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:
ZephirineDrouhin · 08/09/2009 17:53

MP you've given me a brilliant idea that would solve all these problems at a stroke. We could abolish the chat altogether in favour of polls. Mumsnet could become entirely multiple choice like GCSEs.

Boco · 08/09/2009 17:55

Exactly - it woudn't make any difference to teh books, one random name replaced with another and all the posts still there, and as an ALTERNATIVE to people feeling they need to take all their posts with them when they leave.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 08/09/2009 17:55

lol

LadyMuck · 08/09/2009 18:22

But if someone searched archives for messages with Aitch in them (ie not messages written by Aitch, but find messages containing the word Aitch), they'd find over 500 messages. So if you're worried about a nutter/dc/dp stalking you then they'd still be able to, because the alternative would be editing all the message contents manually wouldn't it? And actually if they really wanted to stalk you they could search by category and find 500 messages per category.

To be honest if I do want to find somebody such as yourself, that is how I would search. No point in searching for "threads by" as I probably wouldn't know exactly what nickname you would be using at any moment in time. But I'd manage to find you from other peoples posts.

I know that you're looking for a wonderful shortcut. But I still think that the only way is to go back through your posts and ask for the ones you are worried about to be deleted. More work for you, but then it is your privacy.

LadyMuck · 08/09/2009 18:24

And selective voluntary randomisation has to be the worst of the lot hasn't it? If only 3 or 4 posters opted for this then they'd stand out even more (everyone searching to see what it is that must be hidden).

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 08/09/2009 19:03

no, i totally disagree with you, LM. 500 posts, that's a-okay by me. i absolutely DREAD to think how many i've actually made.

and do you think it would be just three or four posters? okay, let's say it would be, you'd never know for certain which one of the four i was. again, that's a-okay by me.

LadyMuck · 08/09/2009 19:17

But I would, that is the point I'm trying to make. If you were the only randomised poster for this thread it would be easy to pick out who was the poster everyone was referring to as "Aitch". And bear in mind it is 500 messages per parameter. I could search for posts mentioning Aitch by day if I really was a nutter.

In fact, given that you seem to have namechanged frequently, it is much easier to search for when you've been mentioned than when you've posted.

So whatever it is you want to hide, get deleting now.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 08/09/2009 19:26

i think you're being needlessly obtuse tbh, especially in light of MNHQ's reluctance to delete posts. they want the archive kept, they don't want to do mass deletes, this is an imperfect solution that will allow them to keep it while we get some measure of defence against others searching for us.

i don't mind if my temporary one thread only name is worked out to be me because of a . i do mind changing my name to be completely unrecognisable while i post here, for various reasons.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 08/09/2009 19:28

and re 'but i would'. i don't understand, weren't you telling us a minute ago that we've always been on the internet etc and we should change names etc? so your arse is already well-covered, so to speak, in this regard?

LadyMuck · 08/09/2009 19:30

But if you don't mind your one-thread only name being discovered, what use does it serve? Anyone who is interested in you as a poster will find you, basically in the same way that they would have to now? What benefit does it give you?

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 08/09/2009 19:37

i haven't any idea what you're on about, LM. seriously. at the moment someone can search a name and find hundreds of thousands of posts by me.

or post-randomisation they could search for 'aitch' and find 500. and if MNHQ ditched the searchable archive of all but parenting advice, i'd be thrilled by that as all they'd find is me banging on about finger food. no biggie.

LadyMuck · 08/09/2009 19:38

I think that we're talking at cross-purposes here, or possibly I really am obtuse now. The "but I would" refered to the fact that you had just stated "and do you think it would be just three or four posters? okay, let's say it would be, you'd never know for certain which one of the four i was"

If you were reassigned a random name for the purpose of this one thread, I think that by reading the whole thread I would work out which "new" poster was really Aitch. And I don't think that I have expert powers of deduction. Likewise I think that on any thread where someone talks to you and refers to you by Aitch, I would manage to deduct which new one thread only postername was you (this assumes that I have the time and inclination)

Your suggestion of randomisation might work perfectly for less well-known, less popular posters (eg me!). But it wouldn't work for you. Your footprint on here is too large.

VeeEsss · 08/09/2009 19:42

I think Aitch's point is that someone would have to be seriously neurotic to go through every thread that had the word 'Aitch' in it, and even more neurotic to try and work out which poster of randomly-generated name she was on every one of those threads that are over a year old but at the same time, it is a lot harder to find.

Not impossible, but harder, and therefore, in general, going to make people feel much better about their words not being 'discovered' by their stroppy teenager in 15 years When it comes down to it if the only other option is having all our old threads pulled so we can never be found, randomization makes a lot more sense.

Also on more sensitive threads there are likely to be more people who have actually used the randomized-name-generator so harder to guess who is who.

And my very last point is that if it was requested it could be possible to request per topic, so hunker and tiktok's posts remained on Breastfeeding, Aitch's on weaning etc.

Add to that a 'personal' section and we're well away

Oh, I have another point, sorry! The 'people should've known' type point. Can you honestly say that everything you've ever posted you've been totally rational about and stone cold sober, and not ever just desperately needed to talk about something or realised that something really quite distressing you went through could help another poster and had a 'Fuck it' moment? I know I have. That post becoming done by 'usernamegeneratedbyrandomness1' means it doesn't have to disappear but I don't need to feel the world and his wife are reading something I wrote 15 years ago in a blur.

LadyMuck · 08/09/2009 19:45

"or post-randomisation they could search for 'aitch' and find 500." Well up to 500 per topic per day. How many posts do you do a day ?

"at the moment someone can search a name and find hundreds of thousands of posts by me."

Well if I search for posts by "Aitch" this year I get 296, all in January. How many posting names have you had since then? Though this is getting off the point.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 08/09/2009 19:50

how many posting names? oh, hundreds. all with aitch in.

will dealing with the archive sort google caching out, though, it has just struck me? (although google might be full by the time my kids are searching )

LadyMuck · 08/09/2009 19:52

But MN delete messages all the time VS. Are all my posts rational and made when stone cold sober - not judging by the chilled Chenin Blanc beside me. But do I know what the red exclamation mark is there for - oh yes, and I use it when I need to, which might be weeks or months after the event.

And as for who would try to track Aitch down, I don't know. But if the fear is that a curious teenager would do so, and they were particularly interested in here, then randomisation wouldn't stop them at all.

Anyway I'm off to back-up my MN caches so I can claim all the witty posts post-randomisation...

Pielight · 08/09/2009 19:52
LadyMuck · 08/09/2009 19:54

I could be wrong Aitch, but I don't think that you can search for nicknames that contain aitch?

But if you can, please share how? Its been bugging me for ages.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 08/09/2009 19:56

if you can't now, you will in the future no doubt. on other forums there's a wildcard option and you'd put in aitch* and eeeeeeeeeeeeeverything would come up.

morningpaper · 08/09/2009 19:56

Put this into Google (but don't tell aitch the answer):

"By Aitch*" site:mumsnet.com

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 08/09/2009 19:58

oh god DOOOOOOON'T.

so would randomisation mean that the googlebots would eventually replace those?

RedAction · 08/09/2009 20:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

morningpaper · 08/09/2009 20:09

Eventually, although I suspect that Google would still hold the cache of these sorts of things so it can flog it to some sort of Internet Archive in the future. You have to specify removal of individual pages from Google's cache.

morningpaper · 08/09/2009 20:10

(That's Mumsnet from August 2000 by the way)

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 08/09/2009 20:10

lololol. just 26,000

Swipe left for the next trending thread