Mudcat, Please organise these threads!

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 01:14 PM

Joe: As I understand the term "rhetorical question" it means you don't really want an answer—you just want to make us think. I'll answer your questions anyway.

1.        I use the filter every day. Usually I put "Lyr" in the filter box. I spend a lot more time looking at the filtered list than I do the unfiltered list. Once in a while I'll put something different in the box if I'm looking for a specific thread and I remember part of the title.

2.        Whenever I post lyrics, I change the message title to "Lyr Add:" followed by the song title in all caps, followed by the songwriter's name (if known and if there is room) in upper- and lower-case, in parentheses:

        Lyr Add: WRECKING BALL (G Welch, D Rawlings)

If the author is unknown, but I'm posting a specific performer's version, I'll use the performer's name instead, with the word "from":

        Lyr Add: GAME OF ALL FOURS (from Norma Waterson)

When I'm not posting lyrics, I never change the message title.

3.        I haven't read the FAQ for a long time, but considering that you may have revised them, or I may have forgotten something, I guess I'd better read them again.

I like Joe's idea of letting people make up their own prefixes, and later making them "official" if they catch on. Here are my suggestions:

Song: -- for when you're asking for information about a song, or posting information about a song, and it doesn't fit into any of the established categories. (You're not asking for lyrics, or chords, or tune.) This would fit a lot of questions like, Who performed this? Who wrote this? Can you recommend a good recording? What does the line ---- mean?

Artist: -- ditto, for when you're posting info about (or asking questions about) a certain performer, songwriter, or band.

Venue: -- (you can figure this out)

Gig: -- (ditto)

Album: -- (ditto)

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST,Van
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 01:33 PM

I have a boss who is so anal it is hard to believe, then so are his bosses - being this way helps him clim the tree. I come home, I have a drink, I turn to Mudcat, I find Likeminded people, I relax. God save us from too many pigeon holes. Keep it up you have a great site but don't screw our heads with too many categories or we find the fun.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST,Nigel Parsons (at work)
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 04:45 PM

How about, a single thread titled (e.g) "assistance with instruments" or "guidance for players". A single message at the start of the thread could direct readers to one of the threads in each group of instruments. i.e. one guitar thread, one tin whistle thread, one washboard thread, etc.,
This would, effectively, become an index to available thread groups as many Guitar threads could be found from that one initial link.

Perhaps a 'permathread' for grouped discussions might be an even better solution.

However, I'm happy as things are, and also sometimes pass possible linked threads to Joe for consideration.

CHEERS

Nigel (hard at work!)

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Blackcatter
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 06:26 PM

How about a warning that automatically pops up whenever gargoyle postes a comment to a thread . . .

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: open mike
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 06:04 PM

IF some other prefixes do get adopted, there should be a SONG (with words)and a TUNE (instrumental) category. What i mean to say is that if there is a SONG list there should also be one featuring TUNES, IMHO.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From:
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 04:28 PM

I use the filter all time in my main link to Mudcat :
http://www.mudcat.org/threads.cfm?Title=BS:&Age=4&Filterout=1.
I change the thread Subject line IF I remember to when I'm posting a Lyr Add:.
I haven't read the FAQ for a few months now, but every year or so, I do.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: MudGuard
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 01:16 PM

often/rarely/completely ;-)

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 12:55 PM

I use the Filter for searching for something, rarely otherwise. The Great Divide is sufficient for me.

I have sometimes changed the title before posting when it seemed valuable to do so.
I have read the FAQ.


A

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST,NicoleC
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 12:51 PM

How many of you use the Filter? (I do when looking for something specific, but find it relatively useless for daily browsing.)

How many have changed the title of a message before posting? (Often.)

How many have read at least the first seven messages of the FAQ? (All of it.)

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Blackcatter
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 12:12 PM

I love answering rhetorical questions!


How many of you use the Filter? (I Don't)

How many have changed the title of a message before posting? (I have once or twice)

How many have read at least the first seven messages of the FAQ? (I have, and I'm going to re-read them right now)

pax y'all

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 03:46 AM

A number of good ideas have been expressed in this thread. I'm sure Jeff is watching, and he'll most probably incorporate some of them.

When we split the Forum into Music and BS, we talked about dividing the Forum Menu into categories, and we decided that we didn't want to split more than just music and BS. We think it adds diversity to our discussion. We want all the day's thread titles to be seen by all the people, and don't want to break into separate song/instrument/politics/gardening/chit-chat communities. We're very familiar with the type of forum setup Nicole describes, but we made a conscious decision not to use it because we've found that our setup seems to create a very lively forum dynamic. The other system of thread organization may be more "civilized," but we think our way of doing it is more fun.

This forum is different from others because of the volume of traffic we get here. On many Internet forums, a thread may get one message every two weeks. Ours can get dozens in a day. So, for the general forum menu, we have a list of just those threads that have had traffic today. If you want more, just use the Filter or the search engines. We add keywords to thread titles when needed, and we do a lot of crosslink work - all to make our filter and search engines work better.

Categories are a good idea. We've considered adding INSTrument and EVENT, and we've talked about SONG in this thread. I'm convinced, though, that we should remove some categories before we add others. Also-please remember that if you really think we should adopt a category, you can put any tag you want on a the title of a thread you start. Just don't choose anything from the dropdown menu, and type in what you want. If you start using a category and we like it, we'll adopt it.

Now, if I could ask a couple of rhetorical questions:

How many of you use the Filter?

How many have changed the title of a message before posting?

How many have read at least the first seven messages of the FAQ? (the first message covers searching)

If you haven't, please do.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 10:34 PM

Yes, except it says my last visit was in 2001 and the main page is almost as jumbled, so it's not really an alternative to what some folks would think of as the distasteful organization of the main page :)

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 04:19 PM

you mean like the "posts since last visit" and "posts by date" pages available to you in the quicklink dropdown box at the top of the page?

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST,NicoleC
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 04:09 PM

I would have thought that it would be possible to have some way that people who like to keep thing neat and tidy to push a button to get all the tags sorted out automatically. All the threads without tags would be in a Miscellaneous list (but divided music and BS).

