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:
onebatmother · 07/09/2009 23:02

I like that MNHQ Responds idea Threadie. I think you describe v well the particular structural challenges facing MNHQ.

Bloody hell, the silence, aitch.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 07/09/2009 23:20

i KNOW. terrible.

foronethreadonly · 07/09/2009 23:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

foronethreadonly · 07/09/2009 23:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

RedAction · 08/09/2009 07:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

morningpaper · 08/09/2009 08:08

Threadie, glad you have returned to the fold.

Wish I'd seen that doc. now (maybe).

I'm not sure that people really DO want MN to make it's own decisions and be more business-like. Regarding the archive issues, if Justine came on and said "Thanks for your input, we've been watching the thread but there's no way we are ever changing anything, and that's our final decision." Would that be okay?

VeeEsss · 08/09/2009 08:25

TBH, MP. Personally, I would be disappointed that they were not going to look at changing anything (Especially as I think there are some good ideas on this thread, plus I believe if things were to change even slightly it would increase MNers faith in MNHQ having their best interests at heart) but I'd much prefer to hear that than 'we'll see what we can do' 'we're not quite sure what we're going to do' 'no we won't' 'yes we will' style posts throughout a conversation (ofc, this isn't the exact representation of any particular discussion just that there have been times they've changed their mind or said they'll look into something only for it not to change).

I also agree very strongly with Ooops wrt 'sobbing into my pillow' (you could always edit that bit out Justine ). It's hard to see MNHQ as professional when they make emotional statements which maybe when the board was smaller was brilliant, made for a nice cosy we're-all-friends-here atmosphere but now it's so big and so interesting to the non-MN world we want to feel secure in the knowledge that MNHQ are professional and that we can depend on them.

BecauseImWorthIt · 08/09/2009 08:25

I think you're right, MP - people wouldn't be happy if Justine came on to say that. Because I think there is a strong sense of ownership of this community. All too often posters do forget that MN isn't 'theirs', and that it is a business.

I don't want to mention the green, fluffy incident again really, but that was a very good example of where posters got very hot under the collar about what was happening with 'their' MN.

It's a bit like when 6th formers start to get too pally with their young, trendy teachders - all too quickly/often a line is crossed - the teachers no longer command respect and are too easily challenged and derided when they try to institute school rules.

It's always been the case that stuff posted on MN is owned by MN, and we should all remember that. But why don't we create a private chat area (I know MN is looking at this but don't know how it would work). Somewhere called 'help' or 'personal chat' - only those who have paid their CAT can use it. I know this will get a lot of people up in arms about those who need help immediately, can't afford CAT, etc - but if people want to post without their posts being public, I can't see another way around this personally.

In terms of MN being more business-like, I think it would be a shame if we lost the immediacy of communication with Justine et al - but I do believe that MN have to put better systems in place, so that decisions can be made regardless of whether Justine/Carrie are around/not on holiday, etc. IMHO without other people who are qualified/able/confident to make 'big' decisions, this kind of issue is going to happen more and more often.

I don't think behaving like a business and continuing to engage with MNetters is mutually exclusive.

morningpaper · 08/09/2009 09:02

VS: the problem is that once you say 'I would be disappointed because there are very good ideas on this thread' then you are really demanding that MNHQ engage with the issue and debate it - which is what you say you don't want. You want to know why each option is untenable or not in line with MNHQ's business stragey. Well, that means that Justine will end up sitting on the thread saying 'X isn't possible/desirable because...' - so what you are really saying is that the messy approach IS what you want. Isn't it?

VeeEsss · 08/09/2009 09:11

Erm. No.

Yes, I would be disappointed that they weren't going to do anything on here but I'd respect the fact that they had made a decision and were acting professionally i.e. not getting emotional to what in fact are users of their business.

