 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Starting New Threads
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: katlaughing Date: 30 Aug 09 - 12:15 AM She is, isn't she? And we are darned lucky to have her here with such eloquent descriptions!
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: Joe Offer Date: 30 Aug 09 - 12:09 AM Melissa, you are some piece of work.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: katlaughing Date: 29 Aug 09 - 11:57 PM Joe, you seem to be micro-managing a bit. Melissa made some good points. I don't think we need to ride anyone just because they start more threads than others and/or because they might forget to do a search. When one has been here so many years, it's easy to lose sight (pun intended) of what this site looks like to a newbie. If that's all it takes to embarrass them, they need to get a life... that's rather flippant and harsh, esp. coming from the Big Kahuna (or is that Max?) Anyway, don't forget there are people here who do have lives, just maybe not what you or some others would recognise as whatever you consider to be "a life." Also, last I knew, there were a couple more of us who help combine threads if necessary. If you're feeling swamped, give a holler, okay. Spaw, nice to see you in rare form, still...:-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: Melissa Date: 29 Aug 09 - 11:51 PM This business about being human sure has a lot of speedbumps..and those hopeless funks are hard and exhausting. I'm absolutely certain your guitar is holding a song for you and (in a bold moment of speaking for all of us) that you are a wanted part of this place. If we didn't have those brief fits of despair, I don't think we'd be able to trust our perception and understanding of our fits of awe and wonder. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: olddude Date: 29 Aug 09 - 11:35 PM I been a bit under the weather lately. Just lost, don't feel like doing anything. I can't remember when I picked up my guitar last. Life can get insane ... sometimes just doesn't make any sense at all. Ever feel like you want to cry but can't ... this has nothing to do with mudcat at all. just sad, it is all nuts sometime the whole world is insane I think, or probably just me ... bad day .. sorry ... Love always |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: Melissa Date: 29 Aug 09 - 11:28 PM Gosh, Spaw..that generous offer warms my cockles just the way I like! A description of your toenails is all I need.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: olddude Date: 29 Aug 09 - 11:24 PM I forgot about the other thread of Rons, I never remember to do the search first before I post but I will remember the next time. I am not upset, it is hard to keep track of that many threads and I understand. Joe is a very good person, it was just a reminder. Ron is making some really great music, his play and sing blew me away. He is kind enough to always let me listen and ask what do I think. It is an honour really for a musician that talented to ask my opinion. He sent me so many new ones from his next CD. He let me post play and sing for people to get a sample. I miss Johh Hartford. I wanted to be like him since I first saw him on the Glen Campbell show in the 60's. Sad loss I think. I didn't know he and Art were close friends. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: catspaw49 Date: 29 Aug 09 - 11:10 PM "If you were a screeching menace with sharp toenails and a lingering aroma, you would not have been singled out as an 'example'." Geeziz Melissa...Sounds like me! So you want I should piss Joe off(er). I'm really good at it as I've been pissing him off for over 10 years! Do you want a "mild aggravation" or a full blown "Sometimes I just want to kick your ass Spaw" type of thing. See Joe's a kind of nice guy type himself but his exasperation level can be tweaked to the point of making some really stupid fucking decisions. Shhhh........Quiet now......That hissing you hear? That's Joe who just read that line and even though he knows it is me, he can't help but think for a moment that I'm serious. Now at this point I can say I'm not.......or not say anything at all and he'll wonder even more! Joe is easily moved into Tier 4 thinking and he goes nuts second and third guessing himself. He just read that and wants to write, "No I don't Spaw. I just want to be sure that I'm clear about things I say." And while that may be true (the "may" in there will screw him up) his midwestern Catholic upbringing makes him vulnerable to feeling he must explain each thing he does because in the end he too wants to be liked. Melissa, remember.......Joe drinks mushroom tea so I expect him to be fucked up now and again.....Watch.....He'll want to explain that too and justify it Wisconsin style. Let me know how pissed you want him and I'm your man as surely as Bob's your uncle! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: Melissa Date: 29 Aug 09 - 10:42 PM Dan, If you were a screeching menace with sharp toenails and a lingering aroma, you would not have been singled out as an 'example'. Gentle folk who make an effort to flow peacefully and not make waves are easy targets. We're not likely to stand in our own defense and we've got that 'rule' here about taking our complaints to pm instead of trying to help each other..which means the others who try hard to not rile the water get pinched between wanting to speak up (which we know in our hearts IS the right thing for us to do) and wanting to lay low and hope someone's pm brings a healthy resolution. Either side of that is miserable. Standing aside and waiting for help to come prancing in to save the day feels like a betrayal sometimes. Sometimes, it IS a betrayal. It's unfair to pull you out as an example like this. It's definitely not a Big