 sj |
||
|
||
R.I.P. MUDCAT
|
|
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: gnu Date: 12 Dec 05 - 08:37 AM Yeah... it's SanFran. |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: gnu Date: 12 Dec 05 - 08:51 AM Jeri... re clicking the "d" for the last fifty posts. I just timed the load times for three threads : 14 post thread - 4 seconds. clicked "d" on a 130 post thread - twenty seconds clicked "d" on the MOAB - two minutes, one second Try it for yourself. The MOAB is a pig and should be considered for closure, if it would lighten the load. HEY - I said "considered" and "if". Don't all youse git yer knickers in a twist. |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: wysiwyg Date: 12 Dec 05 - 09:19 AM It has been posted before that loading by 50's is actually a longer job of retrieval for the server than loading the whole thing. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: Roger in Baltimore Date: 12 Dec 05 - 09:49 AM I think anyone who has been on the Mudcat for years would say it has changed. It was a smaller community then. As it has become a larger community, I think there are more postings and some are good and some are bad. There are fewer requests for material I know anything about. Again, I think that is due to the size of the community. There was a time early in Mudcat when I would open every thread that came along. I no longer have that kind of time. So I'm sure I miss some good stuff. I still love this place just as I still love the geographical place where I grew up. But that place is no longer the same either. Change is inevitable. Roger in Baltimore |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: Jeri Date: 12 Dec 05 - 09:57 AM 14-post thread: 5 seconds 'd' on 130-post thread: 21 seconds 'd' on MOAB: 28 seconds Second time: 14-post thread: 3 seconds 'd' on 'd' on MOAB: 50 seconds Third time: 14-post thread: 3 minutes 35 seconds ...forget the rest I think time to load isn't a good indication of server load. A lot of the time a thread takes to load is because it takes a while for electrons to vibrate on down the wire until they get to you. The query for the thread isn't any more complicated for a bazillion-post thread than it is for a 3-post thread. The search itself takes longer, but I still don't know that the time = more of a load on the server. The server does need work, and we do post a lot of ephemeral, throw-away, silly stuff. I just think if the amount were causing problems, Max would ask for people to conserve bytes. |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: gnu Date: 12 Dec 05 - 10:22 AM Jeri.... Third time: 14-post thread: 3 minutes 35 seconds Could be because I was loading the MOAB... I quit at twelve minutes as it wasn't even halfway loaded. Hmmm... I ain't no puter guy, but, doesn't response time depend on server demand. I recall Jeff explaining a few years ago the "exponential slowing" of response time with each new demand, but can't recall the details. I wonder if, when a large thread is requested, the load on the server is raised over a longer period of time? Thus slowing response time over a longer period? Anyone? |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: John MacKenzie Date: 12 Dec 05 - 10:28 AM I was under the impression that what would help would be a larger router, but those Mothers are expensive to run. Max is already subsidising us, and is understandably reluctant to get in deeper. That's how I understand it anyway. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: Mooh Date: 12 Dec 05 - 10:41 AM Hi Jeri, "People sometimes post out of anger because they feel personally hurt that Mudcat isn't way they think it should. Ask me whether I'm talking about the 'R.I.P.' thread starter or those having a react-o-fest to him/her. The answer would be 'yes'. " Jeri. I generally agree with your post, except of course if you lump me in with the "react-o-festers". I don't see myself that way at all. I also don't often get involved in these sort of discussions either, as it's hard to write compassionate vocal inflections into moment-by-moment postings...at least at my skill level. But, it's hard work to suffer fools gladly, whether it's the troll who started this thread, or myself in reacting. Thanks for your comments. Peace, Mike Crocker (Mooh). |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: gnu Date: 12 Dec 05 - 10:42 AM Yes, G. There is an old engineering saying: "Given enough time and money, we can do anything." Max and the clones have neither the time nor the money to satisfy some people. |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: Jeri Date: 12 Dec 05 - 11:34 AM Mooh, I suppose it might be a better place if we all quit reacting to our favorite irritants, whether they're anonymous guests or people slagging anonymous guests, whether they're Mudcat's problems or people commenting on Mudcat's problems, or somebody who's just commenting on All of the Above, as I'm wont to do on occasion. It's just that the threads that seem to inspire the most passion and the greatest number of posts are ones that piss us off. Me too, and I really don't like it when I get caught up in that game. Maybe it was always this way and I never paid much attention to it. I think RiB is right in saying Mudcat's changed. I wouldn't expect it not to. I miss some of what got lost in the process, and I could do without some of what got added, but it is what it is. It's