I love the music threads, and I learn a lot from them. There still are a lot of fascinating discussions going on here, enough to satisfy any folk musician willing to look. I don't often start threads, however. I think it's usually harder to come up with an intelligent question, than it is to come up with an intelligent answer. Besides, if I have a question about something, I usually search for an existing thread on it, and then add my question to that thread. The music threads here that have been going on for years are the ones that really fascinate me.

I generally stay out of the other threads unless they really sound intriguing. I admit that there is a lot of good that goes on in the "BS" threads, but I just don't have time for it. I do get annoyed at flamebait threads, and at the Mudcatters who respond to them instead of letting them die. I also get annoyed at "copycat" threads - when one person starts a thread that gets a good response, ten others start a similar thread - and those copycat threads can get pretty insipid. Maybe I'm wrong. I was going to question the "what's your favorite" genre of threads, and I put "favorite" in the filter and set the clock back three years - lots of interesting threads came up, along with just a few duds. Then I put "favourite" in the box, and the list was about the same mix - with surprisingly few duds.

I think Jim Dixon makes a good point - he usually does. The thread title and the first message can make or break a thread, whether it's a music thread or a "BS" thread. Threads are what make or break Mudcat, so I think we should be careful how we shape them. The thread titles are the first thing people see when they come to the Forum - if the threads don't sound interesting, they won't stick around long. So, yeah, I think it's a good idea to use care and intelligence when we start threads.

-Joe Offer-