 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Please consider how you title threads
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Jun 02 - 09:33 PM I'm the one who added "Obit" to the Ann Landers Thread. The thread titles are used to index and classify the Forum, so people can find it. So, yes, we have to have some uniformity for it to work. We used to have somb "obit" thread and some RIP - for ease of searching, we decided to add OBIT to all the RIP's. Out of respect for the departed, I usually don't add "BS" to the non-music obituaries. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Mr Red Date: 26 Jun 02 - 09:10 AM Declan (8-))))))) LMAO |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: GUEST,Ian Date: 25 Jun 02 - 07:33 PM Pied Piper, I live in England, and am indeed English. The fact that my examples come from threads started by UK citizens, if probably coincidence. If you have any brain inside your head, you'll understand that "JA tonight" type titles aren't helpful to anyone. You appear not to understand that, so resort to insults. Suit yourself... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Mrrzy Date: 25 Jun 02 - 12:30 PM For example, when I was looking for Ann Landers songs upon her death, I started an RIP thread. Somebody retitled it OBIT - which it WASN'T. I was NOT posting an obituary, I was posting something looking for Rest In Peace Ann Landers songs. But the square pegs want all dead folk threads titled Obit, so OK, who am I to argue. But it was NOT what I meant to start. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Mrrzy Date: 25 Jun 02 - 12:28 PM Let me say this about that - I occasionally have my threads re-titled (that is, Joe or somebody sometimes re-title my threads while I'm not looking), usually to make "more" sense, but it usually also makes DIFFERENT sense, and isn't quite what I meant. But I don't MIND, exactly, I just notice, and wonder why bother sometimes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Jim Dixon Date: 25 Jun 02 - 12:06 PM Yeah, Joe, I agree, sort of [with your message at 11:28]. Another way to attack the problem would be to provide a way, when searching for "Add:" messages, to skip the ones that start with "RE:". And by the way, why is it that when you start a thread with a prefix, the first message doesn't get the prefix? That's the ONE message someone is most likely to want to find. If you start a thread titled, say, "Lyr Add: I WRITE THE SONGS", the first message will be titled "I WRITE THE SONGS" and all the subsequent messages will be titled (by default) "RE: Lyr Add: I WRITE THE SONGS". Is that a "bug" or a "undocumented feature"? Anyway, I think it would be good to change this in any future editions of Mudcat. Is there any way someone could write a one-shot program to globally, retroactively, change message titles? I would like to add the missing prefix to the first message in every thread, and in every message that starts with "RE: Lyr Add:" (or "RE: Tune Add:" etc.) simply delete the word "Add" so it says "RE: Lyr:" (or "RE: Tune:" etc.). I think that would solve the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Pied Piper Date: 25 Jun 02 - 11:53 AM Well well what a fuss. As the evil genius behind this conspiracy to force guest Ian to open his mind a little (and who knows, possibly use his imagination). I feel obliged to say that there are other wicked people at Mudcat who fail to indicate in their thread titles, that they refer to places in the USA. I don't recall seeing Ian's cheerful and polite postings on those. Are you an American Ian? PP. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Joe Offer Date: 25 Jun 02 - 11:51 AM Wall, Kevin, ADD: with a colon takes care of it - but we don't really have a problem with words like "sadder." ADD takes up very little space, which leaves room for a complete title. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: CapriUni Date: 25 Jun 02 - 11:44 AM Doug C. -- A smilie !!! Is that what that silly little symbol is supposed to mean? Yup! Turn your head 90 degrees to the left, and it will be easier to see. There are some other variations, too: :( sad, ;) a wink, :p sticking out tongue, :9 yummy! (licking lips with a grin), }:) a devilish grin, etc. Some people add noses with a -, o, or a greater-than angle bracket. Once you know the shorthand code, you can make up emoticons that feature some aspect of yourself, such as 8) for a person who wears glasses, or :)} for a person with a beard... I'm with Ian on the need for clear thread titles but I would extend it to the use of clear English in the postings themselves rather than using Web shorthand and hieroglyphics. How about clear English and hieroglyphics? 'Cause the latter are just so much fun! (should I put a winky face here? Awww ... why not?!) ;-) emoticons -- Is this a real word, CapriUni, or one you made up yourself ? I like it. I didn't make it up... it's a contraction of "emotion" and "icon" and was in fairly wide use when I entered the Internet world about 10 years ago... I like it.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Jun 02 - 11:42 AM Does it have to be ADD? Thus making it possible to use words like "sadder" and so forth in thread titles without being a nuisance? |
|
Subject: Message title for posting songs From: Joe Offer Date: 25 Jun 02 - 11:28 AM
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: greg stephens Date: 25 Jun 02 - 10:49 AM Lots of other things happen in Middlewich, McGrath. I go there for MOT tests. There's a good pie shop. And there's even a rather pathetic attempt at a Roman Heritage Trail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Jun 02 - 10:42 AM So if In get it right, when we post a song in athread where that song isn't indicated bybthe ythhread title (it's come up in the course of conversation drift maybe), we should add "Add" to the subject line of that particular post.