This is standard feature for almost every forum software out there. There are catagories, sometimes called forums, sometiems call prefixes in Mudcat. Your cookie has a time stamp of the last time you visited. You can see which categories have new posts, jump to new posts in specific threads -- a nice feature for those long threads -- or you can choose to view all new posts since the last time you visited (sorted by thread) jumbled all together. Perfect for those who want everything jumbled together, sorted for those who don't. Programmatically, the different views are simply slightly modified statements with different grouping and sorting clauses.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Homeless
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 03:49 PM

Hey, cool, those groups things are pretty neat (and will keep me busy for a while).
Is there any way to see a master list of the groups, or do you just have to stumble across them individually in threads?

---

We've done that wiht Song Origins, Homeless. We haven't decided whether we want to do that with other groups, since they're organized differently.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 02:40 PM

Mario's just said what I was about to say - to remind people that it'd worth it sometimes putting a bit more effort into crafting a post, so that it contains relevant links - to songs you mention to make a point, to people you mention, and so forth. And these can be either in the Mudcat or anywhere else. And of course to other threads or posts too, where appropriate.

As I see it, it doesn't really matter too much if the tags are 100% accurate, so long as they are moderately so. And thread drift doesn't really alter things, the tags can show where a thread starts off from, and after that it's up to people to stay with the drift, or drift away to another thread or something else in the real world.

I would have thought that it would be possible to have some way that people who like to keep thing neat and tidy to push a button to get all the tags sorted out automatically. All the threads without tags would be in a Miscellaneous list (but divided music and BS).

And the rest of us wouldn't push the buttons, and we'd browse the Mudcat the way we like doing it.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 02:28 PM

also - while I will admit it is not everyone's cup of tea - there is the "Ask not what the mudcat can do for me - but what I can do for the mudcat" approach.

Links can be placed between threads of like subject matter by ANYONE - right in the threads. You don't HAVE to bother Joe- though he may choose to edit the links out and cross-link the threads later on.-

Tunes can be posted in miditxt or ABC or SOLFAGE-or songwright(or e-mailed to someone who CAN post them)- or midi files sent in to be posted.


Have you done some pretty in-depth study of a particular song? Start a DTSTUDY thread - cut and paste or link within that thread to gather the material - Joe has certainly provided enough examples.

Have a number of unusual variants of some song? Post them in a thread!

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Jeri
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 02:24 PM

I believe most requests/suggestions are considered with an open mind, and I've seen the Powers that Be act on one individual suggestion almost immediately when it would be relatively easy and wouldn't mess anything else up.

The problem is that some of the suggestion..well, some folks would like things that way and some wouldn't. The organization here is based on the material being organized and how people access it. Discussions sometimes shift mid-thread. A 'LYR REQ:' can be come a 'Origins' discussion, which can further mutate into 'so whatever happened to that guy?' and 'anybody got chords' and 'so what fingering should I use on the D9?'.

It makes it tough on folks who want a bit more structure, but I really don't believe more structure would work very well here. Someone would have to make sure prefixes were entered correctly or edit them. Someone would have to make sure contributors kept on topic by editing, and that editing would take the form of off-topic message deletion or starting threads FOR people who bring up side issues and moving messages. It takes freedom and control from people, and it's way too much work!

Jim Dixon, that 'one group per thread' thing bothers me too. For instance, a thread on an individual's playing on a song might belong in a group on that individual, a group on playing technique, or a group on the specific song. They may be working on it though.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST,Jim Dixon
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 02:15 PM

Blackcatter, I think it's highly unlikely Joe will get 500 PMs in the next week, especially not about the Jew's harp and washtub bass!

I probably already scared most people off with my caveats about being well researched and thorough, etc.

Anyone who has a specialized interest that they have been following for some time at Mudcat probably already has an idea what the level of interest is in their favorite topic, and who they might compete with in case more than one person wants to help in that area. I think a few PMs to those people would head off the possiblity of duplication of effort.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST,NicoleC, elsewhere
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 01:36 PM

Periodically, we hear from the organizers trying to think of ways to keep new blood coming into MudCat to combat it's occassional incestuous nature. Then we hear from those new people who are leaving because they find the site difficult to use, and the same old regulars saying the like it the way it is. Perhaps there's a happy medium.

Imagine going to a grocery store. Every item is labelled exactly the same way, in the same size box of the same white color with the same blue font on it. The location of the boxes are entirely dependant upon the previous customers moving things around at random. That's what MudCat is like. If you like to pick your food off the shelf at random, or if you want to pick up every single box and study it, you'd be happy. But most of us go to the grocery store with lists of what we definately want, and then we browse the aisles for other items as we go by.

I've made suggestions in the past that could accomodate multiple browsing styles without significant reprogramming or restructuring, which could also reduce the workload on the clones. They've been ignored (or silently rejected), so there's no point in retyping them here. But I can say predict with 100% surety that rearranging the prefixes again will fail, simply because a) it hasn't worked before and b) no one uses them the same way, if at all.

One needn't be bashing MudCat to make constructive suggestions. If Max and the clones don't ever want unsolicited suggestions, then they should clearly say so and delete any threads that have a tiny bit of critical content. Since they haven't done so, it seems safe to assume that they ARE interested in input, and jumping down the throats of people who dare have a different opinion is couterproductive, at best.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Blackcatter
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 12:12 PM

Just as long as Joe doesn't get 500 PMs in the next week - half of which duplicate the others! Heh....

good suggestion, though Jim. Maybe as one of the resident tin whistle, jews harp, gutbucket/washtub bass, noseflute persons, maybe I should help.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 10:26 AM

One big improvement that has happened to Mudcat recently is the ability to cross-link related threads. I'm referring to the list of links that appears at the top of some threads. Joe is the only person I know of who can create these links. I am happy to report that he is willing to accept lists from others, if the topic is music-related, and if you carefully and thoroughly research it, and give him a list in a format that is easy for him to use. Here's an example of a list of items I sent him in a personal message (PM):

    Marrow Bones / Old Woman from Wexford / etc.
     SongID= 1797, 3870, 4451, 5775, 6896, 7347
     ThreadID= 404, 3697, 34005, 50419

(For those who aren't familiar with what the numbers mean, if you plug the number into one of the following URLs:

    http://www.mudcat.org/@displaysong.cfm?SongID=1797
     http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=404

you get either a song in the DT or a thread in the forum, respectively.)

I have given Joe mainly lists of songs and threads about songs, but I've also compiled lists of threads about busking and about nursing-home gigs. There are lots of good topics that no one has tackled yet. For instance, I'd like to see a list of threads about producing and selling your own CD. (I'll do it someday if nobody else does, but I'd be happy to see someone else do it.) If you have a favorite music-related topic that you'd like to see cross-linked in this way, go for it! Maybe Joe will supply some more pointers.

(I think there is a limitation that no one thread or song can appear in more than one list. Joe, please clarify if this isn't true.)

So, little by little, we are getting Mudcat better organized.

---

DT Songs can appear in any number of groups, but threads only in one group - for now.
Jeff has grouping revisions in the works, and his refinements look wonderful.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 08:07 AM

Well Jim Dixon,

You are one of just the sorts of persons who I was hoping would benefit from the content, but I was hampered by the length of the title. I originally posted it as "P/A" for an abbreviation, but I figured that was even less likely to turn up in a search, so I asked Joe to change it - after some thought we ended up where we are...

"Recycled Muso" may be unknown to anybody I admit - but it fitted in the title

As explained therein - it is somebody who has already learned to play at least one instrument - it may be a piece of local Brisbane slang...

It has been made a 'Permathread' and I have been told it is in the process of being listed among them - but I personally am not sure how to find such "Reference" threads.... :-) maybe somewhere in the FAQ?

Robin

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST,Wilbyhillbilly
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 01:44 AM

Well said jOhn, couldn't have said it better myself.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 12:41 AM

blar, blar, balr, peoploe like to moan to mucxh and changes tyhigsngs etc, just get lost.johh

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Blackcatter
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 12:34 AM

Generally unsorted, but searchable - that's fine for me!

Also - I occasionally go to a discussion board for Asperger's Syndrome. There the threads are organized into subjects (relationship discussion, job discussion, kids, etc.) I sense that this really hampers the kind of discussion and thread drift we have here. I actually was reproached once there for going of topic in a thread by one of the managers.

Of course Asperger's people tend to like straight line discussions, but don't typically mind if a tangent is introduced. We will either ignore it or jump on board.

Once again, thank you Joe & Jeff for all your work. Mudcat has definately improved in the past year or so with the bit more organization (and just incase anyone's curious, I've been here about 5 years).

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 10:47 PM

Well, Homeless, I think I'd like to see an "Inst" tag for instruments, and I'd gladly trade a couple of song tags for an instrument one.

The "What the F" thread is in the group called Guitar: Chords and can be accessed through just about any chord thread you find. I missed the "Licks" thread when it first came out, but I just now put it in the group called Guitar: Tips / Instruction. I ought to mention that Jeff set up and organized all the guitar crosslink groups, and it was a mammoth undertaking. Looks like we don't have any thread groups for whistles yet, but we'll get on it.

I don't know when it was that Jeff put the grouping system online, but I think it hasn't been two years. Before that, I did hundreds of crosslinks, all by hand. I've been using Jeff's wonderful system to group threads ever since, but 66,000 is a lot of threads to group. I'm online almost every day, and I try to put most pertinent new threads into groups and include old threads in the process. There weren't many whistle threads in 2003, so a whistle group didn't get created.

Still, we've always had a pretty good way of sorting threads, something we've had since the very beginning - the filter. If you put whistle in the filter box and set the age back, you'll get most of the whistle threads. Most people are smart enough to put something in their thread title that tells what the thread is about, and you can find those threads fairly easily if you use the filter. If the title is misleading, I try to add a word or two of clarification, rather than changing the thread title completely.

So, maybe you could look at Mudcat as a library with 66,000 volumes - and those volumes were largely unsorted until Jeff invented the grouping system. Now that we have the system in place, we have one person (Yours truly) doing the sorting - and he doesn't want any help because it would confuse him. More and more threads are grouped every day, but it's a slow process. Jim Dixon does help me a lot by sending me lists of threads to group, but I still do most of the grouping myself.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Homeless
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 10:10 PM

Joe- I guess I didn't do a very good job of expressing myself, based on your response of "...additional Thread tags for songs..." Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass less about songs. I have little to no use for lyrics, and not much for tunes. I like to play around with chording and fingerpicking within scales. It seems to me that while this site is a great resource for singers, it is much less so for musicians. I want to know more about techinique for playing guitar - independent of what song/tune it might be.

Once upon a time, Rick started a thread called "What the 'F' is goin' on at Mudcat?" There is nothing in that title to say it's about guitar playing, nor is it about a particular song. If you didn't know it was out there, it would be hard to find. It does have some cross references in it, once you find it.
This thread, however, Licks, fills, embellishments? is not cross linked, and unless you happen to search on one of the words in the title you have no hope of finding it.

And I'm not suggesting it be limited to guitar - things like ornaments on the tin whistle ought to fit within the category as well, I should think. As well as techniques on all the other instruments that 'catters play.

Given that definition, does a specific prefix still seem like such an evil?

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 09:32 PM

I suppose the Mudcat could be totally rewritten using a different organizing scheme..(like perhaps the one in Usenet newsgroups, or the one used by Jon Freeman)...but then we would have complaints about that! People's minds work differently....some want **categories** so they are barely aware of stuff that they are not interested in.... others want to browse & graze and sample everything. I have several wishes that I am unlikely to see.

Some want ONLY instrumental stuff...some only lyrics. Some love discussing physics, politics and cat hair in between their songs...others want the place **pure** and unspoiled by BS...

For a place that, like Topsy, just grew, the joint has held together remarkably well! The music threads are alive, the BS is down there, if you wanta look....and the technical achievements of Max and Jeff astound me! "Messages since last visit".."SuperSearch" "Personal Messages" "Chat Room" "Reverse sorting" "Auto BlueClicky Maker" ..........on & on & on...even those who 'wish' it were different usually manage.

It is what it is...and it has provided a world-wide network for sharing lots of music...and some other stuff..

I am grateful, even if it NEVER get perfect.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 08:52 PM

Robin: One of the reasons I didn't read your thread for a long time was that I didn't know what a "muso" was, let alone a recycled one. (No great loss; I have no ambition to play the accordion anyway, but my wife does play one, and I'm a bit interested in understanding what she's up to.)

Some people seem to think that a mysterious-sounding title attracts more attention, but for me, it's the exact opposite. If I can't tell exactly what a thread is about from the title, I'm very unlikely to open it. I don't have time to go searching for stuff that MIGHT be interesting. I have plenty of stuff to do that I already know IS interesting.

