Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Sorcha
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 08:35 PM

Well, thank you, I'm sorry, etc, but a LOT of times when we ask we are just totally shut down. It seems to be more and more of a don't ask place.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: ranger1
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 08:39 PM

I think it depends on how politely the question is phrased.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 08:43 PM

Sorcha, you don't ask - you condemn. If you ask HOW to do something, we can figure out a way. If you ask WHY the search engine isn't fixed or why the graphic is missing for the photo buttons, what answer can we give you?

Basically, the answer to your "why" question is always the same - Max is overburdened with a lot of things and doesn't have the time he once had, and Jeff is gone completely. So yeah, things get broke and we can't fix 'em - but we CAN figure out workarounds, and we like doing that.

Maybe Jeri or somebody will have time to put photo buttons in the FAQ or somewhere. I'm tied up this weekend. Maybe we should have a PermaThread of Mudcat workarounds. You'd be amazed at the things that have been posted over the years. Hint: many are in the FAQ, particularly in the first ten messages.


-Joe-

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: melodeonboy
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 08:56 PM

Mudcat works for me as it is.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 09:01 PM

"I personally do not have a problem with "blue clickies", but from the number of postings with URLs in that do not link, a lot of people do.
Similarly, I don't have a problem with HTML, but others seem to, judging by some of the comments I have seen."

I see the ones you refer to, but I doubt that the solution is to 'automate' everything...I don't even know how much of the necessary HTML could BE automated. I know 'programs' which can do a lot of it (like Word...or even free programs like some of these... and clever little programs that will colorize your text
like hfc font colorizer ....and the wonderful live spell checker TinySpell ...or even sHTML for step saving.)

And.. I DO understand that some with learning problems like dyslexia do have real difficulties with spelling and related areas, but it makes me sad when folks will not even BOTHER with things like normal punctuation and capital letters...(OR WHO USE CAPS FOR EVERYTHING)...but Mudcat already does more than some sites.

...(and, as a side note, Max did experiment very early on with the idea of allowing folks to edit their own posts...for about a week. Then it became obvious that it would lead to various abuses. There are moderators who will correct serious errors...or, one can just C&P their post and correct it, and a mod will delete the bad one soon.)

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 09:31 PM

If we made HTML so easy that everyone could do it, how could Bill D show off?

Er....sorry, Bill.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Alice
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 09:43 PM

Don't mess with success!

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 09:44 PM

I have no problems with it as it is...it fits Luddites like me quite well.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 09:49 PM

Joe, the only thing with all caps is some visually impaired such as my sister find it much easier to read than upper and lower case.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 09:49 PM

"...but I still like the Filter best."

It's Filter Tips for you then!

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Artful Codger
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 10:39 PM

All the new-fangled features tend to increase load times--usually without any appreciable benefit. You, with the lastest and fastest teen toys, may not see much difference, but a great number of us would.

Furthermore, glitz features invite abuse. For the most part, I'm quite happy reading messages that consist only of text, without gratuitous "personalization" or foofiness that serves primarily to gratify the poster's need for attention--attention which is usually undeserved--not to assist the reader. If the latter were a priority to posters, they might take more care with their spelling, punctuation and capitalization, and avoid the trendy-but-distracting textese abbreviations.


There are only a few features that I would find desirable here:

* Allow one to upload/archive scans of scores. This should be a moderated feature, and messages should contain only links, not embedded images, so message load times remain unaffected and messages remain uncluttered. You usually only need to see an image once (if at all), or on demand.

* Similarly for sound recordings/MIDIs. As others have said, there are other services which support this and which can be linked. But there are folks (like me) who don't care to set up an account on these other venues just to post a sound clip now and then. One can email a MIDI to Joe, but it would be nice to have more automated support, and lots of folks don't know how to properly create ABCs or MIDIs of the tunes they know.

* Allow one to specify the input encoding for message text, so that text posted in foreign languages or from word processed text appears more reliably as intended.

