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:
xxxxBAMBOOxxxx · 06/09/2009 23:02

Aitch - so you were writing posts safe in the knowledge you had opted out, but then they changed the T&C, so everything you had previoulsy written, whilst 'opting out' could be printed?

foronethreadonly · 06/09/2009 23:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Tortington · 06/09/2009 23:06

righto Aitch, seems like a geniune gripe. thanks

foronethreadonly · 06/09/2009 23:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

xxxxBAMBOOxxxx · 06/09/2009 23:07

Agree custy

VeniVidiVickiQV · 06/09/2009 23:08

It's not a blanket policy.

Well, it's certainly not applied that way.
And folks HAVE been told that its "difficult" to delete all posts (and not just because it muddles threads up) when it's patently not difficult.

I know that MNHQ have apologised for oops' upset and she's been gracious about it, but, this "sobbing into my pillow" stuff really grates and is pretty insensitive esp when oops was left for 5 days, begging for full deletion and being told it couldnt happen and to trawl through VERY distressing posts (until Justine got back?).

Either MNHQ have a plan and it's not working, or they don't have a plan, and it's not working. Either way, it's not working is it?

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 06/09/2009 23:09

yy i believe so, bamboo. and cheers custy.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 06/09/2009 23:09

yy i believe so, bamboo. and cheers custy.

xxxxBAMBOOxxxx · 06/09/2009 23:12

to be fair to Justine she did say she wasn't going to sob tonight

Pielight · 06/09/2009 23:12

but but but

isn't everyone just making this internet internut stuff up as they go along? It's all going SO FAST too.

Give MNHQ a break. It's been a heavy few days. Am sure they are taking it all on board, and trying to work out what is the best way forward. I think they're in a v. tricky and probably utterly unforseeable position.

Well I expect there are some unknowns, and some knowns and some uknowable known but generally speaking. .

kormachameleon · 06/09/2009 23:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Pielight · 06/09/2009 23:14

Oh BALD.

how many are we going to have? I've kind of moved on. It's not you, it's me. You know how it goes. But if you really want one (baby that is )

xxxxBAMBOOxxxx · 06/09/2009 23:15

I think Justine should a thread title in capital letters 'we couldn't delete opp's posts straight away as we were on a break'

Prunerz · 06/09/2009 23:16

It's one button, bamboo.
We know people were there! Someone could have done it, really, really easily.

Prunerz · 06/09/2009 23:16

In fact, it was FAR more work to write an email to oops explaining why they would not be doing it

Tortington · 06/09/2009 23:16

i think mnhq usually aim for the right thing.

i think its great that it can be debated, and i don't think justines feelings should be mocked becuase - well it's justine.

I understand why they have the policy on mass deletion that they do - there are exceptional circumstances and there will be mistakes. MNHQ are sorry about the oops saga, that doesn't make their whole policy rubbish. it just means that a mistake was made.

Pielight · 06/09/2009 23:18

But what if everyone decided they wanted all their posts deleted? What then?

Oooh. Actually, we could all start again! It'd be fantastic. There could be a few tentative threads saying 'where shall I park at Sainsburys?' and we'd all love it and be sincere and original.

MN groundhog day! Let's do it.

Prunerz · 06/09/2009 23:19

MN would be devalued as a resource for the print/online media.

BoysAreLikeDogs · 06/09/2009 23:20
Grin
kormachameleon · 06/09/2009 23:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Pielight · 06/09/2009 23:20

And for normal folk too. Normal folk who want to find out how to clean their windows or where's the best place to holiday with four hundred children under 3.

xxxxBAMBOOxxxx · 06/09/2009 23:21

Justine explained (on a different thread) Pruners that the back up cover they had in the gap between Justine going away and Carrie returning was confident in messing around with the boards to that degree and waited to get a second opinion - hence the delay

xxxxBAMBOOxxxx · 06/09/2009 23:21

*unconfident

Tortington · 06/09/2009 23:21

i think knowing thats the way it is and thats the policy one can accept it and post accordingly or erm...not.

its not like everyone didn't know that your 5 years worth of history was online for anyone to see

it's a revalation now?

quell bizzarro

if you don't want your whole life story on line, then have a word wit yourself - cos its only you thats posting it

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 06/09/2009 23:22

but what are the chances of everyone wanting their posts deleted, pielight? it's a non-point, although your year zero thing sounds like a laff.

agree totally, custy, MNHQ imo always aiming for the right thing. it's just that i think now that events/the internet/normal forum facilities etc have overtaken them. the fact is that edit functions are rarely used on other fora, but they are there if people need them.