Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Suegorgeous
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 07:04 AM

...I don't even know what "visualizations" in this context means...

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 07:30 AM

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.

It was definitely the website architecture. There's nothing in the threads on here that comes remotely close to the sort of stuff she sees on other forums. It was things like having to "make a blue clicky" to post a link, or use HTML to embolden or italicise something.

She's 21. Her generation (unless they're web developers) have never encountered HTML, and "expect" features like posting links directly just to "be there". Other sites I (and she) use just recognise a URL and make the link automatically, for example. Her generation don't necessarily have short attention spans (I've seen her working for hours, totally engrossed in book research, when writing History essays) but they are truly impatient, in spades, when it comes to technology. A lot of her mates won't even bother using a site if it takes more than a second or two to load...they'll just move on to something else. I've seen them gasp in frustration and move on to something else when it's barely registered with me that a load is in progress!

And there definitely seems to be a folk revival among more "musically discerning" youngsters...most of the bands her friends play in do quite "folky" stuff. More Fairport Convention than Copper Family, true, but they're leaning in the direction. More of them are ripe for "connecting with tradition" but if the tools available for doing it are too archaic (in their eyes) they simply won't.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Suegorgeous
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 07:38 AM

Great and clear explanation, Rob, thanks.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 03:27 PM

Rob Naylor reported:

More of them (young adults) are ripe for "connecting with tradition" but if the tools available for doing it are too archaic (in their eyes) they simply won't.

Most of the modifications I've seen suggested in this thread (search improvements excepted), if I understand what's being advocated, would turn ME off, just like the interface at FaceBook and MySpace (neither of which I use any more, after a fairly short try) and a lot of other sites.

Most particularly, what I like at Mudcat is the immediate listing of current threads, and easy movement "downstream" within a given thread once I've opened it. In many other sites, it's difficult to find out what's available. And a given subject or post takes up too much screen space because of excess reliance on visual features, when what I want is just the text, like Mudcat.

If there were modifications a la many of the suggestions, I'm sure I would come on board Mudcat far less frequently, and with less pleasure.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 05:02 PM

I don't think it's an "either/ or". Some things could be improved without losing the essential "textiness" of the forum.

As I said above, how many Mudcatters are under 50? I know I'm not :-)

Certainly, the site could stay exactly as it is, but the number of new, younger, users would be very small, and eventually all we oldsters will disappear into the woodwork leaving a site with almost no users.

Just consider that my older daughter's boyfriend is in a folk band that were auditioned for the Glastonbury "Up & Coming" stage, 2 of her best friends at university are in a folk band auditioned for the same thing, and 2 of her best friends from school are in a folk-ish band that actually passed the audition for Glastonbury, and I think we can see that we're cutting off a significant potential new "constituency" by keeping it "not fixed". OK, what they're playing is not "strict" folk (some of it is folk-rock) but they're ripe for learning and developing in that direction.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Paul Reade
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 05:21 PM

"...but the number of new, younger, users would be very small, and eventually all we oldsters will disappear into the woodwork ..." . Bit like Folk Clubs really!

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: bobad
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 06:02 PM

I must say that Rob Naylor makes some very good points.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Joe_F
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 06:15 PM

I agree with Rob and/or his daughter in finding the blue-clicky routine rather a kluge. In fact, I have made a note of what it does, and I just key in the "...href..." stuff by hand. It would indeed be still nicer if -- as in (pardon the expression) Facebook -- the machinery itself recognized URLs & turned them into links.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 07:24 PM

"It would indeed be still nicer if .... the machinery itself recognized URLs & turned them into links."

That is the one change I'd be willing to see....sadly, there are 'some' who flatly refuse to TRY to learn to make one.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 08:14 PM

I would agree with Bill on that one but I think we need to address the needs of geriactric Albanian hat blockers who cannot stop whistling during intercourse and are fanatical about Morris Dancing naked while smeared with Marmite and yak dung.   

Spaw

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Artful Codger
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 08:46 PM

Most of the people who post here, regardless of age or computer experience, are too casual in their posting to even embrace the techie features that already exist, or to learn the trivial HTML codes for simple formatting. So I seriously doubt they'd put in the extra intelligence needed to effectively support geo-tagging and other such fancy features.

Advocates of "progress" always cite the potential of new technologies, while ignoring that these wonder features seldom live up to the hype. Experience has shown time and again that these features are more likely to be used to ANNOY the user base, or to complicate the user interface with doohickies, abbreviations and techiespeak. Instead of enriching our lives, they tend to just waste our time.