* Have the 1-day message listing actually encompass a full 24-hour period (better still, 27). I nearly always have to switch the default search to 3-day to reliably see the new messages. Really, I'd like a 2-day setting, and for the time period setting to be sticky from session to session. It would also be handy to have a marker indicating the dividing point since your last listing.

* Provide a link in the message header or footer to the message itself, so one can more easily copy the link location of a message one is viewing for cross-linking in a new post. Currently, one can note the sender and date, scroll to the top, and copy the link from the date field of the corresponding entry in the list of messages, but a more direct means would be appreciated. (In fact, I only just figured this out this moment--doh!) One can also copy the "Printer Friendly" link, but it's more useful to others to have the message in the thread context, not in isolation (without even a link back to the thread).

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: catspaw49
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 10:51 PM

I still think we need more equality for all sides.   We don't have a special section for those with BO and we need one for at least one member. How else can we grow if all sides are not given a voice....or a stench?   I think we need to supply little Anne Frank Drums for the humor impaired and an additional translator for Brits and Americans.

Or we could just leave things alone except for trying to fix what's broke whenever da' Max lad gets a chance..................

Spaw

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 11:10 PM

"...some visually impaired ... find it much easier to read than upper and lower case."

The better solution to that is either enlarging the entire font size (in Opera, you can specify size & font for every area of the browser!), or using an area magnifier.... after all, most folks are not going to type in caps, and reading your own typing won't help much....unless I misunderstand the issue.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 11:13 PM

ummm... "how could Bill D show off?"

I show off by singing "The Key of R" ... ☺ ... offering HTML tips and clever programs is a 'public service'

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Mooh
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 11:28 PM

It's like this amazing public park, meeting place, and library where there are no worldly worries. I like it here a lot.

I do wish it did automatic blue clickies, and the forum search never works for me, but my Mum always said beggars can't be choosers, and Max is like a prince among commoners.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Kampervan
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 01:09 AM

Leave it alone.
Mudcat works cos it's run on a shoestring.

I don't know how Max and his helpers do it but they do.

There's hardly any advertising or pushy pop-ups; it's a nice (commercially) clean site.

Sure it's quirky, but all the more interesting for that. I don't want another Face book or Twitter or Bebo.

Mudcat is easy to understand and like it.

k/van

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: treewind
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 01:52 AM

"here is the kicker, photos, video, music ... they take space. Max would have to pay a much higher rate then he does right now to house all of that stuff."

Correct in principle, but it's usually bandwith, rather than storage, that's the dominating cost factor.

I'm with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" brigade, with a couple of qualifications/comments:

• A project as old as Mudcat can wind up with code so complex, because of all the tweaks and additions made over the years, that it becomes difficult to maintain.
• Whereas CMS (Content Management Systems) were quite hard to use a few years ago, they are becoming easier to use and more reliable and functional than they were, and many of the are free.
• Some desirable new features might be easier to do (available ready-made) with a CMS.
• For the DT, freely available web-linked database technology is possibly far better that whatever is being used now, which I believe is quite old software.

Against that is the enormous overhead of converting everything to a new system...
Anahata

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Rowan
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 02:09 AM

Before I joined Mudcat I knew nothing about HTML but I got onto the various HTML practice threads and learned heaps. I even made a Word document with them all in it to sit in a very accessible place and have sent it (along with the URL to the Blickyfier) to others with similar voids in their knowledge and I am still experimenting along lines that Joe once suggested.

I was taught to be careful with anything I composed for public attention and have learned to live with my errors. By and large, the current Mudcat does what I ask of it.

K.I.S.S. is a wonderful principle.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Haruo
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 02:12 AM

I would like to see it Unicode compliant, but other than that have no desire to see change. Face it, these are acoustic folks here.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Mr Red
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 06:43 AM

Of course it should change, and evolve. But who can afford the equipment, the time, and would we complain that it was no longer traditional?