nice though, the Mudcat seems to have gotten out of the morgue and back into the hospital. |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: open mike Date: 12 Dec 05 - 12:56 PM not morgue...but I.C.U. maybe.... |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: Lonesome EJ Date: 12 Dec 05 - 06:55 PM It certainly is frustrating looking back at some of the threads, in particular the Mudcat Fiction pieces, and finding the posts scrambled. The "printer friendly" idea is good, but I look forward to the day when Max, Joe, and the elves will be able to sequentialize the posts again. As has been said above, rumors of Mudcat's demise are pretty premature. LEJ |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: autolycus Date: 12 Dec 05 - 07:48 PM I've discovered Mudcat only v.recently and it's rewarding, tho' i don't some of it, and there are other things in life. The thread about the 3-minute egg is what got me in - it was the funniest thing I'd read in years - brilliant. If someone posts something anal, antagonistic, drivellish, nasty or not nourishing, I'd say the best move is to ignore it; failing that, to demolish the argument/drivel without naming names. Mudcat is a fine community that will continue 'cos mudcatters have life and creativity and imagination and experience. I'm off to burn the soapbox and get some sleep - 'night all. |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: GUEST Date: 12 Dec 05 - 08:41 PM
This is probably one of the most used, under-supported, privately owned, free resources on the internet today. Rather than buying that extra CD this week from CAMSCO.
Or buying a 20 dollar cigar (go for a 10 instead) and send ten bucks in ANY currency directly to MAX:
PO Box 3006 West Chester, PA 19381
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: GUEST,Boab Date: 13 Dec 05 - 06:45 PM Guest, you ARE the weakest link! Bye! |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: robomatic Date: 13 Dec 05 - 06:56 PM This exemplifies some of the best of Mudcat - Some nameless troll initiates a response and then we all learn some useful things about each other and about utilizing this marvelous resource. Joe Offer - Thanks for the positive response on this thread and thanks for going through what you've gone through to enrich a lot of peoples' lives. |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 14 Dec 05 - 08:28 AM What Robo said, in spades. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: MMario Date: 15 Dec 05 - 10:44 AM uhmmmm - garg - no offense - but *let* them buy that extra CD from Camsco - or better yet - buy the extra CD they were gonna buy from ELSEWHERE from Camsco...(don't forget, CAMSCO = Dick Greenhaus ≠DT; and the DT is seperate from the Mudcat Cafe) - and both the DT and the Mudcat could use a boost in financial donations. |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: Stilly River Sage Date: 15 Dec 05 - 01:26 PM Considering all of the little goofy BS threads that are not occuring because it all is being parked on the MOAB, you're simply looking at different ways to use the same amount of space. Or take a different view: MOAB as VIP lounge. Several of the folks who play around at MOAB have have been regular contributors of cash or kind to Mudcat, so it isn't like we're not pulling our own weight. Can the same be said of the lion's share of the visitors or even registered members of Mudcat? SRS |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: MMario Date: 15 Dec 05 - 01:40 PM Do you realize that NOT counting the midis, auxilliary pages, the help forum, the mirror of Bruce Olsen's site, PM, photos,DT, etc "we" have about 1.6 MILLION records here at the 'cat? |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: The Shambles Date: 15 Dec 05 - 01:45 PM The right to sing |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: gnu Date: 15 Dec 05 - 02:52 PM SRS asked at 15 Dec 05 - 01:26 PM, "Can the same be said of the lion's share of the visitors or even registered members of Mudcat?" Ah... could be. But... what's the diff? The fact is that it might be (IS IT OR NOT?) a pig. Unless youse are goin fer a Guinness World Record entry, why? |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: GUEST,GM55 Date: 15 Dec 05 - 03:00 PM well i have designed upto 30+ forums in the last two years, and this used to be ok, layout bad, but still popular enough, now....shit |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: MMario Date: 15 Dec 05 - 03:01 PM hey - some of us hang around to see if we can be useful - while we are hanging around we *are* gonna talk, chitchat, etc. Gathering as much of that as possible into one thread *does* reduce the server load. we *could* be starting inane 'copycat' threads or duplicate threads - or posting randomly into other threads - or cutting and pasting the same comment into dozens of threads. The NYCFTTS Recovery Center and the Tavern serve the same purpose. The MOAB just has some very regular and talkitive folk. |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: stevenrailing Date: 15 Dec 05 - 03:03 PM hmmm want to say it is still great. but not the case. quality has gone down. shit summed it up from poster above |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: MMario Date: 15 Dec 05 - 03:14 PM well - from my viewpoint - it's the best layout I've seen for a forum. All kidding aside - I find it the most usable, most searchable, most