For instance, I've never opened the thread called "The Mother of all BS threads" and I probably never will. I have no idea what they discuss there, and I have no desire to find out. I figure if they had anything interesting to say, they'd put it in a thread with a better title.

I doubt that I'm missing anything, because, in all the searching I've done at Mudcat, I've never found the "Mother" thread in any of my search results.

I'm glad the "Mother" thread exists, though. I figure it's keeping some people occupied that would otherwise be cluttering up the good music threads with annoying BS.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 08:28 PM

"Techniques" wouldn't be a song tag really.

Maybe a "practical" tag, to cover threads about musical techniques and musical gear - and maybe also those seeking or offering advice on where to find clubs and so forth?

And just one tag, to cover treads starting as requests for either tunes, words or chords; and another to cover those starting as unsolicited additions of either tunes or words.

Plus History (incorporating folklore), Obits, and "Issues". Six in place of nine.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Blackcatter
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 08:09 PM

Simply put, I have yet to see a better visual way to organize thread than Mudcat. It is simple and readable. I trace threads I'm particularly interested in. But I do ignore 95% of threads for various reasons. I must miss some threads that I would have really liked - but that's mostly because the name of a thread doesn't catch my attention or doesn't tell the whole story (hell, they all do that . . .)

It's not perfect, but there's no place like this that I'm aware of and I need to be here. My church is the same place as is the local folk music scene, etc.

That being said I've told dozens of friends about the site (and more with my Mudcat t-shirt) and none have ever become regulars here. This place could have tens of thousands of members but it doesn't because only a few "folkies" are drawn to regularly hang out here.

Thanks to Max and Joe & Joe Clones for this place.

Blackcatter

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 07:31 PM

Well, I tried to do the right thing to name the thread I set up Technique: Piano Accordion for The Recycled Muso but nobody reads it....
sob, sob, sob...

btw, that's phonetic crying, not swearing... ;-)

Robin

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST,NicoleC, elsewhere than normal
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 07:27 PM

Daisy,

Lest you think that you are alone, I totally agree with you. As an organizer of data for a living I find MudCat ecruciatingly difficult, slow, and tiring to deal with. When you log on you see a sea of blue text more or less jumbled together with nothing to draw the eye to the relevant points -- relevant being the ones your brain is interested in -- the first thought is usually, "why did I bother to log on?" Answer: habit.

Reading is, first and foremost, an exercise in spacial dynamics (whether the reader realixes it or not.) The web page is visually and mentally tiring. I often miss threads I do want to read and get visually stuck on the ones I don't. I get progressively annoyed and generally pissed off at the mish-mash, which to be fair, is in large part due to people not using the tools that are there like prefixes, insisting their particular political diatribe is not BS, or asking the same questions over and over because they don't use the one thing MudCat is 100% awesome at -- the searchable library.

Any more, Mudcat requires more effort than I'm willing to invest to read a thread. (And this comment comes from someone who will gladly type a 2000 word response without thinking twice or tackle 400+ manhour job of the Mudcat cookbook.) So, like you, I don't bother much any more. Oh well.

Anyway, this subject has come up before. Maybe 832 or 833 times :) Those that don't like it are inundated with "no's" from people who do like it. I honesty don't think the people that do like it constitutes a majority, but they are the vocal ones, so that's the way it stays.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 06:59 PM

JOE!!!...not even "songs sung in foreign languages with glottal stops and minor keys, which begin on the tonic note and do not mention long-haired cats or motorcycles?"

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 06:32 PM

Well, Homeless, I'd hate to see a thread prefix like that, but remember that you can change the title of any message you post to whatever you like. So, it there's an existing lyrics request thread on "Ring Around the Rosy," your reply message can read ADD, or Chords or TAB or Technique or whatever. But I absolutely, positively, definitely, unequivocably will not support the establishment of any additional Thread tags for songs unless some are removed.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Homeless
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 05:11 PM

The one prefix I'd like to see is "techniques" or something similar to that. It seems like most of the prefixes revolve around the songs themselves rather than the playing of them.

I started coming around the 'cat when I was starting to learn to play guitar. I've seen numerous threads on chord and fingering techniques that were over my head when I started, but that I could possibly make use of now. Trying to find them is tough work tho. It'd be nice to be able to use filter on 'technique' the way you can on 'lyr.'

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Janie
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 03:22 PM

And once all these threads are organized, would the angel who does it come to my house and organize a few rooms for us:-0

Janie

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST,Jim Dixon
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 02:47 PM

I try to look at every "Lyr Req" thread. I usually don't look at them until after they have dropped off the 24-hour horizon. That way I don't waste my time answering questions that are too easy--I like the hard ones. (Back when I used to do crossword puzzles, I only did the Sunday ones.) If any request remains unanswered after 24 hours have passed, THEN I'll tackle it.

I find this keeps me so busy, I have very little time left to look at other kinds of threads.

Most of the time, I set my filter to show only threads that have the word (or abbreviation) "Lyr" in the title.

What worries me, and saddens me a bit, is when people want lyrics but don't use the standard prefix. I'm sure I've missed some of those threads.

So I'd like to ask Joe and all his clones: If you happen to see any thread in which people are seeking lyrics, please be sure "Lyric" or "Lyr" appears in the title.

As a second-tier wish, I'd wish all the threads that were about songs would have the word "Song" in the title. But maybe that's too much to hope for.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: wysiwyg
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 02:32 PM

Joe, since a frequent misuse of TECH is for technical details about instruments, how about GEAR? That would also cover "what kind of mic" which guitar" "adding machine tuners to fiddles" and all that jazz.

Oh no-- now JAZZ will turn up in a search and all future postings of jazz songs will be here!   :~)

~S~

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 02:27 PM

...in the search box (top right corner of e.g. this page) there is a link named "advanced". This goes to a page with boolean operators.

That's an example of what I love about the Mudcat - there's always some new trick you hadn't known about until someone points it out one day.

The clever thing about the BS non BS split was that it's there if you want it, and you can dispense with it if you prefer, and that's a principle that I think should be followed in this kind of thing. If there's some way in which people who would like things categorized can push a button and see it that way, and those who prefer it more random can keep it that way, I think that's the way to do it.

I'd imagine it would be possible to do that for tagged threads without too many complications.

As for tags, the problem, with too specific tags is that it can be hard to see which to use sometimes - I'd sooner just have "Songs", "Tunes", "Events" "Obit" and "Instruments" for the music side of it, along with Folklore (though I'd sooner call that History, so it'd be a natural home for people reminiscing about some coffee bar in the 1960s as well as the ins-and-outs of the Morris tradition in the 17th century). And maybe another for "Issues" to provide a home for the stuff about licence law reform, and what-is-folk. That's two fewer than we have at present.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 01:53 PM

Hi, Daisy - I'm taking your suggestions into account, because we most certainly want Mudcat to be inviting to occasional visitors and to new members who may join us and keep our community vibrant.

Much of what's good here is due to the interaction of people working together on researching a song or developing an idea, and too much control can dull that sort of dynamic. A lot of our lyrics request threads produce no worthwhile information - there's a request, and then somebody posts a link to another location at Mudcat. I try to close those threads quickly so the discussion is directed to the previous one - but I try not to be so quick that I kill a good discussion. Usually, I crosslink all threads pertaining to a particular song if the song is traditional, and I crosslink by songwriter if it's a more contemporary song. If you look up a song in the Forum or in the Digital Tradition, you will very often find crosslinks to related threads - the "Origins" threads and the "DTStudy" threads are generally the ones that give the best information. Crosslinking song threads is manageable, but threads on events and instruments pose more complex problems. Our guitar geeks have created a vast web of threads, and it's hard work to organize it. Jeff has done a lot of the work on the guitar stuff, because it's not in my area of interest.

I know Mudcat like the back of my hand, so it's sometimes hard for me to see it in the eyes of an outsider and understand what people need to find their way around. I'd suggest you read the first message in our FAQ to learn about our search engines. You may also find our Song Origins and Information database helpful, although I admit it's a bit hard to find in our QuickLinks dropdown menu. I'm sorry, but we don't intend to make it any easier to find, because there's only so much you can display on a main page. All of the information in that database is used in our crosslinks system, which is most easily accessed by using our search engines.

I suppose there's one most important rule for searching Mudcat, and it's something Dick Greenhaus has expressed from the very beginning - search for a distinctive phrase from a song (or whatever you're looking for), not the title. Titles can be misleading.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: MMario
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 07:59 AM

yup - subfolders tend to lead to duplication of requests - loss of answers (because the person searching searches in the wrong sub-folder) etc...

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST,Sooz(at work)
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 07:59 AM

I like it just the way it is!
Too much organisation would spoil the pleasure of a random dip which can so often bring up a pearl!

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: MudGuard
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 07:03 AM

Daisy, in the search box (top right corner of e.g. this page) there is a link named "advanced". This goes to a page with boolean operators.


that some people ARE put off by the structure,

This will probably be true for every structure ...

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST,DaisyA
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 06:53 AM

Dear all, thanks for your comments, I didn't expect such a huge response!

One or two points:
All the advice on using the search facilities and becoming a member and so on... this advice is very useful and will hopefully help people get more of what they want out of Mudcat.

My own comments were not from a position of ignorance, I work in humanities computing and I am fairly au fait with the way Mudcat works - I was a member ages ago but stopped using the site all that often (due to time-consuming browsing) and consequently forgot all my login details (oops!). My initial post was simply to let the organisers know that some people ARE put off by the structure, people like me, who have a great deal of interest and a lot to contribute.

What I'm trying to say is that I guess I am a user who likes a lot of relevance - I don't want to search through the sewing box, to revisit the first analogy, I want my coloured threads to be nicely organised. There's nothing wrong with these different perspectives, we're all different people, however, as pointed out above, those of you who are regular catters will tend towards the kind of person who DOES enjoy hunting.

I think that it's pretty clear that more users (at least who've posted here) prefer the thread structure the way it is, but my point of view is still valid - be aware that those of us who don't have time to logon every day, browse through hundreds of threads weekly, or do multiple searches will continue to slowly drift away from Mudcat, which is a shame for all concerned, isn't it?
I think that a 'subfolder' structure, whilst obviously not foolproof, would speed up focused browsing (which is very different from searching remember) without preventing the 'digging' which many people enjoy. But as I seem to be in the minority here, I won't push the point.

To the organisers of mudcat: I'm in awe of your massive acheivement in creating this online community and don't wish to belittle it, on the contrary, I hope that my presenting this minority opinion will help to improve Mudcat and increase its number of users.

One last thing - does the search support boolean operators as this would certainly speed up my searching, if not my browsing?

Thanks for your time,
Daisy

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 04:52 AM

I find myself stunned to agree in part with Gargoyle; threads from Australia should be in green, reflecting the gullibilty of many in Australia especially the politicians: taking into account the recent "Free" Trade agreement that will be about $8 bilion AUD a year to the detriment of Australia, and the way we go along so willinglingly with the Military Plans of the USA....

Robin.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Linda Kelly
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 04:48 AM

just leave it be-it isn't the categories that need changing , it is people ensuring the Subject box is a clear indication of what is in the thread. That is up to us, not Joe or Max.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST,Crazy Little Woman
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 11:53 PM

I like the Mudcat the way it is, and I want to say thanks to those who make it possible.

I used to visit the forum at a sewing site quite often, until the management decided to get it all "organized" into headings and subheadings yada yada yada. The number of people using the site and helping each other has simply plummeted since then.

Subject: Thread category tags
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 11:35 PM

I have to say I get frustrated by too many categories. When we have lyr/tune/chord add/req, not to mention origins and dtstudy, we have too many categories to split song information into. It works fine if the first person to discuss the song is the one who picks the thread tag, but it drives me batty to see people answer requests by starting an additional "add" thread.

If at all possible, please keep information on a song in a single thread, so it's easy for people to see the entire discussion. I do combine some threads if it makes sense, but it's a tedious process because I have to move messages one at a time.

I saw a chords request just now, in the thread on Let Ramensky Go. I decided to try a different tack this time - I moved the chords request message to the existing thread, but added a "chords" tag to the old thread title. Let me know how you think that works.

We don't want to make out thread categorization too rigid and squelch discussion, and yet we want to help people find their way around. It's a delicate balance. Jeff and I keep trying new methods. I do most of the grouping and categorizing by myself, because I've found it gets confusing if different people do it with different philosophies.
I think it's great, because I get exposed to all this new music information as I do my categorizing and grouping.