Sounds easy enough. And if someone else has posted the song, is it helpful to do the same to a subsequent post, with a pointer to the earlier one?
Middlewich isn't a good example of bad practice in subject headings, because so far as I can see there is only one Middlewich and that's in Cheshire, England, and Google shows it up in a moment - and seems to indicate that the canal boat festival as the main thing that happens there. But there are plenty of other examples where an indication of country is helpful - names like Boston, Cambridge, Newark, Washington. Or even county - eg Newton, Newcastle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Jim Dixon Date: 25 Jun 02 - 10:13 AM Liz the Squeak: Yes, it's obvious that threads with frivolous titles MIGHT contain lyrics, frivolous or not. And I have nothing against frivolous songs (as long as they're not TOO frivolous). I have harvested many of them. But the point is, finding songs is a monumental task. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of unmarked songs in old threads. I may never finish searching. So I look only where songs are most likely to be. That's the most efficient way to spend my time. If YOU would like to undertake the task of searching all the old threads with frivolous titles, going back nearly 6 years, to see if they contain unmarked lyrics or tunes, be my guest. Maybe then you will see what a daunting and unrewarding task it is. p.s. "Marked" means having a subject line (not to be confused with the thread title) containing the word "Add:" followed by the song title. Songs that are marked in this way can be easily found at any time using the very reliable Forum Search, as long as you know the correct title (or even a distinctive word from the title) of the song you're searching for. For the last 6 months or so, I haven't actually "harvested" any songs; I have merely marked them so they can be found easily later. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: GUEST,Ian Date: 25 Jun 02 - 08:31 AM I think that would be a good idea, Mr Happy. Another recent thread title was: 'Cara at the Hope and Anchor' Hello??? Which Hope and Anchor??? Please don't think that I'm picking on anyone. I just think that better titled threads would be of benefit to everyone. Ian |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: greg stephens Date: 25 Jun 02 - 08:30 AM I do take your point, Ian, honestly. But I pick up such interesting stuff by reading things on threads where I havent a clue what the title means, or dont know where the place is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Mr Happy Date: 25 Jun 02 - 08:19 AM sincerest & most abject apologies to all world citizens who were mystified by my thread title 'middlewich ff' i agree with guest ian's suggestion that none of us should make assumptions of readers prior knowledge. i'd add to the theme with the suggestion that since i also don't know the locations of some events mentioned in posts, that perhaps we should add other prefixes. most mcs [mudcats] seem to be in either usa [untied states of america] or uk [untied kingdom], so it could help to put a 'us' or 'uk' or other locality label as prefix. comments mr h |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: GUEST,Ian Date: 25 Jun 02 - 07:38 AM Greg, I know where Middlewich is, but I thought that most American/Australian etc posters would probably not. Hence my using it as an example They could have written "Middlewich Folk Festival, Cheshire, England, UK, anybody going there?" but would that have really helped? Well apart from the fact the title would have been too long, yes, I think it would have helped. Not everyone know the things that you know. That was my basic point in starting the thread. Ian |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: greg stephens Date: 25 Jun 02 - 07:21 AM I thought I agreed with the initial posting, until I came to the sample bad title "middlewich ff". I would have thought the vast majority of Mudcatters would realise that this would be likely to be about a folk festival,in Middlewich, and if they wished to know more they'd have a peep. To the few who didnt guess that ff stood for "folk festival" a quick peep would clue them in, and in future they would be able to guess the meaning of ff quicker. What's wrong with that, I think it's quite a good thread title. They could have written "Middlewich Folk Festival, Cheshire, England, UK, anybody going there?" but would that have really helped? Also, ambiguous or silly titles can have a positive effect: you might read them and pick up something useful/interesting/funny; wheras a laboriously spelled out in full detailed title might just make you think "Oh I'm not interested in buying back numbers of The Wasp-Fanciers Gazette". And then you might miss a wonderful digression on early settings of "Where the bee sucks". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Jun 02 - 07:00 AM Emoticons and so forth ("acronyms" for example) are just as open to misunderstanding as words. If you know the person you can recognise what they mean. If you don't, a hieroglyph doesn't remove the ambiguity, if what we write isn't clear.