Deal topic, but being the star of a freakshow is awful--and a good-natured guy has nothing to do but grin and feel like they should accept responsibility for being there to look at. (Yuck!) It's effective though..IF the goal is to keep the rest of us who care about trying to do our part to keep things smooth and peaceful quiet. Don't take it to heart, you've probably gotten unexpected private messages from the underbrush lurkers and I am absolutely certain that the number of Truly Offended is in the single digits. Kind hearts bruise easily. You haven't done anything wrong..you're just the easy target this time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: bobad Date: 29 Aug 09 - 10:26 PM Dan, far be it for me to speak for Joe but what I think he is getting at is that you should have posted Ron's songs to the previous thread "Some Vintage Ron Bankley" instead of starting a new one "Some More Vintage Ron Bankley" - this keeps the clutter down. But I must say I do enjoy hearing Ron's work and appreciate you efforts in making it available to us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: olddude Date: 29 Aug 09 - 10:10 PM Melissa thank you for your kindness Dan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: Melissa Date: 29 Aug 09 - 09:31 PM You don't have anything to apologize for, Dan. Your obvious delight in music and people is a definite bright spot and I wish more of us had enough sense to take heart and walk a little bit happier in the world. The idea of not starting new threads seems as logical to me as the idea of getting our current news from a history book. It's not the same and although we're all smart enough to realize that most of our thoughts/discoverie aren't truly original..they are ours and they are new and they are part of the life we're living right now. I hope you follow the path that is natural for you here and that you keep on bringing your delights to us. I think your enthusiasm and love are healthy for all of us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: olddude Date: 29 Aug 09 - 09:20 PM I had never heard the John Hartford song and I thought people may enjoy what Ron Bankley had done and is now doing since that last cut is from his CD that is not yet released. Please feel free to delete both threads .. again my apologies |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: olddude Date: 29 Aug 09 - 09:13 PM I am the one that started both of those threads my apologies, I won't any longer |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: Melissa Date: 29 Aug 09 - 04:29 AM The crosslink arrangement is a neat setup. Thanks for the info. I overestimated my disinterest earlier and am (obviously) adding at least one more post to this thread. Joe, you are in the top everyday leadership position. If you were to post a message within a thread that said something like "I just don't think it makes any sense for blue Jolly Ranchers to be considered a Classic Flavor" it is evident that you are posting as a member/participant. When you post messages that are clearly stated from your position of leadership, I think it is reasonable for any of us who happen to read them to feel like whatever you've said is some sort of rule/code/guideline/clue as to what you would like us to do. I also think it's reasonable for us to be able to count on you posting as Leader with a little bit of foresight and care. Whether we decide to comply with whatever we think your wishes might be, YOU are the Leader around here. Leadership is often a thankless, underappreciated, exhausting job. I firmly believe that if we were allowed the option of having actual discussions, your job would be a lot easier. We ARE adults and I honestly think we are perfectly capable of discussing topics like this and coming out with a reasonable idea of what we should do to make things run smoother and less fractured. I know you oppose policy discussions here. Doing that also serves to squash behavioral discussions and when we have no way of communicating in broad daylight on related things, we're not going to be able to function as a well-behaved group no matter how much we may want to. We can't BE a group if we don't have the option of clearing up simple questions between us without needing you to hold our hands (and erratically smack it) This place has a bunch of good members. I think you underestimate our willingness to get along and our interest in playing nicely. I do not think I have ever said anything rude or inconsiderate about you in a thread. I have sent both appreciative and sharp-tongued PMs. I have also spoken in your defense (go ahead and bristle up a little if you need to..say you never asked for and do not need to be defended) and will no doubt continue to. It is not complimentary at all for me to say that if your post at 3:04 was intended to be as pissy as it looks from this side of the computer, I think you are due for a break from this place. There is no reason for a volunteer position to wear you down enough for you to lose your ability to make your point with a little bit more tact. By saying "I'm not particularly sorry about embarrassing anyone by daring to question their judgment in starting unnecessary threads." my automatic response is that I have no reason to hesitate questioning your leadership skills..especially if you are intending to lead by example. I think you're a good guy, Joe, but it sure looks like you're not enjoying our company as well as you'd like to. Most of us are good guys too, you know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Aug 09 - 03:04 AM Open Mike, the idea is not to refresh multiple old threads on the same subject at the same time, which tends to confuse and split the discussion. Many of the threads people were refreshing, were already crosslinked to active threads. If a question comes