I'm not being funny but.......

Sambucus_Nigra

meher wrote: »

It isn't about what I think or would want; it is about having more options, making more space and extensions in a way that reflects the users. To make a board inviting, the topics need to be a little spread out and with the help of subboards focusing on moneysaving, it would only be fabulous, imo only ofcourse.

No - but you seem to be the only person who is keen on it. I'm just wondering what your reasons for that are. And 'going against the flow' isn't a valid one.

How is having a board for mums and one for dads 'inviting'? Even the 'real' mums and dads are saying it's divisive.

Back on the topic of the boards in question...

The baby threads have now been moved into the general 'marriages' section, and the MSE people are posting threads about what mums want for Christmas - which is itself a discussion topic, not a moneysaving one.

Confused.com indeed. And I'm just talking about the MSE staff.

meher

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

No - but you seem to be the only person who is keen on it.

I am just trying to understand it and it is a hobby of mine to understand changes. I also like lots, lots and lots of options - the vibrant it is, the better, even if it means it is all a bit random and all over the place.

The truth as I see it is that the family board doesn't quite look like a money saving board at all, the focus on money saving is less and it looks more like mumsnet where people are telling personal stories. I think, I emphasis, I think, the team is trying to keep it as it is, untouched so that people can get on with whatever they like to make of the existing board and gently introduce other ways of focusing on the money saving aspect. I don't know, I am just guessing. Probably they are experimenting only, I don't know.

I am a big fan of changes - if board dynamics do not change, then it will stagnate, it will fall behind other forums in meeting expectations. Probably what is going wrong is with the titles - if it is cleverly worded, you'd probably not even have noticed it, again I don't know, it is only my opinion, apparently that I am also entitled to

Tigsteroonie

meher wrote: »

The truth as I see it is that the family board doesn't quite look like a money saving board at all, the focus on money saving is less and it looks more like mumsnet where people are telling personal stories.

So ... given that this is a MoneySaving site, why on earth are the Moneysaving Mums & Dads boards built as a sub-board of the Marriages, Families & Relationships board?

Surely on MSE, the chat is secondary to the moneysaving ideas/discussions - for example, within the Comps board, the chat is a subforum.

To me it makes more sense to have a main board for Moneysaving Parents (I still don't see the point of dividing Mums & Dads, that's very sexist) and then a sub-board for the chart threads.

Helen2k8

MSE_Andrea wrote: »

Found you floss2

The new boards are about MoneySaving for mums and dads rather than general parenting questions.

The marriages board has evolved over so many years to become much more than just MoneySaving, which is great but we wanted an area where parents could easily find the discussions on MoneySaving aspects of being a mum or dad.

At the moment they're very easily "findable"

It would be a really great help if parents could help by posting their MoneySaving questions on there.

Andrea

With all due respect, if you have to ask/tell posters how to use the boards then they are set up wrong; at the very least they are not intuitive. At worst, well, there are plenty of threads that are being ignored about this. Mums vs Dads is pointless, you are spending too much of your own time moving threads surely?

meher

Tigsteroonie wrote: »

So ... given that this is a MoneySaving site, why on earth are the Moneysaving Mums & Dads boards built as a sub-board of the Marriages, Families & Relationships board?

I don't know, may be if we start asking "why not?" we'll find the answer :xmassmile

Sambucus_Nigra

meher wrote: »

I am just trying to understand it and it is a hobby of mine to understand changes.

Well, it's my hobby to comment when changes aren't working.

If it doesn't flow, if it isn't obvious, if it has to be explained, if things need correcting all the time - then it's not ergonomic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_factors_and_ergonomics

meher

commenting on a change is fine but that should be done by building on it and not by destroying it, again imo only, probably it is to do with differing perspectives

thanks I know what ergonomics is although I don't believe it is an apt application here because I believe such boards are just an entity and you make what you will of it, to me it is more a case that we should break free of tribalism on some boards before it is reduced to another mumsnet and that board is one of them

Sambucus_Nigra

meher wrote: »

commenting on a change is fine but that should be done by building on it and not by destroying it, again imo only, probably it is to do with differing perspectives

thanks I know what ergonomics is although I don't believe it is an apt application here because I believe such boards are just an entity and you make what you will of it, to me it is more a case that we should break free of tribalism on some boards before it is reduced to another mumsnet and that board is one of them

No - if the change is wrong then building on it just creates a dogs dinner.

Tribalism - will only be enhanced by division of males and females.

From your link

'Socially, divisions between groups fosters specialized interactions with others, based on association: altruism (positive interactions with unrelated members), kin-selectivity (positive interactions with related members), and violence (negative interactions). Thus, groups with a strong sense of unity and identity can benefit from kin selection behavior such as common property and shared resources. The tendency of members to unite against an outside tribe and the ability to act violently and prejudicially against that outside tribe likely boosted the chances of survival in genocidal conflicts.'

meher

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

No - if the change is wrong then building on it just creates a dogs dinner.

You speak from your own conclusion that the change is wrong - I don't share that specially because I suspect that people who want some sort of control are often affected by change. The more opposition there is, all the more reason for a need for change, imo only ofcourse.

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Tribalism - will only be enhanced by division of males and females.

From your link ...

Perhaps you have chosen an interpretation of political tribalism. I am not sure I would agree that there would be a division as such, instead I see the cohesion that arises from people being able to express multiple identities.

Sambucus_Nigra

meher wrote: »

You speak from your own conclusion that the change is wrong - I don't share that specially because I suspect that people who want some sort of control are often affected by change. The more opposition there is, all the more reason for a need for change, imo only ofcourse. Perhaps you have chosen an interpretation of political tribalism. I am not sure I would agree that there would be a division as such, instead I see the cohesion that arises from people being able to express multiple identities.

People who want some sort of control are often affected by change. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJJTFuFlUtE