|
21 May 97 - 03:09 PM (#5500) Subject: Threadiquette and a few requests From: LaMarca Since the April (May) version of DT is imminent, I have a wish list of a few things for Dick, Max et al. to help folks here in the threads and elsewhere: 1. Can we get a direct link to the DT database from the thread page? When someone replies to a request "It's in the DT", I think that the questioner may not necessarily know about the DT or how to get there. A link on the thread page would help. 2. Can you post a few simple instructions on naming threads and submitting them to reduce poorly named postings and multiple postings (both topics of discussion over the past couple months)? A button/link labelled "Instructions" or "Help" to an instruction page would help those who are new and aren't genetically incapable of reading directions...(Why did Moses and the Israelites wander for 40 years? HE didn't want to stop and ask directions...) 3. Can there be something on the thread list page that specifically says "Folk Music"? I don't want to get into an argument here again about what folk music is or isn't, but the title "Mudcat Discussion Forum" doesn't give newcomers any clue that this is mostly a folk-oriented page. Many, many arguments about whether specific requests are appropriate or not would be eliminated if the discussion page actually said SOMETHING about being related to folk music, and cross referenced the DT database (see request #1). (Although, come to think of it, the arguments are almost as much fun as the song finding...) 4. Threadiquette: This forum, even with the above-mentioned arguments on the nature of folk music and which songs are appropriate requests, is usually fairly civil. I've noticed a somewhat nasty trend in tone in some threads, though, and have a final, uncivil request for civility: If you aren't willing to take credit/resposibility for your criticisms, nasty comments or flippant remarks, DON'T SEND THEM! If you have qualms about attaching your name to your response, you should have qualms about sending it, too. Only flaming assholes flame anonymously. Thank you; the soapbox is available for the next diatribe (with appropriate attribution, of course). M. LaMarca, lamarca@codon.nih.gov, (your tax dollars not at work...) |
|
21 May 97 - 03:54 PM (#5501) Subject: RE: Threadiquette and a few requests From: dick greenhaus Points well taken, Mary. We're trying to get around to having a "from the management" box that doesn't become submerged like thread postings do. Re "folk", I confess to bafflement. I don't KNOW what I want to include (athough I know lots that I DON'T). Trouble is, the DT (hopefully) if for the ages; and at least some of todays pop is tmorrow's folk. Which is more than I can say for some of today's "folk". My instinct is to post a heading ("folk and folkish") not restrict anything, and try to guide people into sant thread titles and requests. But that's just me. Anyone else have some thoughts? dick greenhaus (No dollars, hard at work)
|
|
22 May 97 - 07:23 AM (#5523) Subject: RE: Threadiquette and a few requests From: Ralph Butts Dick.....Personally, I like your "If you build it, they will come" philosophy. I think a few caveats in the header are in order, and definitely a hot link to the DT search page. Happy, but blinded by good vibes when I can answer a request, I sometimes forget to check the database, too. I'd like to stress the folk, too, but would hate to waste the talents of the best group of song finders (or instant-recall collectors) I can imagine. The interrelationships of the music genres, the historical threads, are what music appreciation is all about. If we learn more about what makes music tick, we can write more erudite opinions in the "What is folk music?" discussions. ....Tiger |
|
22 May 97 - 08:39 AM (#5527) Subject: RE: Threadiquette and a few requests From: Rodney Rawlings I keep telling myself to delete Mudcat from my bookmarks, because though I find it interesting here, I am not that attracted to folk. But I find the discussion of songs I am interested in so informative and interesting that I keep coming back. I am therefore happy Mr. Greenhaus has decided to be inclusive, even when a topic is clearly not folk. Despite this inclusiveness, it seems that this forum has retained its folk focus. And as someone once said here, one can simply ignore threads that don't concern one. And this is one more reason to put SONG TITLES in the subject lines, or at least something specific. |
|