Maybe some pointers about thread categories would be helpful:

• The Folklore category is for non-music information that relates to folk music - language, customs, etc. Our harvesters should not expect to find songs in "folklore" threads, although they aren't prohibited.
• The Origins category is for the origins/history of songs. Please don't use "origins" if you're requesting lyrics. In general, "Origins" is a tag we add to a thread once we find it has substantial song origins information, but the tag is available for those who really do want to request origins information.
• The Obit category is for dead people, not the death of your conscience, or your cat, or whatever. We'll move the non-music obituaries to the non-music side of the Forum when we feel it's appropriate.
• Tech is for non-music tech stuff, particularly computer problems.
• Lyr/Chord/Tune Add/Req - please try to keep all information in one thread, even though the tag on the existing thread may not be the one you want. Don't start an ADD thread to reply to a REQ thread. For that matter, don't start ANY thread to reply to another thread.
• Use BS for all non-music information, keeping in mind the few exceptions listed above.
• If you don't see a category that fits, leave the category blank, or type up a tag that will fit. Since there are so many spirituals posted, it would be nice to have a "spirituals" tag (but that's something you can type yourself).
• Don't try to be "cute" in your choice of thread tags. As you can see from comments above, people actually do make use of the tags to find things. If you use improper tags, somebody has to change them. We have over 600,000 threads, and it takes a lot of work to keep them organized.

We may add some tags to our dropdown list, and we may remove some. I've occasionally lobbied Max and Jeff to have a "song" category instead of all the add/req's, but I haven't prevailed yet (and I'm not totally satisfied with "song"). We try to make sure that the tags we use are both brief and understandable. We won't use "NM" instead of "BS" because it's not immediately understood.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 11:35 PM

All threads originating with outside the USA should be delineated with red type and because of their origin all readers may consider them suspect before opening.

All threads from within the contiguous USA should be delineated with blue type and therefore by considered true to the solid Blues/American folk traditions and worthy of study.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 08:50 PM

Walking Eagle, I looked for a Permathread today. I never remember that they are in FAq at the top of the page. Finally typed permathread in search and found a letter from Joe telling how to find them.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 04:28 PM

Max, by "rival" I only meant we are another folk site - I put it in quotes as I thought it would be taken as being ironic rather than anyone reading that I thought there was really a competetion - I'm sorry you had to read an alternative interpretation into it. I have said it before and will say it again. There is no attempt to compete and even if there was, I know Mudcat would win the day. I read alt.banjo, rec.music.folk, rec.music.celtic, bbc, folkinfo and here and find I can get something different out of each - more in fact than I can get out of any one idividual site.

You are of course quite in order to think me an asshole if you wish.

Getting back to the more basics, I honestly thought I was putting in a good word for your (collective) current efforts here and how much I like them rather than attacking you. I have re-read and see I've even said I prefer one of your design features to one of mine...

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 04:19 PM

MAX!!!!

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 04:01 PM

BINGO! Knew there had to be a way...

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Max
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 04:01 PM

Spend 5 or 10 minutes learning the nuances of the search and filter features and you'll never get lost again.

GUEST,Jon is right, there are many differing opinions here at the Mudcat. For instance, Jon's opinion is that his site is a "rival" to Mudcat. My opinion is that Jon is flattering himself with such status, and that he's an asshole. Yet despite our difference of opinion, the Mudcat clicks and hums on its merry way.

It is difficult to make any change that improves the ratio of satisfied members and GUESTS with the way it is or should be. While most nations, corporations and organizations get stuck in this quagmire, resulting in no change, we continue to move forward thanks to a benevolent and omnipotent dictator, a badass programmer and Joe.

The real point is that we get by pretty well with such varying computer skills, countries of origin, intelligence, desires and, yes, opinions. While it is easy to see the flaws or areas of potential of improvement, I am far too busy basking in the glow of our successes. Perhaps I will feel differently when I return from this one-month Caribbean vacation financed by all the money I make off of the Mudcat, so I promise to reevaluate my stance when this island runs out of Rum and Sun.

Cynically yours,

Max

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From:
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 03:53 PM

MMario, this is what I am currently using to link to Mudcat....

http://www.mudcat.org/threads.cfm?Title=BS:&Age=4&Filterout=1

It is set for 4 days. Change for the time period you prefer.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: freightdawg
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 02:10 PM

Maybe we could just separate the good threads from the bad threads.


!!!JUST KIDDING!!!


okay, okay, I'll just go stick my nose in the corner.



Freightdawg.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: open mike
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 02:06 PM

the only thing i can think of to improve this system is perhaps a few more choices in the ready-made thread titles. Daisy, you should have been here before the bs section was seperated out. it is quite recent
and a good feature. The replies here are indicative of the mud cat:
many different responses, some related to the topic, some which diverge. This may be an example of the short attention span (A.D.D.) which some of us may experience, where stream of consciousness leads quickly from one idea to the other. This is the beauty of mud cat. I would second the above invitation to join as a member then you can trace threads, and join in the chat room, which is a place where many friendships are born and nurtured.

and now for a divergent idea:
How many acoustic musicians does it take to change a lightbulb?

answer: 5. One to change the bulb and four to complain that it
takes electricity to use it.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 01:39 PM

I spend several hours a day organizing, cross-linking, and renaming threads. I think the best way to find threads is to use the Filter and put a keyword in the filter box and set the age back all the way. From the list that appears, pick out threads that look interesting. Chances are, you'll find that related threads have been crosslinked (crosslinks appear toward the top of the thread).
Jeff is working on refinements to the crosslinking system.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 12:44 PM

The only change that I would like to make is to have a seperate section for the PermaThreads that is understandable.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 12:39 PM

Pavane - yes; I suppose that is true. I *DO* have the habit of always opening a thread in a new window - so it doesn't bother me as much.

Several mudcat incarnations ago I was able to bookmark the main forum with the date filter set to my desired range...but haven't been able to do that for at least the last two major changes.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 12:34 PM

The categories of Lyric add-post, chords etc. and events all impinge on one another in one way or another.
Leave it as it is.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: pavane
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 12:33 PM

MMario

What I find annoying is that whenever you refresh, the days filter gets reset to its default value, so you look at one thread, then have to refresh AGAIN when you return. Yes, I know I should open the thread in a new window, but I always forget.

But I suppose it reduces bandwidth this way.

Perhaps opening threads in a new window should be the default?
Sorry, this is thread creep...

