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:
LadyMuck · 07/09/2009 17:24

If all of MNHQ have such open access with Justine's husband, why on earth can't you get whatever coverage you want in the Guarniad?!

There are plenty of tips on here if you need them.

VVV - I think that MP has involved MNHQ in plenty of interesting, and expensive, conflict.

morningpaper · 07/09/2009 17:27

VVQV: I don't know what you are getting at, but if you don't believe me anyway then I can't really help.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/09/2009 17:30

You can't offset it against tax, unless you are a member of staff

morningpaper · 07/09/2009 17:31

If you are self-employed, you would have to claim it as a taxable benefit

I'm not sure what the legal taxable limit on cupcakes is, however

VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/09/2009 17:31

"if they were moldies, "

and if they arent, aitch?

VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/09/2009 17:34

5075

morningpaper · 07/09/2009 17:40

If they aren't VVQV, then Chincilla cupcake's post make no sense

Chincilla cupcake HAHA I will let that typo stand to show that I have been watching Strawberry Shortcake

policywonk · 07/09/2009 18:08

Heck! I do regular freelance work for a university press. I had literally NO IDEA that this means I'm on the board of trustees. When can I start handing out honorary degrees? This is fabulous news.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/09/2009 18:08

chinchilla cupcake post?

justabouteatingchocolate · 07/09/2009 18:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/09/2009 18:23

Yes, but you didn't work freelance justa, so it doesnt count.

Chinchilla · 07/09/2009 18:25

Ouch - that told me MP - no more mentioning the word in future. Could you please tell that to all the others who keep 'banging on about it'. I thank you.

Aitch - I was not aware of MP getting a bashing the other night. I have no idea if they were the group mentioned, otherwise I would pass your message on. I only got back from holiday on Saturday. My post was made from my own reading of posts and their cryptic meanings. FWIW, I am fond of you too

MP - I realise that I misunderstood your earlier post. I now see that your reference to name changers who pile in to post nastily related to many posters, not specifically those with green stuff growing on them.

justabouteatingchocolate · 07/09/2009 18:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

foronethreadonly · 07/09/2009 19:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/09/2009 19:06

Oh crikey, gross incompetence is far worse (and much less salacious) than gross misconduct....!

onebatmother · 07/09/2009 21:52

I've been on a message board that allowed posters to edit their posts, and actually it was bloody annoying in a row. It meant that anyone coming late to the thread couldn't see why one poster should be quite so very grumpy at another. The relevant post had been edited to facetiously change the original tone, and was rounded off with the most passive-aggressive smiley ever a smiley. Like this . Look. It's smirking at me. It was infuriating.

V much agree with MP and others that MN is as much its archive as its chat. I liked the idea of assigning random names in each archived thread after a certain amount of time, but the difficulty of changing names-within-posts makes that problematic. Quite like the idea of a members-only Personal area with a time limit like Chat, though. At first I thought, well, everyone would post everything there ("Personal: Boss offered me use of her dp in lieu of living wage - wwyd?" ) but in fact I think it would be self-policing,rather like AIBU is.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 07/09/2009 21:57

well, amendments rather than edits would solve the first problem. and i'm not clear why the randomising would be so tricky, how often do people name change during a thread? or have i misunderstood?

onebatmother · 07/09/2009 22:04

Aitch, I think someone raised the fact that people use names like I just used yours, didn't they? And that would reveal all, whether or not the poster was no longer me but abc123. But i might have made that up.

Agree re amendments - but how would that increase privacy? Sorry, I am trying to catch up and am prob being v thick.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 07/09/2009 22:21

sure, but if the threads were all randomised then it would only reveal my name for that one thread so it wouldn't be a massive biggie. it would certainly prevent our children looking us up in years to come, for example. you'd only be able to search for mentions of our names, which would cut down the return markedly.

and yes, the amendments wouldn't solve the problem of privacy, but it has been mentioned as solution for those threads where the poster does actually apologise and then continues to get bollocked cos of their OP.

thing is, though, re the editing... even if MNHQ deletes an insult in an argument, generally speaking enough people have seen it to be able to comment on it and tell the poster off. maybe an edit option that starts ten mins after, then?

although personally if the person it was intended for gets to see it, (esp on mn), they wouldn't tend to be too backward about repeating it, so again that would solve the problem you experienced on that other forum.