Advocates also ignore that each site tends to implement the same features differently, and to change their interface with annoying frequency. Lack of consistency and interface thrashing are among the most frequent complaints I hear from mature users--those who have seen enough of these "advancements" unleashed to groan when a new one is touted.

The demographic here is influenced less by the "dated" presentation than by that fact that folkies do tend to be older people. Cater to the glitz-oriented younger crowd, and you'll mainly chase away the older folks who make this site a content-rich success. We LIKE the fact that the interface is straight-forward, uncluttered, content-focused and devoid of glitz. We like that you don't have to be a techno-nerd to understand most of the features. Let us have our little oasis of sanity amid a world gone berserk with meaningless "presentation".

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: GUEST,Tom F
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 08:54 PM

I apologize if I used unfamiliar terminology in my post. I guess being around technology so much of the time has taken its toll.   Basically, visualizations turn data into pictures. People are familiar with charts and graphs, which are common enough but were very time-consuming to produce before the computer. But new forms of visualizations are being created too. Here are a couple examples.

This first example is a word cloud, which is, in a sense, a picture of a concordance. This one is based on word frequencies in the sacred harp. I find it interesting that "sinner" is not more prominent.

http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/visualizations/sacred-harp-word-list

This next one is a chart but with time as an animated variable. I've often wondered with all the problems and disparities in the world if we are making any progress at all. This visualization shows that progress has occurred in life expectancy and that it is not limited to the wealthy countries, even though disparities exist throughout the decades presented.

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/200-years-that-changed-the-world/

I don't have access to a slow connection to test these, but I suspect they may not work well on dial-up.

Tools that create these visualizations do not need to be on discussion boards, but I think increasingly people on discussion boards will want to embed these graphical "arguments" (created elsewhere) into their posts. For Mudcat, the more pertinent examples probably would be to embed a music or video example in a note. This is routine at boards such as the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum.

I wanted to illustrate this point because I had not explained it well; however, my main point continues to center on the matter of whether MudCat wants to appeal to a younger, computer literate generation. There is a lot of information here that is worth preserving, I think.

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

Very interesting thread. Happy to see it is still running.
No further comments.
Beer (adrien)

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Melissa
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 09:53 PM

It surprises me to see talk of prettying-up the site to look more appealing to younger folks. The info/discussion/music here isn't mainstream and I guess it strikes me as strange to think of Mudcat looking like a trendy mainstream site.

I don't know where/how the rest of you got your music, but my path wasn't mainstream or trendy and I'm not sure I'd appreciate the experience as much if it was handed to me without Me having to adjust myself to becoming absorbent.
Do you think making this look like other sites would enhance what we've got going here? Isn't it ok for youngers to go to some effort to learn how to learn/participate on a site that doesn't look like the ones they're used to seeing?

Those youngsters are hypothetical.
Is there anything wrong with having a site that's comfortable to most of the members who are here now?

Max will fancify it when the time comes and I'm content waiting until then. I'm in no hurry to see the discussions filled up with cute little smileys, flyby text-talk and teenage code. I prefer conversations that involve full words and complete sentences.


(probably not phrased clearly..but it's a sincere question)

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Maryrrf
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 10:21 PM

Whether or not the technology is old, I don't see any problem with Mudcat. The layout is such that it is easy to view the current threads, and even though the search function is sporadic, I have no problem using the filter if I want to find something. Links aren't automatic, but it doesn't take a genius to do a blue clicky, and for those who can't manage it - it's rare that another catter doesn't step in and fix it for them. Mudcat isn't mainstream or trendy - so be it. I rather like our cozy little community, and I don't see why anybody would be deterred by the format. Do we really need profiles, emoticons, etc.?   I don't think so.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Beer
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 10:35 PM

Melissa,Maryrrf, you two I agree with a hundred and fifty percent. Very, very well said.
ad.

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

Joe: I e-mailed you about my account, but you haven't replied - and from the tone of your comments I imagine that you either haven't seen it or read it.

RobN: "As I said above, how many Mudcatters are under 50? I know I'm not :-)"

I'm one, but I'm definitely in a minority.

"Certainly, the site could stay exactly as it is, but the number of new, younger, users would be very small, and eventually all we oldsters will disappear into the woodwork leaving a site with almost no users."

I think this is true.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 03:35 AM

Melissa: It surprises me to see talk of prettying-up the site to look more appealing to younger folks. The info/discussion/music here isn't mainstream and I guess it strikes me as strange to think of Mudcat looking like a trendy mainstream site.

Very few people are talking about prettying it up. It's the CLUNKINESS that's putting off young people (the young people who *aren't* into mainstream music but who nevertheless expect a certain level of performance from their technology...such as auto-linking and auto-quoting).

