Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
WebDude · 08/09/2009 13:44

"for future historians to raise eyebrows over"

Indeed !

RedAction · 08/09/2009 13:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Redworm · 08/09/2009 13:55

Yes -- whole site is of historical interest, so offline archive v valuable. Online, Googleable archive could be restricted to high-parenting-relevance threads.

Agree with VVV that MN is very much more than a parenting site (I almost never use it qua parent) but can't see that there is a high archive value for very much of the non-parenting chatter.

RedAction · 08/09/2009 14:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Redworm · 08/09/2009 14:04

Agree. You are you btw?

RedAction · 08/09/2009 14:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 08/09/2009 16:51

ah yes good point re hunker and tiktok, ladymuck.

what about... those of us who want to, ask to be randomised? so effectively an individual could get the point of a mass delete (ie not to be recognised) but the actual posts would still be there? i'd love to see cod's posts back, for example. although her spelling makes her instantly recognisable, right enough so she's not a good example.

i don't mind my stuff being recognisably me while i contribute to the site, but there's something v creepy about the idea of the dds searching for me one day when i've left (that time may come, oh yes). so if i could ask for my name to be jumbled then i would be happy with that i think.

is that a half-way decent compromise? surely to god not everyone would want to be randomised?

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 08/09/2009 16:52

i suppose it depends on how long you've been posting and what you've posted, redaction, whether you think a mahoosive five year or whatever archive with your every thought and fart on it is a problem.

policywonk · 08/09/2009 16:58

Yes, we've been meaning to talk to you about the farting.

Voluntary randomisation sounds good.

justabouteatingchocolate · 08/09/2009 17:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 08/09/2009 17:12

it has a faint whiff of star trek, imo. elderly vulcans standing at a teleporter waiting to be randomised into space dust.

Boco · 08/09/2009 17:15

Sounds like an excellent idea.

What do we want?
VOLUNTARY RANDOMISATION!

When do we want it?
NEXT TIME WE DEREGISTER AGAIN. OR WHEN OUR CHILDREN BEGIN SEARCHING AND READING OUR POSTS. WHICHEVER COMES FIRST!

Of · 08/09/2009 17:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Redworm · 08/09/2009 17:39

I'm already horribly random. Can I have voluntary systemisation please?

LadyMuck · 08/09/2009 17:39

I'll be amazed if the MN archive is still around by the time my dcs think of searching. I think that randomisation just can't work. Even if all the poster names were hanged to A,B,C on this thread, there are enough references to specific posters within the thread , esp Aitch to pick one, that any nutter could still work back.

You must have realised that the archive existed before now? Or did you think that all MNers have excellent memories>

policywonk · 08/09/2009 17:41

Oh worm you've just reminded me of a Keith Waterhouse joke that I read the other day: 'Shouldn't the Society of Indexers be Indexers, Society of, the?'

Redworm · 08/09/2009 17:42

Enjoyment, of that joke, Redworm's.

TheDailyStale · 08/09/2009 17:44

Boco - I don't really think that chant'll catch on at the MN Towers picket lines

Redworm · 08/09/2009 17:44

After a heavy day index-editing the other day I stood in front of Tesco's spice selection fuming because they only had Chinese Five Spice in the 'C' part of the sequence, not cross-stacked under 'Five Spice, Chinese.

morningpaper · 08/09/2009 17:46

No no no

This is a terrible idea. We need the archive intact, or it will make no sense. It is bad enough with the few minor deletions that have happened already. We need to know whose posts are "authoritative" e.g. I will listen to Aitch more when we are banging on about baby led weaning or FrannyandZooery when we are talking about wankery or COV when we are jabbering about teeth. So randomisation makes no sense. It will also make the job of anyone compiling MN books really bloody hard because the quirkiness of the usernames is half the fun - and the books are one of the very few extensions of the MN brand that we all (broadly) still approve of.

(I am writing this from my nursing home in 2068 btw, hence the walking stick.)

justabouteatingchocolate · 08/09/2009 17:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Boco · 08/09/2009 17:50

Yeahbut, it would be voluntary, not everyone would be randomized, it could just be an alternative to deletion for those that are neurotic security conscious.

morningpaper · 08/09/2009 17:50

Let's have a poll

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 08/09/2009 17:50

yes, lm, people keep saying this about randomisation, it's been addressed a few times. you do realise it would be random, don't you? we wouldn't just all be assigned a new name... so even with a a random name would only be revealed for one thread. no biggie.

thing about the archive and 'didn't you realise' etc... it's getting kind of annoying actually. you did, LM, kudos to you,super brilliant. but judging by the people who've needed mass deletes, not everyone does, or circumstances overtake them, or they Just Don't Like the idea of their lowest points being forever identifiably them and in print. a mass randomisation of an individual's posts would solve the problem that MN has with these mass deletions, surely?

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 08/09/2009 17:52

MP voluntary randomisation solves your 'hole in the archive' problem, i'd have thought you'd have been all for it. there will still be other silly names, i don't imagine the take-up will be that great.