22 May 97 - 08:40 AM (#5528) Subject: RE: Threadiquette and a few requests From: Bert Hansell I completely agree with Dick that " at least some of todays pop is tomorrow's folk" In fact I would go further and state that folk singers have a 'duty' to sing the songs that 'they like', so that future generations will have folk songs from this generation. One opinion that I have seen expressed several time is that "people should look in the database before posting a thread. I don't really agree with that. I tend to look in the database only for songs that I remember. Many a thread has reminded me of a song that I had forgotten had existed; even though it was in the database. I follow ALL threads, even if I am not particularlly interested to start with, some of them branch off unexpectedly and turn up a real gem. I try to keep in mind, that many a 'sharp' remark is not really intended, but is more a result of the lack of ability to show expression electronically. You can't see that someone has a grin on their face so just assume that they have. Bert. |
|
22 May 97 - 09:11 AM (#5530) Subject: RE: Threadiquette and a few requests From: lindahl@pbm.com It would be really nice if bad subjects could be corrected by someone to be more relevant ones. |
|
22 May 97 - 09:51 AM (#5533) Subject: RE: Threadiquette and a few requests From: Peter Timmerman Well, as a beneficiary, I agree with most of the above. I certainly think there should be something short and sweet at the top, e.g. Remember to try the database first!" Not to get too deep into the inclusion/exclusion mine field, I also rather like the "folk or folkish" suggestion. No one knows what "folkish" means, but it is appropriately ambiguous without being threatening. How about "folk or folkish preferred?" Yours, Peter |
|
22 May 97 - 10:53 AM (#5540) Subject: RE: Threadiquette and a few requests From: Bill D Ahem!...(dragging LaMarca's soapbox to the center of the room)...I know that the direct links back & forth to the database & the discussion forum are simply a matter of the management (Mudcat...not Dick G.) deciding to do it. Likewise, a link to a 'help' page and a note about content. I get the impression that this would be about 30 minutes work for someone who knows HTML. I really believe this should be done--if what it takes is many pleading emails to 'the bartender', I will try that. As to subject matter...as long as this is the only forum of this nature, it is GOING to be beset with requests outside it's stated purpose, no matter how broadly or narrowly that purpose is defined.I feel very strongly that some sort of attempt to clue in newcomers about general limits is advisable.-----For those of you, (Bert, Rodney, Ralph, and others) whose interests go way beyond whatever 'folk/trad/' is...(I know that LaMarca's do!),I refer you to the 'Love is a Many Splendored Thing" thread (you all remember that*grin*) where the irrepressable Elsie said "You don't go into a Mexican restaurant and expect them to cook you Ravoli with mustard and goat cheese! If you FIND a restaurant that serves that, feel free to eat there! Start one, if you like...." ...I kind of like that (the comment, not the recipe).We have to have some limits.. As to Bert's idea that " folk singers have a 'duty' to sing the songs that 'they like', so that future generations will have folk songs from this generation"-----that is the way it has always been! My interests, unlike Rodney, are mostly folk/trad, but I sing lots of songs that are not strictly folk...I just don't claim that they ARE folk just because I sing them(though most of them tend strongly toward folk themes, styles, etc.).The problem ,Bert, is that we can't decide ahead of time what is to be folk a hundred years from now.A lot of songs produced these days simply have a different feeling about them than what 'folksingers' used to collect, remember, pass on orally and analyze endlessly. I do not like a lot of the trends in music, and I come here to immerse myself in the sort of things I do like. Dick G has said that he includes a wider variety of stuff than even HE likes. Well, so far I can live with his limits...(I guess I'd better..I am unlikely to start my own site!) I suspect that these sort of discussions will always be with us...I don't seem to be able to restrain myself when certain topics arise...if we keep it reasonably civil, it can only be helpful & fun! *returns soapbox to corner-but leaves it in plain sight* In line with LaMarca suggestion, I am Bill D- extree@erols.com |
|
22 May 97 - 11:04 AM (#5541) Subject: RE: Threadiquette and a few requests From: Bert Hansell Bill,
I agree that we can't decide ahead of time what is going to be folk. If everyone sings what THEY like, time will sort the wheat from the chaff. |
|
22 May 97 - 06:04 PM (#5567) Subject: RE: Threadiquette and a few requests From: Bill D ummm...perhaps I should mail you my list of the ones that SHOULD be lost. 3\4 of all the Woodie Guthrie songs are 'interesting' only because Woodie wrote them.Red River Dave, who wrote "The Ballad of Amelia Earhart", wrote many songs, most of which are mere curiosities. The mind boggles to imagine all the songs of history which were just so bad that no one wanted to pass them on.(Sure, we probably lost a few good ones, too). So, Bert, I will keep singing, as will anyone who loves music, but I really hope many songs do NOT survive, except as texts and, in a few cases,recordings,to remind us WHY no one sings them. (Yes, I know-tastes differ...so you sing all the ones I don't.. *wink*) |
|
22 May 97 - 06:18 PM (#5568) Subject: RE: Threadiquette and a few requests From: Peter Timmerman Now there's a controversy! Folk songs we would like to ditch. The mouth waters. Where to start the editing process: which of the umpteenth IRA ballads, which of the later Bob Dylan albums, which dreary anthem to which noble cause, which cutesy children's song -- why the possibilities are endless.... In The Incomplete Folksinger, Pete Singer reprints his infamous self critique which some people took seriously -- along the lines of, he is good in a crowd, but alone on records you have to be really careful. I await further acts of immolation. Yours, Peter |
|
22 May 97 - 09:17 PM (#5576) Subject: RE: Threadiquette and a few requests From: John As a recent devotee of this forum, I liken it to visiting a multi-stage music festival. Yes, so I'm a folkie from way back - but I have the choice of listening in on a folk performance which I may find enchanting or boring. Then pass by some event that I had never experienced, and just maybe encounter a performance that is quite captivating in a genre I had previously ignored. In short the freedom to pick and choose, learn and enjoy, is what I enjoy most about this site. Unlike attending a $100 a seat concert, I have the choice to leave after 5 minutes and not feel cheated. I feel no guilt in not spending any great amount of time on subjects that don't interest me - but I do agree with previous contributors - some supercially uninteresting threads do produce real gold. To those contributors with different values and ideas, I value your diversity. Enjoy. John |
|
12 Jan 99 - 09:48 AM (#53648) Subject: RE: Threadiquette and a few requests From: The Shambles I was going to start something on the lines of this but I thought it was better to revive this one and continue the debate here. |
|
12 Jan 99 - 10:22 AM (#53652) Subject: RE: Threadiquette and a few requests From: Mike Billo As a recent arrival to the Mudcat forum, I found the fact that so many musical styles are discussed to be the appeal of the Mudcat. There are plenty of sites devoted to "only blues", "only jazz", "only country" etc. I listen to everything I can get my hands on. I play songs from many different styles,cultures and historical periods. The eclecticism of the Mudcat is it's appeal. If there is a subject matter thread that doesn't interest you, don't read or respond to it. Move on to one of the many other things being discussed on any given day. I guess this is the musical equivalent of the slogan "Celebrate Diversity". |
|
12 Jan 99 - 03:57 PM (#53699) Subject: RE: Threadiquette and a few requests From: Joe Offer I thought I'd copy this over to a more applicable thread. Hmmm. I wonder if Max might have a little time during the Mudcat overhaul to add a few instructions on the "create new thread" page, encouraging people to search first and title threads appropriately.It's certainly just grand to bring a subject up again and again at the 'Cat. HOWEVER, it's far better to revive the old thread and continue the previous discussion, rather than starting a new thread and scattering the information all over. That way, we build a body of information, rather than repeating what has been said before. Go to the Forum Menu and try a Forum Search ( or click here), and see if there's ever been a thread on the subject. If you post a new message to that thread, it will bring the whole thread to the top of the menu. You can use the Filter on the Forum Menu to do a quick search for names of threads posted within the last year - if you want all the threads for the past year, leave the filter box blank and set the "age" for 365 days (or however long, up to a year)- be prepared to wait, because the list of a year's threads is long. You will see that some thread titles repeat over and over again, so information about certain subjects is scattered all over or hidden in threads with generic titles like "lyrics request" - THAT'S what we're trying to avoid. -Joe Offer- |