Those youngsters are hypothetical.
Is there anything wrong with having a site that's comfortable to most of the members who are here now?

.....I'm in no hurry to see the discussions filled up with cute little smileys, flyby text-talk and teenage code. I prefer conversations that involve full words and complete sentences.

Well there are loads of threads here bemoaning the fact that young people don't seem to appreciate folk music, or that very few youngsters attend sessions, etc. Some of my posts above point out that there *is* a constituency of youngsters that are into this type of music, but that they don't find the "scene" very welcoming (whether on-line or offline). So they're off doing their own thing, when with a *little* effort at welcome from those of us already there, they'd happily embrace the traditions.

And the ones I'm referring to aren't into text-talk, fly-bys etc anyway. In fact *I* used "txt spk" on my mobile phone many years ago, when there was no predictive text and you were limited to 128 characters in an SMS. I also used it in dial-up Bulletin Boards back in the 80s, again, to save time/ bandwidth. A lot of it derives from telex shorthand. My kids find it *quaint*...they use full words and sentences on their phones, for example, because predictive text makes it easier to do that than painstakingly enter, say, C U L8r!

Tom F: ...however, my main point continues to center on the matter of whether MudCat wants to appeal to a younger, computer literate generation.

In some ways, they're *less* computer literate than those of us who've been using computers for 30+ years. That's why they're looking for automated linking and auto-quoting (ie differentiating a quote from a previous message automatically rather than, as I've had to do here, go through putting in HTML tags). They mainly don't even know of HTML, for instance, whereas my generation of computer-users is generally quite comfortable with it, because we *had* to use it in the early days.

Maryrrf: Links aren't automatic, but it doesn't take a genius to do a blue clicky, and for those who can't manage it - it's rare that another catter doesn't step in and fix it for them. Mudcat isn't mainstream or trendy - so be it. I rather like our cozy little community, and I don't see why anybody would be deterred by the format.

That's a bit of an "argument from incredulity". My daughter is definitely deterred by the clunkiness and what she pervceives as "user unfriendliness". She simply finds things like embedding HTML tags, having to actually "make" a link, and the very crude search facilities extremely frustrating...I was just getting: "why? That's crazy....everywhere else in the universe just embeds links automatically".

Imagine yourself as a driver, used to getting into your car and turning a key to start it (or, often these days, putting a card in a slot and entering a code). Then you're faced with a car where, to get it to run, you have to open the bonnet (hood), prime the carburettor, position the exhaust valve lifter, manually set the piston locations then close the bonnet and go around to the front of the vehicle, insert a cranked handle into a slot and turn over the engine by hand to start it. All while it's raining hard. Fine for a laugh, but you wouldn't want to have to do it every time you wanted to make a journey, when every other car you know of starts with a simple key turn.

That's what using this site feels like to them. They're absolutely NOT after glitz,and I see poster after poster above making this "straw man" arument. I can't see anywhere where people above advocating change have suggested making the site "whizzy" or "trendy"...just useable to people who expect a certain level of automation in their technology.

The "cozy little community" is fine now, but if it doesn't attract younger people, it'll die, like all the Newsgroups I used to use did, as people drifted away. The Newsgroup "rec.climbing.uk" used to be a vibrant community...then the younger ones moved over to "ukclimbing.com" as it was easier to use the forums there. The middle-aged ones missed the youngsters and mainly followed, leaving a rump of "don't see why we need to change" people who eventually, one by one, abandoned the group as the traffic diminished to the level where it wasn't worth looking at more than once every couple of weeks. Then not at all. Very sad, as the thread histories there contained a wealth of useful information.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Melissa
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 04:52 AM

What's auto-quote, Rob?
Does it copy the entire text of the post you are responding to?

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 05:16 AM

"predictive text makes it easier to do that"

Hahahaha! I find typing on my mobile in full easier (and faster) than trying to negotiate that interface...

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 05:49 AM

Just to respond to the 'blue clicky' and other HTML-ish trouble some seem to find hard to overcome: there's an add-on for Firefox BBcode Xtra that makes it very easy to add either simple Bulletin Board code or HTML for use in different forum formats (I (over-) used a few above, only two mouse-clicks)

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 05:55 AM

When used to 'regular' forum software Mudcat is indeed a bit bare and ponderous, with a non-functioning search function and all that.

There's a lot to be said for allowing (a limited) time to edit posts for typos, inserting images, easier to handle link insertion etc. Most forums allow you to see (more) quickly where and how many new posts have been made, how many people are actually reading the thread, which is useful.