convenient forum of many I read. The quality of content comes and goes - but that depends to a great deal on the questions being asked asked. |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: GUEST Date: 15 Dec 05 - 03:24 PM Agree with layout issue. It is bad. Too prone to crashes too. Probably using a vcm223 server, or dial program causing the issue. basically shoddily run by whoever. |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: GUEST,Peter Date: 15 Dec 05 - 03:40 PM As forums go it is one of the better ones that I have seen although it would be a good idea to make the "from" field mandatory on posts. Other open forums do this. The bottom posting can be a pain if there has been a lot of thread drift and you want to respond to something a couple of dozen posts back. On the other hand long posts with several branches have their own problems. |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: gnu Date: 15 Dec 05 - 04:39 PM So... when can Max expect your donations of $$$ and time and expertise to help improve this site? Didn't think so. Here's how you can help to improve this site immensely without having to donate any $$$ or time or expertise... fuck off. |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: stevenrailing Date: 15 Dec 05 - 06:00 PM So... when can Max expect your donations of $$$ and time and expertise to help improve this site? Didn't think so. Here's how you can help to improve this site immensely without having to donate any $$$ or time or expertise... fuck off. and so my point is made. thank you |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: gnu Date: 15 Dec 05 - 06:43 PM Point? You have no point. Maybe a pointed head. But, I didn't see any point. You didn't even have the ability to post anything original... just alluded to an earlier post. However... I note that you are a member. Therefore, I hope that you do stay on and contribute... money, I mean... cause you got nothing useful to add otherwise, it would appear. Do you read your posts before you shit them out? |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: stevenrailing Date: 16 Dec 05 - 05:24 AM and so it continues... |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: Big Mick Date: 16 Dec 05 - 06:03 PM The point is a valid one. Folks that have never offered anything but criticism also never contribute to the upkeep of this site in any way. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: gnu Date: 16 Dec 05 - 07:48 PM Forgive me Mick, but I don't get that one. Guest just shit on the site, period. As far as me, I have never shit on this site. And, as you are well aware, I have supported this site. Did I miss something? BTW, steven... keep railing. Inane posts are so important to the overall discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: GUEST,tam the man Date: 16 Dec 05 - 07:54 PM Goodbye Guest I was going to say it was good to know but I don't so goodbye. |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: Peace Date: 16 Dec 05 - 08:38 PM "The thread about the 3-minute egg is what got me in - it was the funniest thing I'd read in years - brilliant." And that was a slow day. |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: Jeri Date: 16 Dec 05 - 10:45 PM Gnu, I believe the point Mick was saying was valid, clarified in his second sentence, was yours. The one about contributions. |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: The Shambles Date: 17 Dec 05 - 01:56 AM If (along with many others) you voluntarily make some financial contribution to the upkeep of a place you were openly invited into - does that then entitle you to publicly call other invited guests names and to spit on the floor? Some members now appear to think so - encourage each other in stting this example and appear to be generally supported in this behavior. |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: gnu Date: 17 Dec 05 - 05:25 AM Oh... cool. Makes much more sense this morning. Bye. |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: Irish sergeant Date: 17 Dec 05 - 10:18 AM The site does a great job.Keep up the good work and thank for all. Guest,don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya. Neil |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: Big Mick Date: 17 Dec 05 - 10:42 AM Yeah, gnu, what I meant was that your point, delivered passionately, was the valid one. We have people around here whose only contribution has been to be critical, or nasty. They seem to use up the most bandwidth and contribute the least. They have all the criticisms and none of the answers. You are definitely not one of these. In fact you are just the opposite. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: Jeri Date: 17 Dec 05 - 10:48 AM Contributions aren't a factor in whether someone has the right to express an opinion, and I don't believe Max would ever tell anyone so. It may be frustrating, but people who've donated have not bought the right to express an opinion. That's free. Anyway, we have no way of knowing if someone has donated money. This might have been a troll. It might have been someone in a worm-eating, spiteful mood because something they cared about isn't perfect. A person doesn't usually get that spiteful unless you feel betrayed by something/someone. "You're not what I wanted, what I expected. You were once my love, but now you're worthless, your dead to me! Do you hear? DEAD, and I'm leaving the rotting corpse of our love forever!" [slams door, then realizes s/he left car keys are on the coffee table] [knock, knock] "Er, excuse me?" Yep, I think it was different, and I think 'different', for me PERSONALLY, was 'better' in many respects. It's still a fine place to communicate, if you can weave your way through personal agendas, pet peeves, inane comments, things you've heard a bazillion times, other people's pissing contests, poor socialization skills, lack of comprehension and eagerness to jump on what they don't understand or to jump on others who don't understand, other people's stupid opinions or intolerance to others' opinions[3]... basically other people. Things bother me based on how bad a mood I'm in. My ability to see the good stuff is also based on my mood. Somewhere beyond my moods, there's a decent 'place' with decent people. Many things didn't happen the way I wanted, and 'other people' can get on my nerves, and I really don't feel the community spirit I used to feel.[d] It's not my ideal, it's not the 'place where I always wanted to live', and it's a site I now only cautiously recommend to others, with disclaimers, but there's enough here that I keep coming back. I'm usually the last one standing at the end of a long night's party. Well, not so much anymore, but if I could be... It's because I believe that as long as the party's still going on, there's the possibility of something remarkable happening. I wouldn't want to miss it. [3] Yes, I meant that. It was supposed to be funny, in such a way that indicated I may not be as miserable and grumpy as you may think I am. [d] Good place for people in whatever communities to communicate, for old friends/acquaintances to hang out, to make plans. But seriously, how many folks would feel safe inviting 'everybody who reads this' to their house or even want to, feel safe posting sensitive stuff or doing any number of things involving some risk? It's just too big and there are too many damaged or merely hurtful people here. |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: Big Mick Date: 17 Dec 05 - 11:03 AM Contributions, as I have used it, was not meant to solely indicate financial support. I would hope it was evident in my post. Everyone contributes in one way or another. If your only contribution is criticism, a know it all attitude, or personal attacks, you are not worth much here. I know many of our most valuable contributors have never donated a dime. But the place wouldn't be the same without them. I think that is spirit of it. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: Jeri Date: 17 Dec 05 - 12:03 PM Gnu stated, "Therefore, I hope that you do stay on and contribute... money, I mean... " and then Mick responded "The point is a valid one. Folks that have never offered anything but criticism also never contribute to the upkeep of this site in any way." then, like, gnu went "Forgive me Mick, but I don't get that one. [...] Did I miss something?" then, like Mick went, "Yeah, gnu, what I meant was that your point, delivered passionately, was the valid one. So, like, I thought Mick was, y'know, talkin' about money because, like, he HAD been talkin' about money even if he, y'know, doesn't get that when he agreed with what gnu said about, like, MONEY, he was agreeing about the about money contribution thing. So, anyway, for me to think Mick was talkin' about money contributions just because he sorta had been, isn't totally bogus. But, like, who cares anyway? |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: John MacKenzie Date: 17 Dec 05 - 12:37 PM You know the 6th post on this thread from gnu, said that he thought it read RIP Mudcat, and he worried that it might have been about tearing Mudcat apart. I'm beginning to wonder if he may have been right all along! Giok |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: Jeri Date: 17 Dec 05 - 01:18 PM Giok, I hope you don't see my post as anything but a goofy explanation. I can't take this type of thread seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: Amos Date: 17 Dec 05 - 01:30 PM I have relished this site for good conversation, welcome insight into the songs of my tradition, and good friendship, for five or six years now. The intellectual and emotional rewards I find here far outweigh the inconvenience of having to put up with petty minded snips like the Guest at the top of this thread, and a smallhandful of others who believe their merit lies in their disdain for others. IMO such voices are sad reflections of internal ruin, whether temporary or chronic. They must find the world inadequate, given the nature of their lenses. A |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: gnu Date: 17 Dec 05 - 01:38 PM WB here. gnu is watching NFL on Fox Pregame. To paraphrase Jeri, I can't take this type of thread, seriously. Shambles... that's low... even for you. Now, I must join gnu in watching the Pats stomp the Bucs. And... ah... if y'all don't like football, turn the damn channel. Like common sense and good manners would dictate. WB |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Dec 05 - 02:10 PM I can't take this thread seriously either-- the very idea of Mudcat resting "in peace"-- too, too ridiculous! ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: R.I.P. MUDCAT From: Big Mick Date: 17 Dec 05 - 02:24 PM How about you stick to explaining what you meant, eh? ***snerk*** |
| Share Thread: |