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST,Arkie
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 11:47 AM

To all those who have had a hand in designing Mudcat, I must say that I am very grateful. I have tried the old time music site and a few others in hope that I would find help and information similar to what is offered at Mudcat. Everyone, without exception, was far more difficult to use. There may have been secrets that I did not stay around long enough to learn, but Mudcat is so simple, that one can immediately use the site without any effort. While there are some intracacies of the site I have yet to learn, they are the icing on the cake. The essentials are within easy reach. As one who tends to use manuals as a last resort, I really appreciate the user-friendly nature of Mudcat.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST,Buffy the Hamster slayer
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 11:04 AM

So this is where you are hiding Giles.

Subject: Change the Subject Line!!!
From: wysiwyg
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 10:54 AM

It's always helpful when the Clones adjust prefixes, and even if they don't, one can change a post's subject line to accurately reflect what is being added to the thread.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: JennyO
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 10:24 AM

Guest, DaisyA, I notice you are not a member of Mudcat. If you were, another option that would be available to you would be the tracing of threads. This allows you to bookmark the threads that interest you. They are then listed on your personal page. You can also send personal messages to other members.

It's all free, very easy to do, and I can recommend it. All you have to do to join is click on Membership at the top of the page and follow the instructions. Come on in - most of us don't bite :-)

Jenny

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 10:03 AM

But it would be helpful if people were more consistent in using the right prefix to their thread heading when starting a new thread. Of course after that they can drift off in all directions.

And I don't think the existing set of prefixes should be seen as set in stone. For example, I think an "events" option ("EV" maybe) would useful, and the Tech could be split in to music Tech, above the line, and computer Tech, below it. And there's no obvious prfix to use for a discussion of a song's meaning and provenance, when it's not eityher a request or an addition.

If course, the list of options shouldn't be too long, or it'd be self-defeating, but if there's no appropriate one it encourages people to dispense with using any, and that catches on. In fact it has caught on, so that most of the music threads don't have any prefixes these days.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: wysiwyg
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 10:03 AM

$0.02 worth:

When one views the forum as a day-trip, it IS mess-- unless one uses the filters to narrow the view. But when one views it as an interactive, searchable library, it reveals a lovely structure that has held up well over time.


1. What is being asked amounts to a suggestion for Mudcat to look and work like other discussion boards.

But-- Mudcat is one of the originators of the genre, not a clone from someone else's design. It has to evolve in its own way, especially since reorganizing it as suggested would probably confound later search efforts. There's a history of creativity of design here-- one that means all operational aspects are considered before changes are made. Tech changes are NOT made that would conflict with how the site already is. But often, a suggestion or request is responded to at a later time, that resolves a need much better than might first have been suggested. Changes that ARE made are integrations of numerous needs stated and addressed.


2. The best way to understand Mudcat (IMO) is NOT as a daily interactive newspaper, to be assimilated day by day, but as a library where one can find out things one wishes to know about the music one loves AND leave the shelves stocked better than I found them.

The lead paragraph on its front page describes Mudcat like this: With about 9000 songs in the Digital Tradition Database, you're sure to find what you're looking for. And if you don't find what you're looking for in the DT, try browsing, or posting to our Forum. Odds are your question will be answered within hours.


3. It DOES seem disorganized when one first looks in, and since the BS section became a section, it seems to me that there are more music threads each day then there used to be. It takes longer to see what's in them, than it used to.

But-- This is a GOOD thing. At least for me, it's led me to focus more narrowly on my own field, and contribute in that regard more fully, and give greater attention to details. Each day I plunge more deeply into my own field of study, I find more and more already HERE, and this leads me to want to leave the best and most informative record here for others, later.... I used to come here to GET. Now I come here to TRADE whatever I can add now for what someone else added a long time ago. I take more time to post what I find elsewhere, because I have a sense that this is the best place to put it safely on the shelf.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 09:55 AM

"L-Space" is another

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 09:54 AM

Just to bring this to a higher place:

In "Daniel", one of Martin Buber's earliest works, he discusses the relationship of man and world. The suggestion is to embrace the whirlpool nature of the world, not to structure it out of existence. Libraries are living cemeteries, you know -- we have the thoughts of people frozen in a matrix of organized information, and yet -- those are the past. True, those who are dead aren't adding to their opus, but those who are living change from day to day. We exist solely so that the future doesn't have to make the mistakes of the past, and we do our best to organize, not impose structure.

That's one of many reasons why libraries are very, very cool.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Pied Piper
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 09:47 AM

Believe me too much organisation is a bad thing.
This site is about the freest and least moderated site I go to and of cause it accurately reflects the foibles, prejudices, and obsessions of the people (myself included) that post here.
I personally would have no objection to more categories.

TTFN
PP

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 09:39 AM

Daisy, it is a simple matter to offer several views. To offer some perspective, you would probably able to do such a job to present a new view in less than an hour.

A couple of other thoughts though:

1: You can make a system too complicated or try to cater for too many whims.

2: I don't see the current MC too bad - in fact I find the OPTIONAL (for members) BS split a good solution.

The real point is that with any forum like this there will be people with different ideas as to who it should be. At one side you will find the Magrath's who see a mix desirable and others who only want to see music (this is only really a problem as people on both side of the fence can be too pig-headed and controlling/ or alternatively too ignorant to realise simple tech solutions that can please both parties do exist)

My own belief is that you can find a balance and allow both opinions to exist side by side. I'm a "rival" site operator (and much of my split was disagreement about not alowing a separation for those who wanted it). I can't speak for MC but my current opinion is that the newer efforts made by MC are probably more than adequate.

I'll also say I do prefer the MC top/bottom split to my own filering aproach.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Bobjack
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 09:36 AM

I thought so!

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 09:31 AM

I'm the bloke from Vampire, the Buffy Sucker. I hang around in library stacks, all dry and dusty, until I see a nubile, delectable young woman. And then, hehehehe....

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Jeri
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 09:25 AM

Threads get 'bumped off the bottom' after 24 hours. You could set the filter to a longer time period and click 'Refresh', but then there'd be even more to read through.

Requests, lyrics, chords, whatever: you can type 'req:' in the filter and click Refresh, or 'add:'.

As to further organization... it's perfectly valid to request something you'd like. It's equally valid for people to disagree if the situation is an either/or one, and a change is being proposed which you WON'T like. There are almost always other options.

