Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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 13:25

Yes, PMing is common place on other fora.

But doing that here would mean that MNHQ would relinquish both a source of income, and an element of control.

I don't think that's so terrible, I think if a PM system were in place, I think users would experience more bullying type messages knowing they go through the system unchecked.

As far as revenue is concerned......I'd spend A LOT more time here if they had game applications like facebook....scrabulous, bejewelled blitz...etc

VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/09/2009 13:28

Sorry, just realised I meant to post on this thread but posted on the other one

Beanie, you speaketh much sense

Prunerz · 07/09/2009 13:33

I've seen people get bullying PMs and simply reproduce them on the relevant board. I imagine it cuts down bullying to some extent!

VeeEsss · 07/09/2009 13:36

Webdude, I understand that all is covered atm but would it not make it extremely hard for MNHQ to fight say, the DM, after allowing other newspapers to use quotes?
Also with the fair use policy meaning things can be quoted, and lastly mnhq probably like that they are quoted places.
If there was a members only topic that was brand new with new T&Cs then MNHQ would be at a clean slate there would they not? Whereas with anything else lifted currently the liftee, as it were, has good argument on the case of fair use and previous history.

:ignore me if I'm totally wrong :

VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/09/2009 13:39

Possibly Prunerz.
Still not a nice prospect, having been on the receiving end of nastiness.

Prunerz · 07/09/2009 13:41

Oh it's all nasty
I would be loath to PM someone and have a go, though, if the forum culture was that PMs like that, get posted for all to see, iyswim.

wannaBe · 07/09/2009 13:52

while I can see an argument for being able to edit posts, I think that giving posters the opportunity to delete their own posts is heading into dangerous ground, as it would give anyone the opportunity to create inflamatory/troll posts and then delete them once the damage had been done. And would mn hq still be able to see a thread if it were deleted by the poster?

I also think that private members areas would create far too much of a false sense of security, because while for some the dm column has emphasised the fact that what they post could be quoted in the press at any time, the bigger picture is actually that what someone posts on the internet isn't actually private at all, and can be viewed by anyone who wants to read it. And a private members area isn't going to change that. After all anyone will be able to join a private members area, surely? otherwise you're just setting up a load of cliques. So someone wanting to find out something about a particular poster could still go and find it, but the poster may well post more sensitive information thinking that it's more secure than if it were just out there in the chat topic..

madameDefarge · 07/09/2009 14:19

I wanted to comment yesterday on how pleased I was a t MNHQ decision, both from a personal standpoint and from a business standpoint. I do so think it was right for MN.

I didn't comment for two reasons, one, my ds has just returned from overseas having been away for five weeks, and 2) (prob tmi) I have been as sick as a dog who has eating fine belgian chocolates...

morningpaper · 07/09/2009 15:32

VVQV: I'm self-employed, I work as a freelancer for MNHQ. I don't have any of the perks that employees have such as access to Justine's secret diary etc. I have tried bribing Olivia but she won't tell me anything...

morningpaper · 07/09/2009 15:42

Chinchilla: Stop banging on about moldies. I didn't mention moldies. Chill fgs.

MoochieHomma · 07/09/2009 15:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

WebDude · 07/09/2009 15:56

Thanks for the link beanieb Had come across PHPbb and SMF but in the (mainly geeky) areas and even on hosting services, where tools for simple installation (like Fantastico, Installatron) exist, had not seen mention of Invision's software.

It was the loss of revenue aspect that means I'd doubt MNHQ to consider any change from CAT to PMs, and as others indicate, there'd then be the possibility of abusive messages for MNHQ to investigate (before suspending/closing an account). Easier not to make a change on that aspect, and if there are staff to pay, better to keep an income stream, even if it is small (without knowing how many people have joined MN, and how many decided to pay the fee, it's just unclear whether it's a small or large amount each year.

