Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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 · 08/09/2009 12:34

No, no to a randomised archive! The one we have is great (well within the confines of MN's format). If I'm looking for an advice on say breastfeeding from 4 or 5 years ago, then I want to know whether I'm reading Hunker's advice or Tiktok's advice, or that of someone else. That's not to say that only their advice is correct or should count, but not all posters are equal on every topic. And if I want to find my own posts, then I'd like to be able to do that too!

If a poster has written some message or other that they don't want archived then they need to approach MN and get it deleted. Not as some mass deletion, but because they don't want certain information out in public space. Even better if they remember that when they are posting, given that as parents most of us will be responsible for training our children in how to use the internet safely, and therefore we'd better start getting a grip ourselves.

RedAction · 08/09/2009 12:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

morningpaper · 08/09/2009 12:50

I do agree with your post LadyMuck. Actually I wish I'd written it. I might steal it at some point.

LadyMuck · 08/09/2009 12:53

Well MP, if randomising did ever come into play, then you could pretend that you had written it, and no-one else would know.

Slubberdegullion · 08/09/2009 12:55

Can I ask ask again, but I'll do it here on this nice, sensible thread. I tried on the other DM pt 5 thread but there was much crossness.

Why are all the topics archived?

If it has been answered then I'm sorry for asking again, if someone could give me a very brief answer that would be great.

Slubberdegullion · 08/09/2009 12:56

apologies for ask stutter

Slubberdegullion · 08/09/2009 12:57

and for all the asks and answers.

[child asking for help dressing distraction]

policywonk · 08/09/2009 12:58

Hmm, that is a very good point LadyMuck. Gosh, running a successful internet site that's used by hundreds of thousands of people is hard. Who knew?

Slubberdegullion · 08/09/2009 12:58

god I look like such a giant nob now.

policywonk · 08/09/2009 13:00
morningpaper · 08/09/2009 13:01
Slubberdegullion · 08/09/2009 13:01

and this thread was going so well......

LadyMuck · 08/09/2009 13:11

Slubber, chat isn't archived, or rather it gets deleted after 90 days.
Most of the other topics are meant to contain threads which will be of interest in future. If you have a child and you suspect that they have a hearing difficulty, then you might post a thread, but I'd probably do a search first and see what was already on here. I might post too, but at least I know a bit more, and I'd have an idea as to whether it is very common, or whether only one poster ever has had experience. In the latter case I might still post, but I'd also start looking elsewhere.

LadyMuck · 08/09/2009 13:13

That said there are probably a couple of topics which could be reconsidered for deleting - AIBU for one. though i that instance it might lead to posters being even less restrained than they are now.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 08/09/2009 13:15

snort @ slubber

Redworm · 08/09/2009 13:23

Actually, that's a good idea -- just selecting for archive the topics that have high parenting relevance. So deleting AIBU, In The News, Mental Health [for sensitivity reasons], and presumably lots more. It would make the internet more roomy again.

gallery · 08/09/2009 13:23

Justine
I note your comments regarding the viability and profitability of Mumsnet. I would be ok with a small charge for use and access. I would consider it excellent value for money considering access I can get to all the advice forums as well as recipes etc. This may not suit everyone- my Trade Union has a scaled payment system to account for different incomes - a thought for you

Redworm · 08/09/2009 13:24

The special 3-month-only status for Chat is arbitrary when you remember that very many threads arcoss MN are used in a 'chat' manner, i.e. for livetime inconsequential stuff.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 08/09/2009 13:31

High parenting reference topics would ultimately limit the demographic that MNHQ wish to appeal to.

It's a site that started out as support for parents, but it's evolved from that. Which is exactly why papers regularly lift quotes from here because the 'hot topics' are always discussed here, and a broad range of opinions are given. Some of the most heated debates have been ones not directly pertinent to parenting (the Iraq/Afghanistan war, for example).

There are lots of posters here who arent parents as well.

Redworm · 08/09/2009 13:34

Well, absolutely VVV. And it is to enhance their experience of it that the archive deletion is being mooted. But why does their need to be an archive of the non-parenting element? Discussions of news events and so on are of short-term interest, and the archive function is presubably intended for parent support and to keep MN high in the Google search results when people Google parenting topics.

(Of course their might also be a non-available offline archive of the whole site, for furture historians to raise eyebrows over. That's different.)

morningpaper · 08/09/2009 13:35

Pah - there is no offline world anymore!

Redworm · 08/09/2009 13:36

'their' in first line is meaningless. I meant 'to enhance the enjoyment of the evolved more-than-parenting site as a whole'.

RedAction · 08/09/2009 13:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Slubberdegullion · 08/09/2009 13:42

I have several friends who only use mn as a reference. They use it for recipes, holiday & product reviews and the occasional bit of parenting advice.

As I said on t'other thread are are some topics that give me an ooey that they are being stored for all eternity

sleb gossip
telly addicts
fashion

to name but a few.

I know the internet can't actually fill up, but are techs servers bigger now than when mn started to store all of this gubbins?

Slubberdegullion · 08/09/2009 13:44

I actually have no idea if mn gubbins is stored in servers, but it sounds technological, and I spell checked and everything.

Swipe left for the next trending thread