It works both ways

Well it was a nasty intrusive prurient OP wasn’t it?
I can think of any number of reasons why GNHQ did not want to encourage it.

I agree - some replies were genuinely (naively?) answering the question, I think they deserve an explanation.

Mumsnet is awash with ‘poo’ & ‘wee’ trolls so it’s no surprise they’ll pop up on here.
I saw the ‘when was the last time you wet yourself’ thread and immediately thought ‘troll’. - I couldn’t believe people replied to the weirdo.

I can think of any number of reasons why GNHQ did not want to encourage it
I agree but gransnetters are quickly told they are trolls if they question a thread but there is no explanation the other way round
I feel it should be a two way street and

I recently reported a post.
Someone had posted their mobile number ( not uk but African) he was looking for a soul mate. ?

Another missed opportunity mossfoodlove ?
GNHQ generally delete these sharpish. You might want to block him too.

I didn't think it was prurient, I'll bet the majority of us on this forum suffer varying levels of incontinence. After all we have threads about pelvic floor exercises. I only glanced at it so perhaps it headed in an especially unpleasant direction but I was surprised at the abhorrence. I was going to comment and ask if anyone had successfully used a she-we but I've missed my chance!

See, that's how much members are encouraged not to complain.
BlueBelle got cut off mid sentence!

I decide which threads to reply to and which to ignore (or sometimes to report) If it is a question I would answer if a stranger asked it, in a bus full of other strangers, I reply. If it is something I would not discuss in those circumstances, I steer clear of it.

Gransnet is a whole forum full of strangers - thousands and thousands of them, and it is an open site which can be seen by anyone.. The poster whose comment you are answering may be someone you have been corresponding with for years, but your reply can be read by anyone at all who takes the trouble to look at Gransnet. They don't even need to join as a member to be able to read , only if they wish to post and iif they do join, they are not screened.

A question for those who answered that thread. Would you sit on a bus telling a stranger about wetting yourself ? (and note that it was put like that - not about stress incontinence) The poster wanted a bit of a laugh - and said so. Would you get a megaphone and shout it out to the passengers waiting for a train in the rush hour? If not, why publish it on an open social media site for someone who wanted to laugh at?

Anonymity is why Elegran.

Also, I don't think it WAS a particularly salacious thread. But then, I'm not easily shocked or offended.

I do get the point of not giving the vulgar gutter press 'old lady/past it' stuff to print though. 100%. In which case I'd either give answers that are totally NON stereotypical or so ridiculous as to be mocking.

I dont think they wanted a laugh. I think it was a turn on for them. Sorry but it seemed obvious to me.

Me too.
Golden showers, and all that..

I reported it Bluebelle because it was obvious to me that the OP was posting for salacious reasons & self-gratification & some posters seemed oblivious.

I agree with you, we should be told why such posts are deleted. It might make it easier to spot the trolls & then not respond in the ways they’re hoping we’ll respond.

Me too, I thought it was half term, but we have that to look forward to next week.......

We think we are anonymous, but anyone who really wants to know about us can use the (admittedly awful) Gransnet search box to find our past comments and add up all the things we have posted - location, type of house, what is in our front garden, number and age of children, job, spouse's job, colour of grandchildren's school uniform, view from windows, whether we are on Facebook, why we chose our username (so many people say "because it is a combination of my name and the cat's" or some such thing)

Several years ago, I noticed that one Gransnet poster (who is no longer a member) had posted that she was on facebook, with some other personal details. I was aware of security issues, so I decided to see whether it really was possible to find someone. I found several people on Facebook who could have been her, but then she posted something else which was confirmed by one of those Facebook accounts. On that Facebook page were photos of her, her house, her children and grandchildren, a list of where she had gone to school and worked and a whole lot more.

I did absolutely nothing with the information, and I can't even remember any of it now, but it showed that total anonymity is very difficult to attain.

Gagajo I'm not easily shocked or offended either, but I don't like the thought of someone sniggering at an embarrassing moment, even if that moment wasn't mine.

Some of us who have been on Gransnet for a few years are old hands at spotting something that's not quite right. It doesn't mean we are always right but the threads about incontinence that we've commented on in the past have been started by an OP that we either recognise and trust or give the benefit of the doubt.

This particular OP had 'dodgy' written all over it.

I read the first couple of posts on the wee thread then went out for the day, but my first thought was that it was looking for information that could be used to market incontinence products.

I could be wrong, (particularly if it descended into 'golden showers' type discussions) but GN will charge for surveys (eg the Staysure one) as they are costly to carry out 'in the field' and an easy source of income for a site like this, which makes money out of advertising to us.

The forums are a way of bringing people to the site, but GN is not a charity - we get used to chatting to one another, and often don't mind giving information that can be used commercially, but it is not in their interests to allow threads to gather such info for free.

I'm not surprised that it was deleted, although if it descended into discussion of 'golden showers' type activities, that may have contributed too - as I say, I missed most of the posts.

I wasn’t in the least bit shocked gagajo I don’t like people being taken for a ride and yes I will out people who think it’s funny to tempt people to say things that they wouldn’t normally share about but get pulled into thinking it’s a genuine poster looking for help or validation
I just think HQ should be open about it and not just slide the thread off without a word They should be open and say ‘the thread entitled xyz has been removed as it was found the poster was not a genuine member’ or the thread xyz has been deleted because it broke the rules of being offensive’ or whatever reason they have for removing it
It feels dishonest to me to just slide it off into cyberspace without a word of explanation.

I agree Bluebelle.
You can find something distasteful and inappropriate and consider that it might be exploiting others without clutching your pearls and being shocked.

There is an automatic assumption in some mins that if you reject something as distasteful, you are a delicate flower who can't face reality. The truth is that many of us ARE facing reality and coping fine with it, but really don't wish to parade our moments of embarrassment and humiliation for a random stranger to "have a laugh" at.

The other truth is that however much the random stranger may protest that the laugh is a comradely one, and they have been there, done that, too, (from the account by the original poster in that thread, I doubt it - it read like fantasy) it is still a fact that it is one of the subjects that elicit snorts of merriment and disdain. We don't need that! whether we have recently "wet ourselves" dripped a bit on sneezing, or whether we still have that to look forward to.

BlueBelle

I am concentrating on your point re the feed back from GNHQ as a generalised question and not the example thread you chose which was only an example, albeit a thread that prompted you to ask the question.

GNHQ ' IS ' very poor at giving the GN Users feed back and on that point I entirely agree with you.

I think there are so many examples of Users trying to alter GNHQ's methods over ' deletions ' in one form or another and for Gransnet to become more User friendly but I think the general picture is now we are simply going to get stock replies rather than engaging with us to make the sight more open and User friendly.

Rather high handed behaviour from GNHQ this morning. Why do you deleting whole threads asking about a member who has apparently been temporarily banned?

People understandably wonder if he is OK, as he has been in ill health and is quite elderly. They don't know what's happened, if you keep deleting so quickly. I know he has upset someone, and has been temporarily banned after warnings. Why does that have to be a secret?

Agree Seacliff I had wondered how said poster was as well. Alot of posters like this contributer too.
I think you are right a high handed approach was taken.