|
15 Feb 99 - 09:46 PM (#58761) Subject: RE: Threadiquette and a few requests From: puzzled woah, Bill, this sure explains a lot about this site and you. I have never been able to access the help page so I am glad to learn a little of the background of Mudcat. Yjamks for mentioning Greenhaus causing me to look into the archives and bring this old thread up. there are probably other newbies out there who will be glad to read this thread. |
|
16 Feb 99 - 07:35 AM (#58805) Subject: RE: Threadiquette and a few requests From: the Doppelganger RE: Administrivia/new threads From: Philippa Date: 05-Feb-99 - 06:54 AM
Seasoned Mudcat contributors often scold newcomers for asking for songs which are already in the database. I suggest that a fairly short notice could come up on the screen whenever anyone clicks the "create a new thread" box. |
|
16 Feb 99 - 02:44 PM (#58853) Subject: RE: Threadiquette and a few requests From: Pete M In concept it's a good idea doppelganger, but from experience in designing user interfaces, I think you would find that about 0.5 seconds after it was introduced Max would be inundated by complaints from 'regulars' about the extra keystrokes/mouse clicks needed to start a thread! I agree that a the Knowledge base of the DT, and the search facilities of the DT and the forum could be made more obvious, but that would take time money etc which Max may not have or wish to expend on that kind of change. We are after all not slow in asking for other improvements. At the end of the day, I suspect that the root cause of the problem is as Barbara has noted elsewhere, very few people bother to read anything before asking a question. If they access a thread and the immediately prior post says in large unfriendly letters "don't do this" and they then proceed to do it, I'm afraid they are unlikely to notice other requests or exhortations. We'll just have to continue to be patient, after all those that stay soon learn our ways, and it is probably not worth changing something that works for the remainder. Pete M |
|
16 Feb 99 - 04:19 PM (#58864) Subject: RE: Threadiquette and a few requests From: Jack Hickman - Kingston, Ontario Greetings All. This is an interesting thread. Something I would like to suggest is that someone post something to explain the heirarchy of this phenomenon. I have noticed a lot of very active posters, but it would seem that the management of the "whatever it is" seems to fall to names like Joe Offer and Dick Greenhaus, and Max. How do these folks fit in. I know a lot of people don't like the idea of being regulated, but this group seems to work so well, there has to be a degree of superivision. How about enlightening us. Jack Hickman |
|
16 Feb 99 - 06:45 PM (#58881) Subject: RE: Threadiquette and a few requests From: Pete M Jack, the post by Bill D at 2102 on 15th Feb 1999 in the thread here has a succinct explanation. The remainder of the thread may help also. Joe, aka He Who Rights All Wrongs, has an "edit" facility which allows him to delete duplicate posts, correct erroneous HTML etc. He is also one of the most efficient recall mechanisms in the Caff, either from soft memory or the net. Pete M |
|
16 Feb 99 - 08:14 PM (#58889) Subject: RE: Threadiquette and a few requests From: rich r BAck in September there was a thread that made a good case that Joe Offer is really some sort of software designed by Max rich r |
|
23 Feb 99 - 08:38 AM (#59785) Subject: RE: Threadiquette and a few requests From: Philippa re Pete M, 16 Feb, and the message above his: If "Is a new thread the best way...?" is too off-putting, the message could simply start off "Please read this information before creating your thread". Or someone else will come up with something both pleasant and attention-grabbing. It seems several Mudcatters do think some additional instructions would be worthwhile: see the discussion at the welcome thread The suggestion wouldn't involve any extra keystrokes beyond what 'regulars'already do, i.e. check the database first. There's no rush to do the actual page design [though Joe-O has made a start]; first step is a decision on whether to add a notice, next the various suggestions on wording have to be sorted through. But if Max is capable of designing the software described by Rich R, he can do 'most anything! |