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:
AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 08/09/2009 20:12

oh dear. of the advertisers on that page i reckon only amazon and the nct have survived...

morningpaper · 08/09/2009 20:14

Weird isn't it? The internet archive project is run on such an ANCIENT server, it is annoying. I think that actually someone might be drawing it with a crayon...

It's got threads archived too though, surprisingly (if you can be arsed for the librarian to draw them for you)

Boco · 08/09/2009 20:16

Blimey I'm a bit spooked. I tried that with 'by boco site mumsnet' and the third result was an expose of an anti-steiner mnetter by I think steinerists, saying that she posts as 'boco'. Which is weird, because I have no real opinion on all that stuff and the only time I went on those threads was because I like it when they quote you no matter what you say. [paranoid face]

Pielight · 08/09/2009 20:20

lol Boco. That is SCARY. I have just done it and realized my last name was one of utter genius as comes up in all sorts of ways which has nothing to do with me. Am in army fatigues. Poor old Pielight will be up there butt naked.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 08/09/2009 20:21

i've got an opinion on steiner... they're a bunch of FRAEKS.

take that, internet search engines! ka-pow!

Boco · 08/09/2009 20:26

You're so reckless Aitch! They'll have a special page about you now! Why am I on a special page? What will they do to me? Will they make the goblins come? Steal my black pens?

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 08/09/2009 20:28

26,002. [depressed]

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 08/09/2009 20:29

of course when I search for you Boco, i cannot see the page to which you refer. just twenty thou or so other ones.

26003

i really fancy gittin' myself a bit of that randomisation, just to clear say fifteen thousand of those out.

foronethreadonly · 08/09/2009 20:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Boco · 08/09/2009 20:36

You have to put by Boco site mumsnet and it comes out third. I would link but I wonder if the mnetter knows that she's got a scary steiner page all about her personality traits and political leanings.

Boco · 08/09/2009 20:42

Hey pielight under that bush in your fatigues, when i google your other name I get you discussing nipples!

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 08/09/2009 20:44

oh my freakin GOD, boco, they're like the scientologists!

oops, what would you have done again? lay it out, sistah.

Pielight · 08/09/2009 20:47

at Boco running 'a Hamas faction of the WMC group'

I have no idea what this means, and I think it actually said 'fraction' not faction, but it sounds bad.

Nipples huh? Hmm.

Pielight · 08/09/2009 20:49

Oh I don't get nipples. I get everyone saying they've heard this and that a hundred times before.

Certainly am not on some web cult black list or nuffink.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 08/09/2009 20:53

nor are you in mufti, dumbkopf.

Boco · 08/09/2009 20:54

A blue top? Flash of nipple? Ring any bells? Hmm? Anyway, be careful. I have a fraction and I'm not afraid to fire it.

VulpusinaWilfsuit · 08/09/2009 20:56

Hello. Namechange tipoffs please.

Ta.

RedAction · 08/09/2009 21:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Pielight · 08/09/2009 21:02

Oh I know aitch. I haven't got the heart for it anyway

foronethreadonly · 08/09/2009 21:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

VeeEsss · 08/09/2009 22:36

A quick example of a thread I posted when I wasn't in the best frame of minds. It was called something like 'I'm scared my baby will die' I was suffering from EXTREME paranoia and anxiety induced by the mini-pill not long after my last child was born.
That is now archived.

Do I want someone to be able to search my name and find it? Not particularly, especially as if my youngest decided to search near his birthday to read about when he was born it would be there staring him in the face!!
Do I want it deleted altogether? No, ofc not, it could be very helpful to someone else at some point.
Do I wish I'd never posted it or had namechanged? Not at all, if I didn't post it goodness knows where it would have went because I'd not have spoken to ANYONE irl about it. Also if I'd namechanged I probably wouldn't have felt the answers were properly aimed at me but at an unknown person and unknown circumstances.

In this situation randomized namechanges AFTER the event would be PERFECT.

In more unique situations like 'foronethreadonly' mentions in which just the situation is enough to identify someone (even a namechanger) a 'Personal' section with threads removable by the OP (after a certain period of time to ensure it's not all slaggy of other posters etc could even have a tick box before you post on said thread that says by posting you agree to the T&C that the OP can remove the thread at any time) would mean that posters could still post those threads but with the assurance if they wanted it gone, it would/could be no matter how long later or what reason they wanted it deleting for and without having to go through MNHQ to 'ask permission' as it were.

policywonk · 08/09/2009 22:50

I am utterly baffled by the last 30 posts or so, but, most importantly, who is Pielight? Can you give me a clue?

ReddyMealsAreNotWorthIt · 08/09/2009 23:07

I'm with PW. I've forgotten what the argument is about

And I'd like to know who Pielight is too!

Boco · 09/09/2009 09:13

She gives a massive clue at 20.49. More than a clue actually.

policywonk · 09/09/2009 09:51

Ah, thank you boco.

Pie - I Stephanie-from-Northamptoned a couple of weeks ago, with complete success.