Similarly, while there's mention of only 5% being posters vs 95% being lurkers, it's unclear what turnout the poll received, because there's no clue for members as to how many active posters there are. Being able to change name skews any estimates too, and knowing that some people make up to 500 posts a week, there's no way to guess the average and work back from that to say with X posts and an average of Y posts per person, there are Z posters, so Z * 20 = membership.

Confidential to MNHQ of course as competitors might want to use numbers to try for more advertisers. Perhaps namechange is deliberate to allow for skewing the numbers (joke!)

WebDude · 07/09/2009 16:12

For VE - whether new T+C for new section makes it a clean sweep or not, it'd be difficult to claim damages for someone copying a post and publishing it elsewhere, in my view.

It could make someone feel very vulnerable, and would be breaking trust, etc, etc, but if it's a legal fight for MN or an individual then it is very likely they'd not want to go there.

As for the fair use and so on - there's so little mentioned apart from non-exclusive copyright, I don't think many people would do more than glance at T+C and while they may 'agree' with them, go ahead anyway (unfortunately).

It's pretty common on other sites I use for there to be disclaimers about the information being unchecked, and any inaccuracies are the responsibility of the poster, that the site owns copyright and that any disputes would be resolved under the law of (territory / state). Sometimes on a page marked 'Legal' if not T+C.

(For someone at MNHQ - as a limited company you might want to check the Companies Act 2006 - there are articles about it online by Out-Law and others - at the very least your Contact Us page could be expected to show your registered company address, Unit 6... NW5 1LB, as well as company no 03951486. I don't know of any fines etc for ignoring the requirements of the Companies Act, but better to be compliant than get fined, surely.)

WebDude · 07/09/2009 16:15

Incidentally, in my ramble around 3am I mentioned there being 'prior permission' a while back. Did I remember it, or imagine it?

(Was regarding other media using posts, presumably, rather than whole threads, where permission and a fee might have been expected.)

VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/09/2009 16:22

Why would you bribe Olivia when clearly Justine holds the keys to the castle? ....

So, the perks you talk about - access to justines diary information on namechanges etc, are they a figment of my imagination, like the infamous list that obm didn't email around?

Me? A cynic? No, not I.....

I am, happy to be proven wrong, by the way. I just don't believe that you don't have more access than you say. I can see why you'd want to hide that, but, well, you know me, dog with a bone and all that.

GeraldineMumsnet · 07/09/2009 16:27

Morningpaper has no access to the Mumsnet database and cannot see any of your personal information or nickname changes.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/09/2009 16:31

Is that you, Morningpaper????

RudolphHucker · 07/09/2009 16:36

lol

justabouteatingchocolate · 07/09/2009 16:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

morningpaper · 07/09/2009 17:06

VVQV: I do get advance knowledge of what adverts will be in the Roundup and the Parenting Newsletter. I'll let you know if you like, for a small fee.

I've got Justine's husband at my disposal for sexual favours whenever I'm in London (Justine said so; apparently this is quite normal in North London)

I think I am friends with BigTech on Facebook - does that count as a perk?

I'm slightly baffled as to why you CARE so much about what I earn/where I work/who I work for? Should I be flattered or invest in CCTV?

morningpaper · 07/09/2009 17:11

At the book launch for the toddlers book, Olivia let me into the kitchen and fed me cupcakes

But I offset it against tax

posieparker · 07/09/2009 17:14

Couldn't you generate some cash by producing a witty monthly magazine? Something for the intelligent woman, something lacking on the shelves of our newsagents iyam.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/09/2009 17:18

I'm only interested in terms of conflict of interest and the manner in which you post. It's all pertinent to the discussion imo, even if you dont think so.

RedAction · 07/09/2009 17:21

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 07/09/2009 17:22

haven't read all the thread but the fact that we etc would only reveal identities for one thread so no biggie. i really think it's a great solution to a lot of the problems mentioned. not perfect, but what is?

PS chinchilla, with the absolute greatest respect and fondness (for i know who you are), a very few people came on here the other night and snided MP pretty horribly. if they were moldies, please could you point out that it's shitty behaviour and that if they stop doing that sort of thing then it will be much easier for everyone to move on.