I wouldn't have much faith in a shop if I went in and asked to buy something cheaper than the quoted price and they told me how they'd cried about their profit margin being lower than the year before so couldn't do it. If they said 'No, that is the price we are quoting and that is the price we are selling it for' then I'd be disappointed I had to pay full price but I wouldn't expect them to do anything about it! Doesn't mean if I had offered them a good suggestion of a 'deal' they could do to sell it cheaper and still be in the best interests of their business they couldn't consider it and use it, or not.

and yes, I know MNHQ is not a shop, but it is a business and I can imagine it must be quite a hard transition for Justine et al to to go from a small website on which it was easy to involve the members in decisions to a bloody huge one with tons of debate around things and a MASSIVE interest from the wider world but I don't see how it can feasibly work any other way.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 08/09/2009 09:43

"It's always been the case that stuff posted on MN is owned by MN, and we should all remember that."

biwi, i quite distinctly kept my posts when i ticked the opt-out box, so that statement is simply not correct for some of us. or was, at least.

redaction, i don't think anyone's talking about mn not keeping a copy of the archive, just the published one being randomised. if it doesn't work (although there is no reason for it not to) then nothing at all will have been lost. i couldn't disagree more with your thinking that what MN should be doing is footering about with mobile stuff, this should be a period of consolidation, LH has brought us up short re fair use and the public-ness of the archive and it would be sensible to deal with that before any fripperies.

RedAction · 08/09/2009 10:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BecauseImWorthIt · 08/09/2009 10:23

Sorry Aitch - I stand corrected.

Boco · 08/09/2009 10:24

Aitch I had a dream about you last night. I've clearly been reading far too many of these threads. I dreamed that MN came up with a new strategy for raising funds - they fined posters and Aitch was fined 25 US dollars for dissing the archives. She agreed she'd pay, but only if she could pay in Scottish dollars.

Anyway. More coffee.

RedAction · 08/09/2009 10:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

morningpaper · 08/09/2009 10:28

lolol Boco - I think you need some early nights...

Redworm · 08/09/2009 10:31

Lol Boco. The only MN dream I recall having is that there was a minibus full of loud talking-women, being driven by Michael Parkinson (presumably because is the crowned King of Chat). One of the women spat in his face. It's a bit like an image of the Mailgate threads, though it long predates Mailgate.

Boco · 08/09/2009 10:36

OMG. so, like, MN SPITS in the friendly face of chat? And at high speed. Very bad sign.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 08/09/2009 10:37

oh yes, redaction, in fact i think commenting publicly is what gets mnhq into a bother. i'm just discussing this with other mners, iykwim, but of course it's up to mnhq what they actually do and in what order.

it is a shame that mnhq will have to be less clubbable but the site is just so big, and the internet so young, that we're kinda testing a lot of this stuff out.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 08/09/2009 10:37

and lol at Boco's dream.

policywonk · 08/09/2009 11:04

LOL at Michael Parkinson

morningpaper · 08/09/2009 11:04

"The King of Chat" ahahahahahhaa

RedAction · 08/09/2009 11:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WebDude · 08/09/2009 11:31

RedAction (when I see 'redaction' I somehow think of items being censored, as in 'redacted' {sp?} documents!)

On how to randomise, I suspect it would not be too difficult, given each post has a 'random' message Id (when I jumped from 'Threads I'm On' the link had "msgid=16733825#16733825" tacked on.

If that had been the very first in the thread then the first poster could be named AABB3825 and the second poster CCDD3825 etc (swapping those 'random' names for the same posters throughout the thread. It could be automated (and while the example I've given for naming is far from elegant, it would easily have enough letter combinations for 26 x 26 (x26 x26) names .

I only put letter pairs for my own 'make it clear they're different' purpose but even with pairs such as the ones I used, 13 x 13 is plenty for many threads, surely.

Actually Boco's dream reminds me of a pre-Christmas shopping trip from where I am (N Wales) to the Meadowhall centre (near Sheffield) (cheap day out, a few different shops, tram into central Sheffield).

Apart from the coach driver, everyone else on there was female - though many much older than me - but at least no one spat in the driver's face

WebDude · 08/09/2009 11:33

Sorry, not Boco's dream, but Redworm's dream. Must get some coffee then go and buy some cereal for brunch.

Swipe left for the next trending thread