up in one thread that has been answered already in another, give a brief answer and post a link to the other thread that answers the question, and don't refresh it. It's really dumb when there are six threads on the same subject, and somebody posts blank or "refresh" messages to each of them - and then what happens is that some people post the same message in each of the threads because they don't know where the discussion is going to be. We had some of that this week with the Kennedy threads, because somebody insisted that we had to have two threads. Our general policy is that we should have no more than one thread at a time active on any given topic. If you resurrect a single old thread by adding new information to it and thereby stimulating new discussion, that's a very good thing. I'm not particularly sorry about embarrassing anyone by daring to question their judgment in starting unnecessary threads. If that's all it takes to embarrass them, they need to get a life - and in this particular case, the person didn't mind at all. It's not like I'm accusing anyone of some scandalous crime or something. We're all adults here. We should be able to have our judgment questioned without it being a horrible thing. Lord knows I get MY judgment questioned around here on a daily basis. That's what happens in real life - people don't always agree with you. Deal with it. And I posted my complaint publicly because there are more than a dozen people who are compulsive thread-starters and who would get all huffy if I questioned them directly, and they need to hear this message. I used somebody who isn't compulsive or huffy as an example because I knew he wouldn't mind. And don't make a big deal of this. All I'm asking is that people use some restraint when they think about starting a thread, and consider adding to an existing thread instead. Melissa, I'm the one who maintains the crosslinks, and I've had help from Jeri and Jim Dixon and others. Jeff designed the system. You'll find an index of the song crosslinks here (click), and in the QuickLinks dropdown menu. I wish we had a similar index of songwriter/performer and instruments crosslinks, but we don't. Some of the crosslink groups are so large that I've had to figure out logical ways to split them. Sometimes the song groups are a bit arbitrary, but such is life. In the process of entering crosslinks, I also try to consolidate and index music thread information so that it can be found and used. I standardize format and titles and spelling of lyrics that are posted. The more threads there are, the harder it is to find information - and the harder it is for me to do my consolidation work. Oh, and along the way, I read all sorts of fascinating information and discover lots of songs I didn't know were posted here. I'm also the one who combines threads - one message at a time. There is no easy way, which is why I don't like combining threads if they're over 20 messages long. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: open mike Date: 29 Aug 09 - 01:46 AM I, on the other hand, have been cautioned not to refresh old threads.. was told it was confusing? now i am confused do we or do we don't?? the "start a new thread" instructions say to search first... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: wysiwyg Date: 28 Aug 09 - 11:39 PM WOBH! Try to remember what THAT was all about, and I am no sheila! (Can't take "Stella" either as it was my best friend's HS nickname, Stella By Starlight.) Joe, BTW, Melissa's right. Your thread correx have hurt a few folks. ~Sforbrains to YOU, Buster! (You know who you are!) :~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: Melissa Date: 28 Aug 09 - 11:26 PM Thank you, Foolstroupe. If the thread-sticking is done by hand, that does encourage me to think about popping up an old thread instead of a new one IF the old thread fit a topic I wanted to discuss. It's not really anything I need to worry about overmuch since I use old threads for information without posting and usually run a search before I start a thread. All the same, I honestly don't see anything terribly wrong about starting new threads when what is wanted is conversation/discussion with current members. Thanks for the answer..I'll keep the rest of my opinions on the subject to myself for a while. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 28 Aug 09 - 11:19 PM "Will someone please tell me?" Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: Melissa Date: 28 Aug 09 - 07:32 PM Wouldn't a quiet, gentle note to the enthusiastic thread-starter be more considerate than singling him out to use as an opportunity to remind us of the preference toward giving old threads a little fresh air? ** asking how the links get onto the top of threads was a sincere (albeit drifty) question. Will someone please tell me? Thanks, M
There are over a dozen overenthusiastic thread-starters who need to get the message, which is why I posted my request publicly. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: Bill D Date: 28 Aug 09 - 07:22 PM Max is a young feller, and he says Mudcat will be around a LOOOONG time.....this should be interesting in 15-20 years, with 15,000,000 threads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: Donuel Date: 28 Aug 09 - 07:17 PM Your job of consolidation of topics and addressing technical woes is an unenviable time consuming chore. For Posters Tamping down ego and adding to rather than starting anew can be more of a challenge for some than others. Reminders to help the process instead of stressing the process will need repeatition. If a stop sign is removed people will stop stopping. thank you Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: gnu Date: 28 Aug 09 - 07:13 PM Maybe someone should let Max and/or Jeff know the filter don't work worth shit lately? Joe?
-Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Aug 09 - 07:12 PM Art, if you look at the FAQ from the top, you'll see it's up-to-date. The actual FAQ is the first ten messages, and they are indexed in the first message and kept up-to-date. What follows is discussion, which is edited less rigorously (but you did motivate me to do some editing. I cleaned things up while watching the Kennedy memorial service). -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: gnu Date: 28 Aug 09 - 07:10 PM Joe.... that's my point. I saw your post... thought a BS thread might aid YOU. Filtered and found nothing so I started this thread in your honour, below the line. Then, shit didn't happen???? Seriously... I thought I was doing a good thing... I DID filter and there was nothing... now, well, it don't matter. But, it wasn't MY fault. I was just trying to help. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: gnu Date: 28 Aug 09 - 07:06 PM Now, don' be bringin anyting up bout dem fookin seals again, Peace. I's done ta da knobs wit dem fookin McCartneys! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Aug 09 - 07:05 PM Well, gee. I posted in the FAQ, then found an existing thread on "Starting New Threads," so I moved my message to that thread to set a good example. So, then gnu starts another thread on the same topic below the line. Oh, well, can't win fer losin' (or whatever the phrase is). So, I gave in and moved today's messages from the old thread into this new thread, and probably that won't help, either, so I'ss end it back to the FAQ. But it does seem that certain people start lots of threads, and most others hardly start any at all. And those certain people often start threads on subject that already have recent threads, sometimes even threads that are currently active. If you start a thread a day, that's a lot. One or two a week would seem more reasonable. I don't think there should be any hard-and-fast rules on this, but I'd like people to consider the thought of resurrecting interesting old threads and adding to them, rather than splitting and repeating the discussion by starting new threads. But if a visitor comes and asks for a song, give 'em a link or an answer - not a lecture on how they should have searched, or how they can find the lyrics on the www or by buying the CD. They looked far enough to get to us - don't make them look any farther. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: Peace Date: 28 Aug 09 - 06:59 PM Yeah. My name's uh . . . . Look! This is about Stella. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: gnu Date: 28 Aug 09 - 06:55 PM Bob's yer uncle? |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: Paul Burke Date: 28 Aug 09 - 06:52 PM Some of us, indeed, are very very old, myself some thousands, I've lost count, of years, my old (and I MEAN old) friend Emma still older, I wouldn't be at all surprised if she'd taught the Facts of Life to the Earth Mother, well, anyway,as I was saying, these threads keep coming up, and I distinctly remember answering them before! These young people, just asking why, why, why, are we nearly there yet? So I just say, there's nothing new under the sun, cleverer kiddies than you havce asked better questions, why, I remember when they asked them in Latin! But of course, I was very drunk at the time.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: Peace Date: 28 Aug 09 - 06:39 PM I thought Susan was still around. I figured (she's one sharp gal) she'd write back and say something like "My NAME is Stella" and I could respond, "Sorry, Shelly, I'll remember for next time" and she could reply, "I'll let it go THIS time, Bob." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: artbrooks Date: 28 Aug 09 - 06:35 PM Sometimes a new thread is preferable to reviving an old one. For example, the topic of transferring vinyl/cassettes to CDs/MP3s has been covered many times, and there have been many discussions of what to plug in where and what is the best software for the purpose. However, software changes faster than traffic lights and last year's answer may no longer be valid. Newcomers don't know how to use the filter - nor are they aware of the existance of the Newcomers Guide Permathread. For that matter, unless it has been seriously edited since the last time I looked at it, that Permathread contains a lot of information that is no longer valid - and just try to find the statement about researching a topic rather than starting a new thread...I couldn't. There is something in there about searching for lyrics. I'd really rather see the same question asked and politely answered half a dozen times than see someone who could be a real asset to our community driven off by some curmudgeon saying "that question has been asked before. Don't you know how to look things up?"...with the implied "you dummy". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: Melissa Date: 28 Aug 09 - 06:26 PM ..which reminds me--I've been wondering for a while how the lists of old threads get hooked to the top of new threads. Is that done by an incredibly organized person, or is it something that's programmed to just happen when certain common topics arise? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: gnu Date: 28 Aug 09 - 06:22 PM I meant, Sheila. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: gnu Date: 28 Aug 09 - 06:22 PM Who the heck is Peace? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: Peace Date: 28 Aug 09 - 06:21 PM You're so right, Sheila. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: wysiwyg Date: 28 Aug 09 - 06:17 PM It's surprising how many "new" threads are actually started by people who were IN the prior dicussion, but who don't recall having been there. Mudcat's denizens are aging, folks, and memories are not as perfect as we all might like. Me, I CRAFT. Because I CRS. If YMV, good for you. Nut please be kind to people who get the same mileage I do-- you might be next. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: gnu Date: 28 Aug 09 - 06:07 PM Nothing wrong with starting a new thread on a topic with many threads done as long as there is a reason... news... a twist... a question that hasn't been addressed, while giving "credit" to past threads. But therein lies the rub. If, say, a question has been addressed, a new thread is not warrented... better to say, in a new post to that thread, that you wish to persue whatever point based on whatever reason. Of course, sometimes, with the sheer volume of posts, it is impossible to find the time to read all that was posted on sommat years ago and a new thread is not only required by "you" but by all. I am sure this has been discussed at length before but I can't be arsed to search it all out and I don't have the time to devote to it. So many posts are verbose and go on and on and on... >;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: Melissa Date: 28 Aug 09 - 05:22 PM I know I'm breaking a rule by discussing, but while I fully agree that being able to find precise, wonderful information easily IS a good thing..the other side of it (from my perspective) is that if I want to start a thread called "Do you love your Gibson?" (or whatever I might be currently enraptured and wanting to talk about) I will want to talk to the members who are here now. There is a LOT of good information archived and the forum has been around long enough that nearly anything any of us might strike up has probably already been touched on (or danced around). Sometimes it's just nice to have new threads instead of stringing onto hand-me-downs. Old conversations and long-ago members are great and it's wonderful that they're still here for us..but new conversations and communication that springs up between those of us who are here right now is also great. Finding 25 threads by running a search doesn't seem like a bad thing to me..it sort of feels like a jackpot when I look for something and several threads surface for me to browse. *** Editing has been a lot of work around here lately. Those of you who are working to try keeping things running smoothly (and non-toxic) have my admiration and appreciation. |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: John P Date: 28 Aug 09 - 05:19 PM For me, it depends on whether or not the thread is purely informational or is a discussion of opinions and observations. If you are looking for a specific piece of information it would be best to look it up on old threads. If you want to have a discussion, doing so with a five year old thread just doesn't work. And I've seen old-time Mudcatters cattily telling folks that we've discussed that all before and everyone always says the same thing. I find this sort of dumb when I'm in a thread with a couple of other people who were not part of any of the previous discussions. It's clear that the newer people did not say anything in the previous discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: gnu Date: 28 Aug 09 - 05:19 PM Gotta be.... earlier today, I filtered two threads I posted to which SHOULD have still been on the board and found nothing. And, lately, I have posted a fair few times and nothing appears. I now copy my posts before I submit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: VirginiaTam Date: 28 Aug 09 - 05:07 PM good to know it is not just me filter not giving me much joy lately is there a filter malfunction? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Starting New Threads From: gnu Date: 28 Aug 09 - 05:03 PM WTF? It's not on the board... and there IS a thread with that in the title? Well, I filtered it a few minutes ago and NOTHING came back. I am innocent I tell you... innocent! |
|
Subject: BS: Starting New Threads From: gnu Date: 28 Aug 09 - 05:01 PM I filtered the title for "All" and found nothing, So I figured I would help Joe out by posting this from the Newcomer's Guide Permathread.... Subject: Starting New Threads From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 28 Aug 09 - 04:56 PM I see somebody started a thread today titled "Some John Hartford Wonderful." Yesterday, the same person started a thread titled "More Vintage Ron Bankley." In both cases, I think it would have been better if the information had been added to existing threads. We have over 123,000 threads on Mudcat. With each addition of a thread, it gets harder and harder to find all the wonderful music information that has been posted. Please try to use the Filter to look for related threads that can be resurrected and added to, rather than starting new threads. Thanks. -Joe- |