Pene Azul has repeatedly demonstrated his aptitude for is thinking around corners and creating choices. I can't personally think of anything that would work consistently. More prefixes and sorting alphabetically? Prefixes are currently used inconsistently and thread titles are often vague or misleading. One would have to set up prefixes and then get people to start threads uniformly. Maybe, in some universe...

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Bobjack
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 09:17 AM

Are you that bloke out of Buffy the vampire slayer then rappaire?

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 09:10 AM

As a librarian, one of those who have enough hubris to attempt to organize the information of the world:

You're asking for a classification scheme of human thought. Libraries did it years and years ago -- perhaps the all-around best is SR Ranganathan's Colon Classification (named after the punctuation mark, not the anatomical part). Second best would be either CA Cutter's Expansive Classification or its offspring, Library of Congress. Dewey Decimal or its offspring, Universal Decimal Classification, isn't comprehensive enough. Besides, there is NO scheme that could deal with either the emphasis on music OR the rapid change of subjects within a thread.

Nobody is going to sit down and assign classifications to the posts. For one thing, it's not something that can be automated and there's no money to hire someone. Secondly, it MUST be done by an outsider -- you can't leave it to the author to decide, and this would slow things down to less than a crawl. Thirdly, like human thought the threads are dynamic, not static as a book is.

Even assigning "subject headings" -- Lyrics, Music Chat, etc. -- would be difficult for the same reasons. We've all seen threads moved from BS to "above the line" and back down.

What are called analytics would help, but again, who decides and who will do the work?

The Mudcat is a reflection of only a small, a very small, part of the Internet as a whole. Libraries in the US are facing a shortage of trained librarians and one of the issues is that so many of the library school grads are going to work for Yahoo or Google or similar companies -- they've found that libraries have been successfully organizing information for a very long time and THEY are paying a lot better than libraries ever could. The Internet has brought unorganized, chaotically arranged information (and non-information) to people's homes. Some people are trying to organize it and they have had a little success, but the dynamism of the Internet, its ever-growing, ever-changing faces defeat them in the long run.

It's like Heraclitus, saying that you can't step in the same river twice. And it's also, as Heinlein noted years ago, the Crisis of the Librarian.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 08:55 AM

*sigh* I find Mudcat to be one of the most "user friendly" sites I have ever browsed. I know others do not find it so. You cannot please everyone all the time. The number of hits and the sheer activity of this site shows that it works. At least for some.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Bobjack
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 08:48 AM

Stop it now girls, before it gets out of hand!

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: greg stephens
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 08:45 AM

Jim Dixon: what is the appropriate response to something you disagree with? I should think a polite indication that you disagree, if opinions are being canvassed, is just the thing. Or is Mudcat to be so anodyne that people should only post if they agree with the previous statement?

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 08:40 AM

Naturally, the people who continue to use Mudcat are the ones who like it just the way it is--or who at least tolerate its shortcomings. We'll never know how many people have given up in frustration.

The people who care about such things as organization and user-friendliness (and by that I don't mean saying "Hi, user!") are a small minority here and are mostly ignored by the rest--except the few who like to argue.

You'll quickly discover that it's impossible to express ANY opinion here--let alone a criticism of Mudcat--without being besieged by a horde of people anxious to explain how wrong you are.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 08:18 AM

Daisy - there is a filter that can be adjusted for age. As has been said - you CAN use the prefixes to sort - and the age filter can be adjusted from one day to the entire history of the mudcat. (Everything is archived back to the beginning) You can also use the filter to search for specific words in the title of the threads - or you can use the forum search to search the entire texts of messages for words or phrases.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: The Unicorn Man
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 08:12 AM

Yes the beauty of MudCat to me is, it is fun and MadCap just the way I like it.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: MudGuard
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 08:09 AM

You separated out the BS threads (thank-you!) so could you make categories like:
Lyric posts and Requests
Events, Festivals and Regional Gatherings
Chords/Music posts and Requests
Music chat

Difficult...

Example: someone has bieen to a gathering where he heard a song, so he asks in the "after the gathering" thread for the song.

Should the Thread that was in the "Events, Festivals and Regional Gatherings" category now be shifted to the "Lyrics Request" category?

Then, after the lyrics have been provided in that thread, someone asks for the tune and chords for that song. Should the thread now be shifted to the "Chords/Music posts and Requests" category?

Things like these happen quite often...

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: greg stephens
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 08:05 AM

Personally I like an eclectic mix. In fact I pressed the relevant button to merge the BS and music when I discovered you could, after they were separated. I find ploughing through the crap throws up all sorts of delights. Well worth the effort. So, sorry DaisyA, I have to disagree.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 08:05 AM

The organising system is meant to be the prefixes - unfortunately, as often as not, people dom't use these.

Like freda, I prefer rummaging around. The same way I prefer bookshops and libraries where everything is fairly muddled up together, rather than where everything is organised, sometimes in ways that don't really help. For example, when they break up the fiction into categories - I once saw a shelf marked "Romance" which had Wuthering Heights and Pride and Prejudice alongside Barbara Cartland.

Subject: RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: freda underhill
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 07:59 AM

in my old emroidery box, I had coloured threads of embroidery cotton that my mother had given me when i was little girl. I had other silken shards of thread that I had bought, and all sorts of beautiful hand made laces, velvets, patches of embroidery and millions of pretty beads and buttons. I had thimbles, tiny scissors, packets of needles, pins with coloured heads on and little bits of gold wrapping paper.

i enjoyed going hunting, there was so much rambling stuff that it was an adventure - i never knew quite what i'd come across, and which bits of thread and colour would go together to make something beautiful.

i loved it! and gave the box to my daughter so she could continue the adventure!

now i'm too busy to sew and have a beautiful patchwork in a box, unfinished..

Subject: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!
From: GUEST,DaisyA
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 07:47 AM

Is there any way at all to organise these threads into sections? I find it very difficult indeed to use Mudcat due to the huge number of threads, most of which I don't want to read and the way they get bumped off the bottom of the page very quickly...

You separated out the BS threads (thank-you!) so could you make categories like:
Lyric posts and Requests
Events, Festivals and Regional Gatherings
Chords/Music posts and Requests
Music chat
etc.?

If this has been suggested before (I can't find it!) I apologise. I, for one, would certainly visit mudcat more often if there was more sense of continuity and more organisation of topics of discussion.

This is constructive criticism; I'm not having a go at the people who run Mudcat, who I bet do loads and loads of work for very little thanks. (So ta very much).

Daisy