It works as it is, yes, but that doesn't mean it can't move with the times and work a lot better.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 06:16 AM

Yes - limited editing time pleeeeeeasssee!! I keep seeing typo errors or word-repetitions, which magically only seem to appear to me AFTER I've submitted my eternal pearls of widsom.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 06:33 AM

"The "cozy little community" is fine now, but if it doesn't attract younger people, it'll die,"

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.

That's not intended to diss. the older members. As my interest is in traditional unaccompanied singing, I was interested specifically in learning *from* the older members who post (the old traddies here) - but I think I'm probably quite unusual for someone in their 30's/20's or younger, who might be generally curious about folk music and interested in joining a folk music forum.

I doubt I'd have bothered with the site myself if I was just looking to chat about 'folk music' in general, rather than speak specifically to people with experience and knowledge of traditional singing. If I was interested in 'folk music' and especially the stuff being put out by young artists today, I'd probably have looked elsewhere.

The site is very cumbersome and disjointed, it is something the average young punter will go "wtf?" at, and sail on by (I initially went "wtf?" at it, but didn't sail on by for reasons stated). But I think attracting younger members, is possibly not something that the folks here are too bothered about - it would inevitably change the feel of the place if the membership included lots more young people, and I imagine that might not be desired? And indeed, I guess that's fair enough.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 07:03 AM

Foolestroupe: "predictive text makes it easier to do that"

Hahahaha! I find typing on my mobile in full easier (and faster) than trying to negotiate that interface...

I used to find that was the case on my old Nokia 6310...the predictive text was truly appalling. However, for the last 4-5 years, the Nokia predictive text system has been excellent. Far quicker than trying to do txt spk shortcuts.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 07:16 AM

Crow sister: 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.

Exactly. All they want is hassle-free navigation/ use....I don't know where these "straw man" ideas that they want "bling" and "glitz" come from

Crow Sister: The site is very cumbersome and disjointed, it is something the average young punter will go "wtf?" at, and sail on by (I initially went "wtf?" at it, but didn't sail on by for reasons stated). But I think attracting younger members, is possibly not something that the folks here are too bothered about - it would inevitably change the feel of the place if the membership included lots more young people, and I imagine that might not be desired? And indeed, I guess that's fair enough.

You stuck with it because your motivation to learn from the older community overcame your "wtf-ness". My kids are probably a decade to a decade and a half younger than you, and consequently have even less patience than you in a site with a high level of "clunkiness". You probably at least came across HTML in your introduction to computing. My youngest (17) had never even heard of it until last night, though she spends hours on the computer every day. It's just a tool to her, and like a toaster or an oven, she expects it to work intuitively!

Maybe you're right about younger members not being particularly wanted (they're certainly not *understood* judging by some of the comments here)...but I find that a shame. I've always been against "age-group ghetto-isation". Most of my climbing and music companions are in their 20s and 30s and a look at my Facebook Friends list will show a broad range of (unrelated peoples') ages from early 20s to late 70s...which is the way I like it. Cross-generational fertilisation of knowledge and ideas (in both directions) is something very close to my heart.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: GUEST,Rob Naylor
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 07:22 AM

The two posts above are mine, too, sorry: I'm on a different computer and didn't remember!

Peter Laban: There's a lot to be said for allowing (a limited) time to edit posts for typos, inserting images, easier to handle link insertion etc. Most forums allow you to see (more) quickly where and how many new posts have been made, how many people are actually reading the thread, which is useful.

It works as it is, yes, but that doesn't mean it can't move with the times and work a lot better.

Exactly. and I believe that's ALL that most of those who are pro an update are looking for....and a simple, functional search facility, of course! I'm astounded that stuff I search for here, using several of the options, and often with very specific wording, doesn't show at all, yet a more general query on Google will often flag several Mudcat items at the top of the listing. In fact, I go to Google first now!

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 08:46 AM

"You probably at least came across HTML in your introduction to computing. My youngest (17) had never even heard of it until last night, though she spends hours on the computer every day. It's just a tool to her, and like a toaster or an oven, she expects it to work intuitively!"

Rob, I'm not any different to your daughter - took some piccies with my DSLR the other day. Plugged it into the Mac. Photo's uploaded in nice orderly dated files all magically by themselves! No mess no fuss no hassle, job done. That's my idea of 'computing'!

"I've always been against "age-group ghetto-isation". Most of my climbing and music companions are in their 20s and 30s ... Cross-generational fertilisation of knowledge and ideas (in both directions) is something very close to my heart."

