 sj |
||
|
||
Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 29 Aug 13 - 10:58 AM Suzy (29 Aug 13 - 09:33 AM), some forum software products have that feature, but it is rarely found desirable for readers because usually the chronology is much more important. There are cases in which a good discussion is interrupted by rather trivial considerations. This cannot be prevented by any administrative means, but it is perfectly legitimate to resume an older "subthread" without further comment. Serious and joking posts can well go together; readers have to learn how to switch quickly. When I reply to a specific post, I refer to it initially, as in this one. (Often it suffices to mention the poster's nickname.) I would appreciate some sort of automatism for that, but it is far from top priority. Whenever we fear that readers may not bother to leaf "miles down the thread" (or up, as the case may be), the reply may not be worth submitting at all. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Suzy Sock Puppet Date: 29 Aug 13 - 09:33 AM You should be able to "reply" to a specific post so that it shows up right under the post in question instead of miles down the thread. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 29 Aug 13 - 09:17 AM There are young "freaks" for oldtimer cars, and of course they know how to operate them. The only question is what people find worth the effort. Compared to writing well-reflected text in understandable English, learning some basic HTML is a negligible effort. I would appreciate a mechanism that allows readers to distinguish important posts from mere chatting quickly, particularly in lengthy threads. A button similar to "Like", but labeled "Find important", could do the trick. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Rob Naylor Date: 29 Aug 13 - 04:13 AM Joe, how many times do I have to say that I DON'T WANT "bells and whistles" or "glitz"...my original post here was I believe a comment on my daughter taking one look at the site and going "bleugh". I was asked whether that was content or structure and responded thast it was 100% structure, with explanations of why. YES, as I've repeated ad infinitum, YOU can make a "blue clicky" , *I* can bake a "blue clicky". We can BOTH re-quote and hang a bit of HTML around it and italicise or embolden it, but most youngsters can't...they expect these things to be embedded. Back to my hand-cranked car analogy way up the thread there. My dad would happily use a starting handle every time on his early cars...I used one occasionally on my first car but was glad when I could dump it in favour of something that would start every time with a key turn, and if you told any of my kids they'd have to stand in the rain outside the car turning a handle to make it go they'd freak. It's perfectly feasible for the site to continue working like this, but it'll inevitably go into long-term decline as those of us who can do this sort of thing die off and younger members are put off signing up by the clunkiness. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: GUEST Date: 29 Aug 13 - 02:02 AM "I had to copy and paste from his post then use HTML tags to do that...the current and coming generations who've grown up on line would just expect to be able to highlight what they wanted to quote and have it appear as an obvious quote!" Or you can highlight, right click, and select "Open Link in New Window". Most browsers already can recognise links, so Mudcat shouldn't need to. Why add technology just because you can? g |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: jacko@nz Date: 29 Aug 13 - 01:55 AM Like Midchuck said at the beginning :if it works, don't fix it ! Jack |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Aug 13 - 01:02 AM You know, Rob, I guess I just can't agree with you. You can say something here at Mudcat, and I can respond in plain English with no "bells and whistles," and the message get across just fine. If I want to post a quote, I can use quotation marks, or I can use italics with no effort at all because I know how to do that. But either way, I can type what I think, and people will understand what I'm saying. And if I want to share a link, I can just post the URL [https://play.spotify.com/]. Or, if I use the blickifier or have taken the to actually learn how to post links, I can post a link [https://play.spotify.com/] . Either way, I have conveyed the information and expressed my thoughts. Yes, we can have all those other features - and all the glitches that come with them - but would it really make this place a more effective venue for the exchange of ideas? As I see it, the lack of "bells and whistles" forces people to communicate actual ideas in actual English. I realize that's a novel concept. Maybe you should try it sometime. Another advantage of the lack of "bells and whistles," is that the fancy stuff has not overcome the original purpose of this Website, and we are still able to do serious folksong research without being crowded out by the mindless chit-chat. If you want to know what Mudcat is all about, try studying a song sometime. You'll find no better place in the world for folk music research. That being said, I have to say that the Mudcat has been abominably slow the last few weeks, and that makes it difficult to get productive work done. I don't care about the fancy stuff - I just want the darn thing to work. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Rob Naylor Date: 28 Aug 13 - 09:23 PM Well, this thread's revived after well over 3 years and it seems that people *still* don't get what was being said or asked for in the original discussion we keep coming back to this idea of "bells, whistles and glitzy stuff" whereas from what I could see previously absolutely no-one has asked for those...just suggested that the format is clunky. So, to repeat: yes, it's easy to link to another web page or youtube performance by making a "blue clicky" for example, but every other forum I use just recognises the link string as a URL and auto-creates the link, without having to open a new window, cut and paste strings etc. It's *this* level of clunkiness that I said 3 years ago was putting off younger people, not the lack of avatars, "like" buttons or similar bells and whistles. But people are still trotting out these "straw men". Making the site a bit more streamlined isn't "pandering to the kids" but building for the future of the site. A remark above dismisses the idea of youngsters liking folk...but I bet most of the users here were into folk back in the 60s when they were in their teens and 20s, and there are large numbers of youngsters out there involved in folk now. As one band I put in in Tunbridge Wells a couple of years back said, on seeing their young audience getting up and dancing: "this makes a change: usually most members of our audience are older than our combined ages, and they never dance". But I'd actually taken the trouble to market the gig at the places where youngsters hang out, rather than just the local folk clubs and sessions. CS (who is a rare younger member) summed it up back in April 2010: Rob, I honestly don't know how many of the members here would like to attract a lot of younger members. There is definitely a seeming objection to anything being made less counterintuitive (and that's the main thing younger internet users expect - efficient technology which is neatly organised and simple to navigate in order to access exactly the information you want) especially when you consider the presumptions about what young people like or want to find on an internet site such-as "glitz", "bling", "fancy stuff" and so-on. I had to copy and paste from his post then use HTML tags to do that...the current and coming generations who've grown up on line would just expect to be able to highlight what they wanted to quote and have it appear as an obvious quote! Having that facility, auto URL etc would NOT require people to "learn new stuff" to use the site, it would just reduce the number of clicks and actions needed to produce a result. I can't for the life of me see why people are objecting to such streamlining! |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Aug 13 - 01:00 PM Tootler, I think Max declared nameless posting acceptable about two years ago, and I haven't posted any of those messages since then. I disagree - I think all posters should use a consistent name - but I just work here. Max owns the place. Claire, wanna have some fun with your Mudcat posts? There's a PermaThread called Mudcat HTML Guide that will teach you all sorts of fun things. And if that's not enough, ask Bill D for lessons.... -Joe Offer-
From Dan Mulligan, April 6, 1998 (edited by Joe Offer): There seem to be a lot of HTML questions being asked these days, so I thought I would try to help out.
Heading Tags are very similar to style tags. Headings come in six sizes, 1-6. 1 is the largest. 6 is smallest. The heading tag also includes an implicit <BR> at the beginning and end. The format for the heading tags is <H#> with # being a number 1-6, and they look like this: <H1> This is a size 1 heading
</H1> <H2> This is a size 2 heading
</H2> <H5> This is a size 5 headingLINKSLinks come in three basic varieties: links to other files, links to the same file and links to pictures.To link to another file on another server, use <A HREF="http://server/path/filename.html"> anchor text </A>. This is called absolute linking. The tag is called an anchor.
Example: <A HREF="http://www.disney.com"> The Walt Disney Home Page </A>
To link to another file on the same server, use <A HREF="path/filename.html"> anchor text </A>. That is called relative linking.