It serves a need, and is well served by the membership. While Max keeps it going, that is sufficient. IMNSHO.

Thankyou Max.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 07:12 AM

Thanks Joe!
Thats the Issue with me- I would feel better about contributing if there was a downloadable DT that operated independently of the servers.
I would have no problem using a dos version. Yes it may be archaic but getting it out there in any form even a large text file would accomplish an important function.

Conrad

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Susanne (skw)
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 02:09 PM

Being on dialup, and hating having to learn about new software and things all the time, I like things to be kept simple. Also, I know it makes life easier for Max. Into my fifteenth year with Mudcat I've never ever missed anything very much. It provides an easy way for folk enthusiasts to communicate. Everything else is extra - not quite superfluous, but extra.

Please don't mess with it!

Having said that, I of course second any and every of catspaw's suggestions ...

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 03:45 PM

No! It's traditional...

:D (eG)

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 03:46 PM

LOL..if we all fall into Spaw's, Susanne, maybe he'll quit scratching up the litter!**bg**

Artful Codger, thanks for "foofiness!" Love that term!

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Sorcha
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 03:53 PM

OK, ok...the format is fine. I don't think it needs to be 'upgraded' as much as just repaired.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 03:54 PM

I just spent 20 minutes (on and off) typing why I hate other forum formats and how incredibly annoying all the whistles and bells are, then clicked "send".
Blowed if I know where it's gone...


Quack!
Geoff the Duck.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 03:56 PM

Echo- that old song with the line "It's good enough for me."

Fix Search, and no fancy stuff.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 04:13 PM

I've just been looking at another forum.
Every post is an individual entity opening in its own window. If somebody wants to reply to another posting, they end up quoting the whole content of the post, then make their "three word" comment.
What a waste of space!
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 04:15 PM

What's wrong with old-fashioned? Old-fashioned music, old-fashioned Mudcat.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Mooh
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 04:19 PM

Ah..the Tao of Mudcat.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 04:22 PM

Well, if I win $150 million in the Powerball lottery tonight, I'll hire Max a gofer to help out....

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 04:40 PM

Said this before: I'd like to see what you get everyplace else on interweb, and that's a PROFILE PAGE immediately accessible by simply *clicking on the posters name on any post they make in any thread.

The reasons this would be beneficial to all the folk musicians posting here on the biggest folk music forum on the web - with all it's Google and "share thread" stuff going on - aught to be utterly self evident. But just in-case it isn't, it equals instantaneous international advertising for anyone here who might want to include a link to their personal musical biography, their MySpace, or YouTube or their CD promotion site.

I really feel this site lets it's membership down here. Any other site on the interweb has a profile page offering such options as an *automatic default*. This is the only forum I know, that doesn't offer it as a standard feature, immediately accessible to any mildly curious party just happening to pass by.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 04:45 PM

EDIT:

Every other FREE site on the interweb I KNOW has a profile page offering such options as an *automatic default*. This is the only FREE forum I know, that doesn't offer it as a standard feature, immediately accessible to any mildly curious party just happening to pass by.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 05:56 PM

CS - any mudcatters who want to use the site for gratuitous self-publication have never had problems doing so.
Some of it is up-front - SHAMELESS SELF PROMOTION THREAD...
Others just use every posting they make as an advert for themself - Dick Miles is a current master of the technique.
Others on the forum welcome the security of relative obscurity, and the fact that we can tell people where we will be without also advertising to burglars, the fact that our home may be unoccupied on a specific date.
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Haruo
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 05:58 PM

There is a profile page for each member, but it basically just shows a list of their posts, e.g. when I click on McGrath's I am confronted with almost 33,000 links. I agree with Guest CS that profile pages would be nice.