I'd agree with this too. And I certainly think a broader diversity in the age-range of regular posters would benefit the site overall.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Mr Red
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 09:03 AM

Ain't no-one (other than Max) heard the acronym KISS?

My contention after 40 years programming (is FORTRAN archaic enough for you?) that: "complexity" rises to the square of the number of lines (or elements).

The more you do, the even more (to the square law) you have to check. If you don't believe me - just look at Micro$oft's record on bug fixes.

There are those that disagree with the square law, and put it at cubic or quartic. All I would say in that respect is: the number of failure modes is exceedingly vast by comparison with the successful functionality you wanted in the first place. And you can't imagine all of the failure mechanisms in advance - it is people dependant and there are a lot of people out there!

Max does what he can based on resources, not ability (IMNSHO).

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: GUEST,Rob Naylor
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 10:10 AM

I appreciate that this site is maintained on a voluntary basis, and that those involved with it also have to earn a living.

I also agree with keeping it simple... but not so simple that it actually becomes more complex for users who are perhaps patient with "clunkiness" than those of us who grew up when *everything* in the computer world was clunky.

And I too programmed in FORTRAN, once upon a time, so I know how complexity can mushroom. I also know that modern PLs can be a lot easier to use than FORTRAN, which is why I haven't touched it for 15 years.

These days there are a lot of standard routines and modules available which could be used for some of the suggested enhancements. It's not as if (despite the comments from some) anyone's suggesting an all-singing/ dancing Java-based site with animations, glitz and bling all over it.

A few robust mods would do it. Done whenever Max can fit them in...but not so far into the future that all we geriatrics have died off and there's only tumbleweed blowing amongst the headstones in here.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: GUEST,Rob Naylor
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 10:11 AM

EDIT: perhaps less patient with "clunkiness".....

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

I doubt that a slicker site would attract anyone to folk music. And I suspect that, if you are a folkie, the slickness (or lack of same) in a site makes much difference.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: MMario
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 11:04 AM

it was posted:
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.

IN my mind, the inability of the mildly curious to see profile pages is a benefit.

There are a lot of forum sites that I cannot view over the connection at home; it is just too slow (and at that it is much faster then the dial up we were limited to until recently)

Others that I used to visit have upgraded so that many of the features will not work with the versions of software I use.

And broken as it is, mudcatg search still turns up information for me mor consistantly then the searches on any other forum I frequent.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 11:21 AM

"Max does what he can based on resources, not ability (IMNSHO)."

Sure, I don't think anyone's knocking Max's abilities here! (Isn't he some kinda tech guru or something?) But while it's no doubt a big piss-off to hear dissenting voices from cocky newbs. like me, I also think Max is stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to the community's attachment to an antiquated format. An attachment that is arguably based on very long-term familiarity and personal comfort arising from that, rather than it's genuine user-friendliness.

A newcomer won't have that same sense of comfort from familiarity that members who've been here for a decade or more will have, and the same features that make them feel comfy and at home, arguably makes the site spiky and uncomfortable to anyone who hasn't already long ago settled in to their favourite arm-chair here.

I raised the profile thing earlier that MMario has just mentioned again above, that too makes a site friendly to newcomers because people don't have to wade through millions of links to get a handle on those personalities who regularly post - or indeed discover membership pages through trial & error. Though, in line to most forums, access to such pages is probably best kept as a membership perk. It took me a long time to find out who the people were that post here, and although some like Dick Miles do bung up the odd (and appreciated I might add) YouTube, I still don't really know what music most of them play.

Otherwise, I think Rob's right. If the formula isn't refreshed, the site will fade with the current membership (a bit like folk clubs someone else said - good analogy). I guess the bottom line is, whether or not that would bother anyone.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 12:02 PM

Another suggestion flagged up elsewhere by Kat I think? Was the idea of an (optional) small annual fee for members who could then take advantage of certain perks like no adverts etc.

I think she made a good suggestion there which could suit many all round - membership and management alike - including potentially eliminating the necessity for irregular donation drives.

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 12:34 PM

Bonnie Shaljean, in an anguished mood, said:

Yes - limited editing time pleeeeeeasssee!! I keep seeing typo errors or word-repetitions, which magically only seem to appear to me AFTER I've submitted my eternal pearls of widsom.

The editing function is already there, if you care to use it. It's called "Preview".   Just check the box, and submit. You're shown exactly what will be on screen for readers.

I almost always use Preview, and quite commonly find things I want to clean up (like typos, word repetitions, and spellings, and including changing whole sections if I didn't say things clearly) before actually submitting.

Waddaya want, fergooneessakes?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat be updated?
From: Marilyn
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 12:48 PM

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.

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 06:21 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: 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