Example: <A HREF="../auction/Auction.html"> The Auction Block</A> Click here for more HTML stuffNote: I copied most of this from a message Dan Mulligan posted in another thread. It's a great piece of work, and deserves its own thread. Thanks, Dan. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Claire M Date: 28 Aug 13 - 12:45 PM Hiya, To Sandra: thanks! To Joe: OK, what effects can you use?? & how do you do the big font thing again?? I love it here but I don't want to do me eyes in....... It's not just websites that have that problem; magazines always squash the font up too, so I called a halt to them. Even if this place does have a rule letting us id ourselves we still wouldn't know if we passed each other in the street. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Tootler Date: 27 Aug 13 - 06:29 PM From: GUEST Date: 27 Aug 13 - 10:12 AM Making the "from" field mandatory would be a trivial change From: GUEST,Peter - PM Date: 27 Aug 13 - 10:14 AM which would stop people doing what I just did. As the man says. I think that permitting Guest posts in the Music Forum is a strength of Mudcat. Most forums don't allow guest posts which can be frustrating when you are searching for the solution to some problem and you come across a forum thread which almost answers your question but you can't follow it up without joining a forum which you may never use again. I do think the rule that guests should identify themselves in some way is a good one, but it needs enforcing and that should be possible as it is very common on websites with forms to fill in for you to be thrown back if you leave an essential field blank. So please can we have something similar for guest posts. It would save Joe Offer having to post endless messages reminding guests to identify themselves in some meaningful way. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: artbrooks Date: 27 Aug 13 - 05:24 PM You have been approved. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Haruo Date: 27 Aug 13 - 03:46 PM I just joined the FB group (which is up to more than double the membership Max mentioned) and am waiting to see how long it takes to be approved. (My name is Leland Bryant Ross on FB, not Haruo...) |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: GUEST,Peter Date: 27 Aug 13 - 10:14 AM which would stop people doing what I just did. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: GUEST Date: 27 Aug 13 - 10:12 AM Making the "from" field mandatory would be a trivial change |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Sandra in Sydney Date: 26 Aug 13 - 10:46 AM If/when I want bells & whistles I'll go to a gig. - well said, Claire |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Aug 13 - 01:48 AM If you need help editing something you posted, contact a moderator. Don't know a moderator? I can put you in touch. There are other forums that are full of LOLs and OMGs and little winky-smiley icons. At Mudcat, the main thing is discussion. And much of that discussion is worthwhile - the music stuff is particularly valuable, but I'm also learned a lot in the non-music section. There are lots of special effects you can use if you want to here - it's just that you have to learn how to use them. And for photos and sound files and whatnot that can't be posted directly at Mudcat, just ask. We have the ability to post just about anything you want posted. I handle that part, and my e-mail is joe@mudcat.org -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Claire M Date: 25 Aug 13 - 09:47 AM Hiya, Not being able to edit what I write suits me cos it means I think about what I write before doing so, which might take a lot longer but it's less hassle in the end. ' Course this place'll die w/o new members but as much as it'll always have a place in my ♥ I'll be more likely to leave before that, & similar places'll spring up I'm sure, like when my fav shop closed. If/when I want bells & whistles I'll go to a gig. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Max Date: 14 Apr 10 - 07:45 PM Making progress on the auction. Please help me test it. I will wipe the table clean Saturday night, so don't bother posting anything real or be prepared to repost it Sunday. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: GUEST,Mr Red Date: 14 Apr 10 - 07:13 AM How many 'Catters does it take to change the 'Cat? ALL OF THEM.............. I'll get my coat. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Max Date: 13 Apr 10 - 05:55 PM I'm on it. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Paul Reade Date: 13 Apr 10 - 05:31 PM Tootler's comments above are more-or-less my thoughts when I started this thread. Any chance Max could have a look at them and see how feasible they are? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Tootler Date: 13 Apr 10 - 05:21 PM I don't think the Mudcat interface is actually all that different from most other web based forums even though they all use more recent, bespoke software. The most common seems to be phpBB but there are a range of others and nearly all provide virtually the same information as Mudcat on their front page and they are all essentially text based. The difference is, I suspect, that the software makes it much easier to set everything up, whereas when Mudcat was first set up, you had to design it yourself. While many forums allow you to upload files, not all do. Chip and Fipple, for example don't let you upload files, you have to provide a link. The Noteworthy Composer help forum allows limited upload, but only of fairly small files in a limited range of formats. Most forums make something called BB Code available which is really just a subset of html with a slightly different syntax and the message box has buttons to enable you to input these with a mouse click rather than having to type them in. The button simply inserts the tag so once you have done it a few times you can see the syntax and input them by hand if you wish. Not really all that different from Mudcat. One thing most of them do which would be an advantage on Mudcat is they automatically create a hyperlink from a url when you send your message. I suspect that when people are complaining about the clunkiness of Mudcat it may be in comparison with the social networking sites, though I really don't know as I don't use them. I do use other discussion forums, though and I can't really say that Mudcat compares unfavourably with them and I feel that is a realistic comparison. I do think that some of the comments and suggestion in relation to youngsters not having the patience to persist with Mudcat smacks of pandering to the kids and I don't think we should be doing that. If they are really interested as opposed to just browsing in passing out of idle curiosity, they will go beyond the interface to see the content and make the effort to find out how to use Mudcat. How many sites have you come across which are full of fancy graphics, Flash animations etc. etc. but are actually very light on content? A great many commercial sites are like that. Surely what is important is content, ease of use and navigation and accessibility even if you are on dialup and Mudcat scores quite well on that score. I was on dialup when I started on Mudcat and the speed of loading was a real advantage. After all there are a lot of places where broadband is either not available or so poor as it might as well not be. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: MMario Date: 13 Apr 10 - 09:32 AM Being readily available to any bandwidth or aged platform is at the very core of our mission. Hallelulia! |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Sandra in Sydney Date: 13 Apr 10 - 08:11 AM I also like Mudcat the way it is. Now that Search is fixed, Max, what will you be doing with your spare time? sandra |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Leadfingers Date: 13 Apr 10 - 07:23 AM If I can do a Clickie , any one should be able to ! Thanks max - I like The Cat just the way it is , and it SHOULD be noted that when Pene Azul was keeping the Members Profile up to date , very few people could be bothered to put a profile up ! |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Richard Bridge Date: 13 Apr 10 - 07:05 AM I am puzzled by all this talk of clunkiness. When I first came here it was a ray of light to find clear words one below the other, without curious trees to find who had said what to whom. It still is. I use a number of other fora, mostly about Volvos, and this is far easier to use - and I'm not a technophobe, I first wrote Atlas Autocode and KDF9 Algol in the 60s and I still build my own computers. I don't see the point in flashing coloured text or emoticons. I don't see the point in pictures - and as said there is the Fakebook (real) Mudcat group for those who do want pix. And look how hard it is to find anything you want on, say, the Fakebook Group "1,000,000 united against the [you know which political party]". It's perfectly easy to use the blickifier to link to anything. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Will Fly Date: 13 Apr 10 - 04:57 AM Given the number of members and GUESTs who use Mudcat, it's simplicity is a huge advantage. I run a little forum - just 63 members at the moment,but growing - which uses free Ning technology, and even with that small number of members, reading the latest interactions can be be hugely complex and time intensive. (You can see Ning in action at the Acoustic Guitar Community site). The ability to post videos, music, pics, profiles, blogs, forum comments, etc., is great - for a small site - but it doesn't make for the immediacy and intimacy of Mudcat. And let's face it, we all want to be intimate with 'Spaw, don't we? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: GUEST,nickp (cookieless) & I will login this pc on Date: 13 Apr 10 - 04:01 AM All hail the Mighty Max!! Nick |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Gurney Date: 13 Apr 10 - 01:48 AM I wonder WHY Spaw is so interested in nude cross-dressers (surely an oxymoron) and why they should be Albanian? I've met a few morris dancers that I wouldn't mind seeing nude (since they went co-ed)but the nearest I ever came was Tool from Coventrya.Morris, in a loin-cloth. That should put anyone off the idea. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Max Date: 13 Apr 10 - 12:31 AM Spaw, chatroulette.com already has trans-sexual cross dressing Albanian hat blockers doing nude Morris Dancing. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: catspaw49 Date: 13 Apr 10 - 12:29 AM Hey! I asked for only one thing and I got it. I feel like its Christmas in April. Thank Max and when you get time we need accessibility for trans-sexual cross dressing Albanian hat blockers doing nude Morris Dancing. Keep us posted on where that stands....... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Max Date: 12 Apr 10 - 11:28 PM Just reread the thread and would like to add the following. Artful Codger makes some very good suggestions. I'd like to implement every damn one of them. I agree, the blue-clicky thing bugs me too. I'll do something about that. While I feel like I want to argue with Rob Naylor, his points are well stated and duly noted. Sorcha, meet CS, CS meet Sorcha. You are both such rays of sunshine, it seems to me you should be fast friends. Money is not that big of a limitation anymore. Thanks to hardware competition and open source software it is no longer a meaningful obstacle to goodness. Time is the real commodity. I work a lot, and have kids, and occasionally get out to meet people (girls) and a bit less occasionally play my guitar, and almost never play my guitar IN FRONT OF people (girls). Good news is that if I get laid off, I'll have a whole lot more time for mudcat. However, if I ever get laid, I'll have less time again. ;) It was unacceptable for me to have let the search be broken for as long as it was. I am sorry. Instead of a contrived profile page, when one clicks to find out about a user, a compendium of their posts appears. Context. If you are legitimately interested in finding out about that person, you will read. If you read my profile page, you would see my turn-ons, my favorite color, an inspirational quote and a picture of my dog. If you read my posts you will find that I am a single father of 3 kids and a beagle. That I like to live in the woods. (Bullets, Bait & Broadband is my new motto) That I'm straight-up nutty for Reverend Gary Davis and Leadbelly. And that I am thoughtful and open minded about all things that I bother doing or speaking of. dick greenhaus is brief and wise. These are my 2 favorite things together next to warm cherry pie and cold vanilla ice cream. We do have a Facebook group with 565 members, photos, videos, events, chat... You want bells and whistles, come on over.
|
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: GUEST,Sheila Date: 12 Apr 10 - 11:17 PM Please, don't change a hair for me, not if you care for me.... stay, great Mudcat, stay. Each day is Mudcat Day. Sheila |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Richie Date: 12 Apr 10 - 11:05 PM Hey Max, The search is working TY. Richie |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Max Date: 12 Apr 10 - 10:31 PM I've really been enjoying this thread. It is an excellent example of how things are. 154 messages, and I haven't even said anything yet. It's easy to see how things get beyond a reasonable level of... Soon, all my time will be going to reading the next 154 messages. And if I made a single change, 500 more. I didn't want to speak up until I fixed the SuperSearch, which I have been working on since this thread started. I just finished it. Give it a whirl. Still may have a bug or two yet, but I'll keep fiddling till it's good. It will index daily now (soon?) so new messages will be in the results as well. As for all the other things, all I can say right now is that if new features were to be introduced, they would be in module form so that users could decide if they are present or not. There is a push right now, in the internet industry, of social features like member photos and mp3 uploading and the "latest features" being modular and designed to plugin to existing sites. If you've seen the Google friend connect thing popup on mudcat, that is me experimenting. The technology is close, and will be available as soon as IT is ready. Again, it won't change mudcat at all. No slowdown, nothing different, only features you can turn on if you want. And the fact that we are light, that is, mostly text, is very purposeful. I intend to be even lighter soon. Being readily available to any bandwidth or aged platform is at the very core of our mission. more later from the war... |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Apr 10 - 08:07 PM Max built Mudcat and a number of other Websites in the late 1990s using a Website database package called Cold Fusion, which he used extensively every day - and he knows Cold Fusion very well. A major redesign in the layout of Mudcat would most probably require purchasing and learning the workings of a new package, which probably would take a lot of a lot of time that Max doesn't have. Cold Fusion does have a nasty tendency to corrupt databases. The entire Forum had a crash in 2005, and every database we had was corrupted. Some databases, like member photos, were not repaired for years; and the search index has been corrupted and repaired over and over again over the years since 2005. The auction is another database that got corrupted, so it was taken out of service several months ago. So, we're on a bit of a thin thread. Somehow, though, we keep on keepin' on. And we ARE able do develop workarounds for most problems when Max doesn't have time to fix something. If there's something that you'd like or something broken that you need help with, just ask. We're glad to help when people ask. But the reality is that it will take a lot of money and a lot of time to do a major redesign. Max Spiegel is the owner and operator of Mudcat, and it's up to him to decide if and when to do a redesign. He's younger than most of us here (and young enough to be