Haruo

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 06:04 PM

CS - any mudcatters who want to use the site for gratuitous self-publication have never had problems doing so.
Some of it is up-front - SHAMELESS SELF PROMOTION THREAD...
Others just use every posting they make as an advert for themself - Dick Miles is a current master of the technique.
Others on the forum welcome the security of relative obscurity, and the fact that we can tell people where we will be without also advertising to burglars, the fact that our home may be unoccupied on a specific date.

Geoff,

a) Sure, long term regular users may know of the SHAMELESS thread which you have to choose to specifically access (not really the way advertising usually works). I've been here over a year and only recently noticed it, and probably won't avail myself of it too often. But casual passers by, interested by all the Google & Share Thread addititions stuff won't be aware of that thread.

b) The security comes in the free choice (available in all forums) not to divulge personal info!

Woof ;-)

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 06:20 PM

It's the difference between the fraction of a second's click of a mouse, and a passing Googler thinking "Hmm I wonder if there's a members page somewhere? Now, where would that be?" ... then them actively searching for a members page, discovering it and accessing the desired members info ... meanwhile most internet users are long gone off to somewhere more clickable.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 06:29 PM

But isn't that like waving a stick in front of a puppy. They only bite at it because you are waving it. Put it down in a corner and you prove they are really not interested...?
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 06:31 PM

It's the content of a thread that is interesting, not what unsubstantiated and invented rubbish a poster can put in a profile.
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 06:37 PM

"But isn't that like waving a stick in front of a puppy. They only bite at it because you are waving it. Put it down in a corner and you prove they are really not interested...?"

Err, no. Advertising is all about encouraging folk who might be otherwise uncertain, to take a look!

All I'm saying is that every other internet forum on the web, has a Profile Page accessible at the click of a posters name, as standard.

So, here of all places (especially as Max has promoted the maximum internet exposure of 'Google Search' and 'Share Thread' elements) it aught to be appreciated by the numerous artists who are members & contribute regularly!

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 06:41 PM

"not what unsubstantiated and invented rubbish a poster can put in a profile."

Sure, but crap gets posted all the time by GUESTS here. Personally I'd be in favour of Members only (CS = Crowsister in absence btw.) like you have at other forums.

I do sometimes wonder how much other stuff peeps do online here? It is indeed the land that the internet forgot.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Suegorgeous
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 07:29 PM

I like the simplicity and accessibility of Mudcat. I sometimes wish there was just a little less tolerance of abusive/offensive material.

What I think is REALLY great is the complete lack of the annoying ads and pop-ups that have taken over so many sites.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 10:19 PM

I am still very concerned about our lack of outreach to all those out there who may need this folk forum. I am very troubled that the size of Mudcat has allowed a bully pulpit. So let's have more content for trans-sexual cross dressers and egg addicted necrophiliacs with a passion for English Concertinas.

And let's send the little Anne Frank Drum Kits to every poster who suggests that the meaning of folk has any meaning.


Spaw

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 11:34 PM

But it might not be appreciated, Spaw:

...it aught to be appreciated by the numerous artists who are members & contribute regularly!

??? Not sure what you meant, CS, as the artists members I know of seem to be very appreciative of Mudcat.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: GUEST,Tom F
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 12:50 AM

In my occasional visits to this forum, I appreciate the information and especially the incredible, and sometimes esoteric, knowledge of the posters. None of that would be lost in a newer format. Neither does a newer format mean there would necessarily be pop-up ads. That is an independent decision.

In terms of ease of maintenance, one of the attractions of newer tools is that they have automated a lot of features as well as adding new ones. Generally speaking, with computer technology, maintaining old systems just gets harder over time as the external environment advances. In the production IT environments I work in, we generally find that being more than two versions behind current increases workload more than upgrading. What this means in terms of Mudcat would require specific analysis of the tool sets in use.

As far as the value of an update, I think embedding adds a lot to the newer sites. Being able to jump directly to a music or video example can enrich a post. I notice several posts say, "leave it alone, except for (insert poster's particular interest here)."