A song can turn up in any thread, silly or serious, and that's one of the aspects of the Mudcat which is most fun. I suppose we should be more careful about flagging songs up when that happens. What would be the best way of doing that? I suppose it would be possible to start up a new Lyr Add thread, and post it again, but maybe there's a neater way of doing it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Declan Date: 25 Jun 02 - 05:16 AM A simile - as happy as a smilie :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Doug Chadwick Date: 25 Jun 02 - 03:01 AM ;-) Have you cracked a joke, but left the smilie off... A smilie !!! Is that what that silly little symbol is supposed to mean? I'm with Ian on the need for clear thread titles but I would extend it to the use of clear English in the postings themselves rather than using Web shorthand and hieroglyphics. emoticons Is this a real word CapriUni, or one you made up yourself ? I like it. Doug C |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: GUEST Date: 25 Jun 02 - 02:26 AM KatLaughing could NOT have posted THIS It also makes it easier for Joe and the joeclones, to say nothing of the Search functions, if a thread is titled as clearly as possible, and if one makes good use of the prefixes, too, when possible. AND have kept a straight face.
Kat dahling you have ammended your waves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Joe Offer Date: 25 Jun 02 - 02:13 AM Hi, Michael - if I change it, the thread name will also change on your list of saved threads, but it will still be on the list - and I usually change by adding to the title, so the original title is still there. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: michaelr Date: 25 Jun 02 - 02:09 AM MAAARK!! Don't freak me out like that!! I couldn't handle the guilt if shorty died again! Oh, there's Liland's post... (phew) had me worried there... ;-) Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Haruo Date: 25 Jun 02 - 01:48 AM Pending word from Joe or Max or somebody who knows what they're talking about, Michaelr, I don't think it'll make any difference, because the link is not actually to the thread title but to the thread's URL (which reads http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=xxxxxx where xxxxxx is a five-digit ID number unique to that thread (e.g. this thread is 48879). I assume when Joe changes a title he leaves the ID number the same, so the links should still work just fine. Liland |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Mark Cohen Date: 25 Jun 02 - 01:44 AM By the way, Michaelr: if you do that, the Mudcat server will crash, and so will every computer that is logged on to Mudcat at that moment. But don't let it worry you... Aloha, Mark (who really needs to get some rest...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Mark Cohen Date: 25 Jun 02 - 01:40 AM CapriUni said, "the person's handwriting...is almost like tone of voice" -- oh, Lord, I hope not. People would have to put earmuffs on to read my letters. Aloha, Mark (whose more or less legible handwriting was dealt a crippling blow in the second year of medical school by having to take notes in "Clinical Science and Pathology" at breakneck speed for several hours a day...nowadays they have note-taking services, so today's doctors have to find another excuse!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: michaelr Date: 25 Jun 02 - 01:38 AM Joe -- if I save a thread and you change the title later, does it change in my Saved Threads, as well? If not, what will happen if I click on that saved thread? Michael Hi, Michael - if I change it, the thread name will also change on your list of saved threads, but it will still be on the list - and I usually change by adding to the title, so the original title is still there. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Haruo Date: 25 Jun 02 - 01:27 AM She wasn't shouting, John from Hull, she was echoing Jim Dixon's shouting, and toning it down noticeably. Liland |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 25 Jun 02 - 12:54 AM Stop shouting Liz, you will wake everybody up! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Liz the Squeak Date: 25 Jun 02 - 12:51 AM I have one caution, and plea, however: PLEASE DON'T POST ANY SONG LYRICS OR TUNES TO A THREAD WITH A SILLY (etc.) TITLE. LYRICS AND TUNES POSTED IN A THREAD WITH A SILLY (etc.) TITLE WILL PROBABLY NEVER BE FOUND AND HARVESTED FOR DIGITRAD. But does it not occur to you that any song posted in a silly or frivolously titled thread, may actually be a song that is silly and frivolous? LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Haruo Date: 25 Jun 02 - 12:40 AM (perpetuating the thread drift) Also in informal letter writing of the sort one did preInternet with one's friends and relations, one is generally writing to a single person whom one knows well; occasionally, as with the annual Christmas Letter, to a large number of people most of whom one knows fairly well. In Internet posting, on the other hand, one is writing to an indeterminate number (potentially thousands) of people, most of whom one knows not at all nor they one, natively speaking a variety of languages and dialects, sharing much less common culture than one can assume among one's family members, coworkers, etc., let alone knowledge of one's personal idiosyncrasies that allow intimate acquaintances to tell (usually) when a sentence is ironic, or facetious, or sarcastic, or serious, or meant as encouragement, or whatever. The less common ground can be assumed, the more need there is for emoticons and the like. BTW I agree with Ian, and with MMario. (to return to the original post's topics) Liland |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: CapriUni Date: 25 Jun 02 - 12:22 AM more thread drift... in the days when postal mail was the norm, I often put doodles (smilies, arrows, spirals, paw prints, hearts, etc.) after sentances and in the margins, so for me, emoticons are just a continuation of that... Also, in letters, you have more of a human touch in that you have the person's handwriting, which is almost like tone of voice... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Clinton Hammond Date: 24 Jun 02 - 11:39 PM The difference between letter writing and internet posting, is that (I suspect) most people tend to be much more 'conversational' in thier posting thn in thier letter writing... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Mark Cohen Date: 24 Jun 02 - 11:17 PM People have been writing letters for thousands of years without having to put little drawings in the text to explain what they mean. Exactly! I don't know why I never thought of saying that, but I'm glad you did. I'm fascinated, though, by the fact that I often feel compelled to use the little smiley doohickeys. Laziness, no doubt. Aloha, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Jun 02 - 10:03 PM In principle I wholly agree with Ian. Thread titles should make sense. However I think it's quite possible to make sense and be "silly" at the same time, and a lot of great threads have started out with silly titles.
"Have you cracked a joke, but left the smilie off..."(Clinton) Well, this is thread drift on my part, but... In face to face communication, if someone smiles while they are proffering an insult that can mean that it isn't intended to hurt, or it can be a way of making it hurt more. It's notbreally thatvdifferent on the internet. Imagine reading a racist sounding crack from some stranger, accompanied by a smiley. People have been writing letters for thousands of years without having to put little drawings in the text to explain what they mean. All of which underscores the value of a preview page and the importance of reading through what we've written. It is important always to try to avoid insulting anyone accidentally. |
|
Subject: Please consider title meanings From: Mr Red Date: 24 Jun 02 - 08:48 PM Ian I agree on the misleading statement - er that is not you but them if you get my drift. But at the end of the day, if the postee is not diligent enough telegraph the contents then the thread deserves to be bypassed, by and large IMHO - but you can ignore that if I have not explained it properly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: SeanM Date: 24 Jun 02 - 08:22 PM As to the rest of Clinton's post - I believe that one of the Mcat MkII features was going to be a post preview before submission? I know I've been guilty of botched links on one or two occasions, or of getting too focused on one aspect of a post and forgetting a second crucial one. The preview should help that. M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: MMario Date: 24 Jun 02 - 07:04 PM point of order though - Ian - despite claims to the contrary - you will find it is not "guests" that rate a boo-hiss from regulars; rather anonymous "Guests:" - who give no name whatsoever. MANY regular contributers either or not members or don't always have access to a cookied machine. And probably most of the questions come from guests as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Joe Offer Date: 24 Jun 02 - 07:00 PM Yeah, that's what I ended up doing - Looking for a sea song (Mermaid). That brings up a good point. It's not the end of the world if somebody starts a thread with a vague title. We CAN change them, if there's a need. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: katlaughing Date: 24 Jun 02 - 06:44 PM Joe, couldn't you add to the thread title? Maybe the Mermaid title or, if no one is quite sure, yet, "Ship's cook loves pots?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Joe Offer Date: 24 Jun 02 - 06:33 PM Jim Dixon and I do rename messages to make sure that messages with lyrics have ADD and the song title. I've worked some on renaming threads, but I try to be careful to preserve as much as possible of the original thread title -so the person who started it can find it. I'm lost on this one, though: Looking for a sea song. It has some good song information in it, and I'm afraid it's going to get lost. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: DougR Date: 24 Jun 02 - 06:32 PM Sounds like a reasonable request to me. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Jim Dixon Date: 24 Jun 02 - 06:29 PM I, too, generally follow the rule that if a thread has a silly, frivolous, confusing, vague, meaningless, or non-music-oriented title, I don't read it. The content of those threads is USUALLY silly, frivolous, etc., so I think I don't miss much. I have one caution, and plea, however: PLEASE DON'T POST ANY SONG LYRICS OR TUNES TO A THREAD WITH A SILLY (etc.) TITLE. LYRICS AND TUNES POSTED IN A THREAD WITH A SILLY (etc.) TITLE WILL PROBABLY NEVER BE FOUND AND HARVESTED FOR DIGITRAD. If you know of any threads with silly titles that already contain lyrics or tunes, please post a link in the thread Songs you've posted or Songs you've posted II (if it isn't already listed in one of those threads). Recently, I've been methodically looking through all the threads that begin with "Lyr Req:" and eventually I will look at the ones that begin with "Lyr Add:" too. (If I live that long; and if I don't, maybe someone else will take over where I left off.) So you needn't worry about those threads. Also, please be sure you always use an appropriate prefix. A song title alone, without the prefix, might not be recognized. A thread titled "How Much Is That Doggie in the Window?" might, if the harvester hasn't heard of it before, appear to be a question about dogs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: katlaughing Date: 24 Jun 02 - 06:23 PM It also makes it easier for Joe and the joeclones, to say nothing of the Search functions, if a thread is titled as clearly as possible, and if one makes good use of the prefixes, too, when possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Mark Cohen Date: 24 Jun 02 - 06:01 PM Yes, it's an excellent point, and one I sometimes forget. Thanks, Ian! Aloha, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Clinton Hammond Date: 24 Jun 02 - 05:21 PM Ian... Try this.. if a post is poorly titled, don't read it... Seems to work well for me... ;-) I think Ian has a good point... One should also re-read your post looking for spelling and grammar errors... Are you saying exactly what it is you want to say... Is there obvious room for misunderstanding in something that you've said... Have you cracked a joke, but left the smilie off... For that matter, is your html correct... are your dates, names and places correct... In short, THINK... Before, during and after you type...
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Anon Date: 24 Jun 02 - 05:20 PM that was a joke, sorry to offend, I will stop posting now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: GUEST,Ian Date: 24 Jun 02 - 05:15 PM Thank you 'not from Hull' for your well argued and considered opinion I will bear it in mind Ian |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Please consider how you title threads From: Anon Date: 24 Jun 02 - 05:13 PM JERK |
|
Subject: Please consider how you title threads From: GUEST,Ian Date: 24 Jun 02 - 05:11 PM No doubt some people will dismiss this as moaning, especially as I'm posting as a GUEST (boo, hiss!) However, I'll try and make my (I hope useful) point. This is a worldwide forum. Some of us don't have the time to read everything and have to pay for out internet connection on a per minute basis. Thread titles such as:
'Jolly Angler session tonight' etc, etc might well have some resonance to a few people, but are meaningless to the vast majority of people here. The length of thread title allowed is quite long, and enough to give a reasonable explanation as to the content of the thread. I, for one, would be grateful if posters thought a bit more about their thread title before posting. Thank you. Ian |