(bloody hell are you watching this 9/11 doc?)

VeeEsss · 07/09/2009 22:36

That might be a good idea actually Aitch, you can edit/add bits to a post but only between say 10-20 minutes of making it that way it can't go all Narnia-esque but still gives the opportunity to edit.

Also, twas me that said about addressing people by name, I do think it would help in the searchable factor, (i.e no-one could search my name and get my posts but posts possibly addressed to someone on the thread that happened to be me) though it might make for hard reading if it was a very busy thread and you would know one poster was aitch and she was being addressed by VS, but also that MP and OBM (not singling anyone out just the last couple of names I've read on here ) were there and get a bit confused as to what was what, but then surely it's the point the poster makes that is important :tangles self in web:

onebatmother · 07/09/2009 22:39

Jesus yes.

onebatmother · 07/09/2009 22:43

that was in answer to aitch (but could equally apply to vs..)
The C4 doc is just astonishing. Awful. I was 7 months pg with ds - I thought the world was ending.

Threadworm2TheReinfestation · 07/09/2009 22:44

Unflounce.

threadworms often come back. You all didn?t scrub your nails thoroughly enough.

Since the Mail thing is dropped, I have rethought my plan to take my overdraft socially inept internet dependence elsewhere. But I want to have a quick wank about consultation.

I?m glad that Justine has hinted in her OP that there will be a rather more detached style of MNHQ engagement on threads where contentious site issues are discussed. It is better to have a limited role for consultation that is then carried through authentically than to promise a level of responsiveness that then proves unsustainable. The Mail poll was (from the best possible intentions and without any attempt at manipulation) an exercise that was overly democratic in aspiration and then (in my view ? I accept that views differ and don?t want to discuss it all over again) completely subverted. A more circumscribed approach to consultation would avoid upsets like that.

The ethos of consultation ought to be something like 'We want to take your views into account as much as possible and provide you with the service that you want; but as the professionals running and owning the site we will have to do that in our own time, in accordance with our own objectives and knowledge.'

Would it be helpful if there was a distinct area of the site, which users could NOT post into, where MNHQ could make regular (monthly? more often in emergencies? but not minute-by-minute) considered responses to all the poster demands made upon them?

Then posters could start threads saying 'MNHQ please let us edit posts' or 'MNHQ do/don't allow/write/forbid a column in the Mail' -- threads to which the stock MN response could always simply be some words like the following and nothing more: 'Thank you: we will think about that and look at how your thread progresses and report back to you in the distinct of the site when we have come to our own view on the matter.'

Participating in an arena of total frankness whilst at the same time officially representing MN is deeply problematic. Through over-honesty it creates a horrible impression of chaos to outsiders (to the Daily Mail commissioning editor who was reading the thread, for example), but at the same time it leaves MNHQ wide open to unfounded and deeply offensive accusations of dishonesty from posters. A circumspect communication is not manipulation or dishonesty it is real life. But it might not sit well with the hyper-frankness of MN threads. That conflict was compounded by the poll, which achieved too little democracy precisely because it aimed at too much democracy.

Sorry. I really really am a wanker and I couldn't drag my sorry carcass back here without a little spiel.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 07/09/2009 22:51

all good points as usual, threadie. tough lessons learned i think for MNHQ, trying to please anyone but themselves. they're in charge, it's their ball, they shoudl absolutely do with it what they like.

and oh my GOD, onebat. this is an astonishing piece of work, isn't it? what commitment and skill.

RedAction · 07/09/2009 22:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Swipe left for the next trending thread