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:
VeniVidiVickiQV · 06/09/2009 22:23

I apologise for the piss poor grammar there. I'm half posting here, and half playing bejewelled blitz

VeniVidiVickiQV · 06/09/2009 22:24

Exactly, changed by stealth, but essentially could be said that there was tacit agreement.

bibbitybobbityhat · 06/09/2009 22:27

If anyone wants to post the fabulous parenting advice which Mumsnet is famous for I could do with a helping hand here

Ooops, I apologise once again, I had no idea your posts were from so long ago. I too would have found it hard to understand why MNHQ couldn't just happily delete them.

foronethreadonly · 06/09/2009 22:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

foronethreadonly · 06/09/2009 22:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 06/09/2009 22:40

as i see it, it comes down to the fact that if you no longer want your posts seen by other MNers (and the wider lurking community) then you sure as hell do not want to have to draw attention to each one individually and ask Helen or Gerry or whoever at MNHQ to look them over for you and delete them. However nice Gerry and Helen undoubtedly are... it's just freakin' mortifying.

JustineMumsnet · 06/09/2009 22:40

Evening

A few facts if you please:

  1. We deleted all oops posts - as is our usual policy we went back and asked her if we could delete troublesome posts rather than her entire history when she first asked - she immediately reported a load which we deleted but wasn't happy. A few days later we deleted everything. We've apologised for taking our time about that, given our reasons for the unusual delay and any hurt caused roughly 4 four times now. She has graciously accepted our apologies.

We always try to accommodate folks who've posted injudiciously - however long ago - by deleting things when requested. We try to avoid mass deletion of everything they've written however when actually what's needed is for some posts to go - for most folk this does the trick.

  1. The terms and conditions weren't changed without anyone being alerted.

What was changed was the opt-out of books after our very first book yonks ago. This wasn't part of the T&C ie we said very clearly all along that we had copyright on postings. It was something we tried with the first book and even then back in 2004 when the site was tiny by comparison it turned out to be a complete logistics nightmare so we dropped it.

We updated our current T&C a few weeks ago because we'd had some new ones drawn up to reflect shared copyright rather than our sole ownership of copyright after a discussion that followed the Toddlers book publication. There was a live discussion on the site about that change - certainly not done without telling anyone.

OP posts:
AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 06/09/2009 22:43

no no no, Justine. you didn't email everyone and tell them, and you have the technology to do that. or kick everyone off automatic log in until they've ticked a box accepting the new tandcs, like fb does. i genuinely didn't know about it until this DM thing hit and i am here A Lot.

foronethreadonly · 06/09/2009 22:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Tortington · 06/09/2009 22:45

whats the dif between the old t&cs and the new>?

Prunerz · 06/09/2009 22:45

I've had my posts deleted twice now, due to having had my posting name revealed and someone I had posted about rather bitchily potentially having seen that I was a member of MN. I did not have to go through the same procedure as oops. I had an email saying 'Are you sure? We don't like to do it as it makes threads look disjointed" and then "Done."
So it would appear there isn't a blanket policy.

JustineMumsnet · 06/09/2009 22:45

foronethreadonly we don't read posts and decide whether they justify deletion. If folks want them gone - we just ask them to report them and they go.
It's the mass deletion for no reason thing we are trying to avoid. We will do that happily too, however, if someone's needs us to for reasons of personal safety or personal health.

Oops situation was unfortunate and upsetting for her - we were a bit slower than normal partly because at the time we were inundated by deletion requests and partly because of folks being away - but not typical I think.

OP posts:
AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 06/09/2009 22:49

but it's mortifying, justine. why are you putting people through that? how many mass deletion requests do you get vs how many members you have?

JustineMumsnet · 06/09/2009 22:50

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumb...
no no no, Justine. you didn't email everyone and tell them, and you have the technology to do that. or kick everyone off automatic log in until they've ticked a box accepting the new tandcs, like fb does. i genuinely didn't know about it until this DM thing hit and i am here A Lot."

No we didn't because the change was immaterial in terms of how it effected anyone's rights - we were moving from sole copyright to shared copyright - that was the motivation behind the change. And we know how you all hate unnecessary emails.

Anyway I'm just not spending all night here again Aitch just to end up sobbing into my pillow - will leave you to your grassy knoll and go and prepare for school tomorrow.

OP posts:
MrsEricBanaMT · 06/09/2009 22:51

Oh but you should read them Justine. Lest people use it as a weapon.

foronethreadonly · 06/09/2009 22:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JustineMumsnet · 06/09/2009 22:51

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumb...
but it's mortifying, justine. why are you putting people through that? how many mass deletion requests do you get vs how many members you have?"

No it's not Aitch - if it was we wouldn't do it. Oops experience was not the norm.

OP posts:
AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 06/09/2009 22:54

are we talking about the same change, justine? i mean the one that allowed you to opt out of MN using your posts for books. it was there when i first signed on over three years ago. that's not an immaterial change, surely?

you seem to be taking my questions personally, please don't. i'm talking to you as 'MNHQ business strategist' rather than justine, you do see that don't you?

MrsEricBanaMT · 06/09/2009 22:57

Yes, I do see your point foronethreadonly, re archives. I think this might have been managegable however. If it turned out no to be then a reassessment would have been in order. This was a valid concern, but I think a better strategy would have been to watch and wait. After all, of MNHQ were in some control of editorial content, they would be able to identify such motives.

Maybe there was simiply a lack of empathy from both sides of this divide and maybe that was cause by fear and some confusion on both sides.

Tortington · 06/09/2009 22:57

aitch can you explain the importance of the changes to me if you have a moment.

i can see there is a change, however i can't see how it is important.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 06/09/2009 22:57

okay i cannot say another word on the matter but i know for a fact that this is not the case, justine.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 06/09/2009 22:57

okay i cannot say another word on the matter but i know for a fact that this is not the case, justine.

MrsEricBanaMT · 06/09/2009 22:58

and I feel blessed never to have been a Moldie.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 06/09/2009 22:59

only that i didn't want to be in the books or for my writing to be exploited by MN, so i ticked the 'opt-out' box, custy. and now i'm opted-in despite having given a clear answer the only time i was ever asked.

Chaotica · 06/09/2009 23:00

Can I just interrupt the debate to say I'm another who's please by MN decision in the OP (not that anyone would miss me if I'd deregged).

As you were...