Possibly the biggest issue is whether the site wants to attract a new and younger audience. Based on many years of experience managing technology for university students, I can say with confidence that today's college-age generation (at least in the US) expects a certain level of graphics and a richer tool set. Creating rich media is second nature to many of them.

We are at the early stage of yet another major advance in web-based technology roughly equivalent to the development of the graphical user interface. Newer tools, such as wordpress, will probably adapt to these new developments. Sites built on older technology will be ill-equipped to adapt. As one example, think how visualizations based on geo-tagging and mapping could enrich discussions of folk tradition by graphically showing how lyric variations have spread. New tools are making visualization available to everyone. Text will remain important, but it will no longer be the nearly exclusive means for dialogue that it has been.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Gurney
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 01:31 AM

I like the status quo, and I don't want Mudcat so complicated that it goes down. I get withdrawal syndrome.
The only change I'd like is for the logic to be a bit furrier when I search for a thread or song.
If anyone wants a spellchecker, there is one on some browsers (Opera's is a bit simple, though)and the free download of Wordweb sits on the toolbar and is pretty complete, with both English and American spelling. It's a dictionary rather than a spellchecker.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Paul Reade
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 05:12 AM

Thanks Tom F. That's just the sort of thing I envisaged when I started this thread.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 06:42 AM

I'm really ambivalent about this, as a new Mudcatter.

On the one hand, the setup is very simple. So simple in fact that when I'm at work, the site isn't recognised by our corporate servers as a "social networking, discussion group or personal site" and is therefore not blocked.

So I can look at it at lunch times and when I take a coffee break, unlike almost all the other sites I use :-). And it's packed full of so much information (as long as you can find it)!

On the other hand, I do find the user interface antediluvian...even more so than, say, the Compuserve Forums I used to use back in the late 1980s. Therefore encouraging young people to use it may prove very difficult. My elder daughter took one look and said, "bleugh, I'm never going there again".

So I have this image of the user community here ageing and eventually dying out with little or no young blood coming in, which I think will be a great shame. Youngsters simply will not use the site in significant numbers. I fully agree with Tom F on that.

I appreciate the problems of operating and maintaining a resource/ discussion site like this on a voluntary basis as I ran sites for a "Learned Society" and for a climbing club myself for several years back in the mid 90s...but I do wonder how many people under 40, or even under 50, are members here, or use the site regulary?

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 07:01 AM

Both Rob's and Tom F's excellent posts have given me a lot of food for thought. How much of our status-quo-ism could simply be hidden technophobia, or rather, techno-reluctance? It takes time to learn new stuff, and who has that to spare? My own computer skills are adequate for what I do, but they're basic. I don't push the boundaries of user-dom so probably don't know what I'm missing regarding the "richer tool set" that is second nature to the kids. (I'm a Baby-Boomer, like so many of us here.) It's a point to ponder.

Rob, when your daughter went "bleahhh" and said she wasn't coming back again, was it because of the website architecture itself, or something in the threads that she didn't like? Some of the "bully pulpit" ones (nice phrase, Spaw) would definitely put off newbies of any age. Also (if you don't mind telling us) how old is your daughter? Not trying to grill you, just curious. The age-gap is certainly a factor in folk music itself. Unfortunately.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Suegorgeous
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 07:02 AM

Tom F

Sorry, but while I can see that you make what are probably good and useful points, I think you may have rather shot yourself in the foot! I'm very computer-literate, but I don't understand a lot of the terms you use, and others may not either(?). For example, I have no idea what this actually means:

"...think how visualizations based on geo-tagging and mapping could enrich discussions of folk tradition by graphically showing how lyric variations have spread...."

... so I have no idea if I want it or not!

Maybe if you could explain these benefits in more everyday non-jargon language, some of us non-programmer types might agree with some of what you suggest...

Thanks
Sue