet that strives to have an ethical advertising policy and successfully maintains the view that 'the user is the expert'. All of this is dependent on the archive existing - and driving people to the site.

I can see an argument for having the mental health section deletable after a certain time, in the way that chat is. But I would bet that getting rid of the archive would mean getting rid of Mumsnet. (Probably quite an attractive prospect to Justine at the mo...)

Wbdude. Every forum I use allows me to delete posts, I can't think of one which doesn't. Also this forum is the only one I have been on which allows members to change their name without going through admin. I found that a bit weird to start with, though I can understand why people like to be able to do that.

This forum is really quite old fashioned in it's layout and user functionality you know!

The BBC 606 site has an interesting way of doing things which I quite like. The OP writes an 'article' (but is really just an OP). They can edit that article for an unlimited time, for example as it is a sports page, it may be a thread to discuss an ongoing event so you might want to update it as it progresses.

The OP then has the power to delete any posts on their thread that they want. The posters don't have any editing powers. But if something breaks 'house rules' it can be reported to MODS who can delete.

I like the idea of the OP having editing facilities.

every forum I have been a member of also allows members to edit their own posts. People rarely abuse it. It's mostly used to correct spelling mistakes. Other forums I use also have a 'pm' (Private message) facility

We absolutely cannot allow editing to correct spelling mistakes! It will make a nonsense of all those threads that descend into personal attacks on bad spelling and grammar.

I've been lurking on this thread for ages but just wanted to say wrt editing, it there a way that you could just add to a post rather than edit existing posts?

Say, for example, I write a post 'AIBU to smell of coffee in the morning?' and a million people type 'Yes!!ofc you are' then I can add to my op to say 'When I have only been awake 15 minute and DP wants a kiss'.

The only problem I can forsee with editing is that if someone completely chnages the tone of their post then everything is going to go haywire, especially on those threads where sixty-three people post in a window of five seconds.

Also, I know there is the chat section which is removed but how about a 'personal' section? One on which nothing is googleable and you have to be logged in to access with a note that the OP is allowed to pull the thread at any time and MNHQ do their utmost to completely own everything written in that section so it can never be re-produced by anyone in anyway?

It rarely works like that though rediffusion, many people read the OP and then post based purely on that, especially if it's a long thread.

Personally I use about 4/5 other forums, all of which allow me to edit my post within a certain amount of time and then say how many times I have edited it. I can honestly say I have never seen anything edited for malicious reasons, and being a mod on one of these forums I can see exactly what has been changed.

Morningpaper, why don't you have Mumsnet after your name on here?

A lot of these ideas are ingenious and interesting, but I wonder whether it's ultimately futile to try to mitigate the public, shared nature of the Web - sharing being, possibly, the most fundamental principal of public websites.

I think the issue of personal material will be resolved partly through private groups and sites, but also through a generational change in people's ideas about personal privacy. Those who have grown up with the web often seem very happy to live their lives online; after all, if everyone's doing it then the risk to each individual will be small.

MNers, especially those who started posting some time in the 1600s , are at the forefront of this change and are understandably uncomfortable with it. But I suspect that we are the web equivalent of those people who railed against the satanic properties of steam engines.

Re. the archive - I use it, quite frequently, and the older posts are not necessarily less useful.

I use a huge forum which is information-based, too (rather than blether-based). People can edit and delete posts at any time. Because of the large number of users, it does not matter a bit.

I suspect here it would be annoying at first because of the subject matter: someone's drama being deleted and seeing the subsequent posts and everyone asking "Wha'? Wha'?"...but it would settle down. These things always do.

Hunkermunker: I'm not employed by MNHQ: I'm not based there (I went once and ran away) and have no access to any information about posters or anything like that. All I do is write the Roundup (and recently a few editorial pages for Gerry to go in the general sections of the site). I don't know any exciting SECRETS or anything (dammit)

I think VS's idea id quite a good one - would maybe need to be trialled first but would fix the problem of "Only read the OP but ...
Would imagine it would lead to something to signify the thread is at an end though - not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.