my kid), so he knows the priorities of young people. But I wouldn't ask him to do a redesign - that decision is up to him. But if you need help with something, give a holler. If you want to edit a message, post a corrected copy under the bad one, and we more-or-less automatically will delete the earlier copy. -Joe- joe@mudcat.org |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: ragdall Date: 12 Apr 10 - 06:36 PM This format is great! It's fast, it's easy. Posters can provide clickies to access any photos, music, etc., which can easily be stored on other servers at someone else's expense. Mudcat users have the choice of accessing or ignoring. Choice is a good thing, imho. rags |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: catspaw49 Date: 12 Apr 10 - 06:21 PM Hey man....It ain't ME doing the substituting its the Morris Dancers.........So what would else would you expect of them? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: gnu Date: 12 Apr 10 - 06:12 PM Glad? Glad? Any yet you would substitute lowly yak dung for far superior gnu dung. Are you shittin me? With freinds like you, who needs enemas? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: catspaw49 Date: 12 Apr 10 - 06:08 PM Aw geeziz..............Now ain't that great? Gnu agrees with me..................gawd, I must be righteously and truly fucked up.................***sigh***..........................oh well..................... Glad to have you aboard here gnu............ Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: gnu Date: 12 Apr 10 - 05:56 PM I'm with Spaw... except for the yak dung. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Apr 10 - 05:49 PM Being able to jump directly to a music or video example can enrich a post. It's easy enough for the person posting to stick in links that do this if they wish. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 12 Apr 10 - 04:50 PM I 'suspect' this would be difficult to code in this system Maybe it is in the present set up. It's a common feature of forum software though. You get a set time (or until your post is replied to) to edit your post . |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: catspaw49 Date: 12 Apr 10 - 04:41 PM I don't recall exactly when the Search went down but prior to that it was excellent. I haven't asked what or when but I miss it badly and the way it worked. I use several other forums and most are newer tech and yet the latest search function we had on the 'Cat was far superior to any of them. Fix the search and I'm a happy camper.........................except for my previous posts regarding trans-sexual cross dressing Albanian hat blockers doing nude Morris Dancing. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 12 Apr 10 - 04:03 PM Yes, thank you Dave and Dick, I DO use Preview. Thanks all the same but there's no need to tell me what I already know. However, mistakes still get through and I would still like to have had a limited editing time, OK? Thats what I want fergooneessakes. But if it can't be done, it can't be done. That's me done on this thread too. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: dick greenhaus Date: 12 Apr 10 - 02:40 PM Those that wish an editing feature should try out PREVIEW. Works like a charm. Or, just compose your vital message on Wordpad or a word processing program, and just copy and paste. I agree that the search could use some work (both in the threads and more particularly in the DT.) |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Rob Naylor Date: 12 Apr 10 - 02:07 PM Marilyn: Please don't change Mudcat. I subscribe to several other forums and find all the fancy graphics and gimmicks just get in the way. Mudcat is such a refreshing change from all that nonsense. People keep posting along thse lines DESPITE the fact that virtually no-one has suggested "fancy graphics and gimmicks". I'm not sure where you're all getting the idea that fixing some of the clunkiness and improving the search engine would automatically require the addition of fancy graphics, gimmicks and bling. It simply wouldn't. I'm at a loss to know why so many people here are so intent on negating suggestions that simply HAVEN'T BEEN MADE on this thread. Apologies for the "shouting", but it's becoming quite frustrating replying to comments that appear to have absolutely no basis in the direction the discussion's been going. Some people seem to be "hearing" only what they want to "hear". That's me done on this thread, I think. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: MMario Date: 12 Apr 10 - 01:08 PM users being able to edit their posts is something that irratates the h*eck out of me on some other forums. Becuase, no matter what people say, there is a high enough percentage of posters who remove or change enough content to derail the thread......and subsequent posts make no sense unless someone quoted the original. And yes, I've seen this on "limited time edit" forums and also on one where you cannot edit after an answer (because cross posting occurs) |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated? From: Bill D Date: 12 Apr 10 - 12:52 PM "limited editing time" I 'suspect' this would be difficult to code in this system. At present, it is much easier to just copy & paste a corrected post underneath, and someone can delete the original. This happens all the time with URLs...etc. |
| Share Thread: |