 sj |
||
|
||
Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL?
|
|
|
Subject: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: GUEST,Nick Date: 12 May 07 - 06:33 PM Now I realize if I'm not part of the answer I'm part of the problem. I also think MUDCAT works well just the way it is, and I assume non profit so who has the time or money to make changes to it?...but....as a message board it is kinda behind the times. Being internet retarded I don't know how hard it would be to upgrade the site without losing the great parts. There are a few things I can think of I would like to see... 1) Spell Check 2) Font Size, Color and Format (Bold, Ital, Underline etc) choices 3) Photos in posts. 4) Ability for poster to edit a post after it has been made Are any changes in this direction being considdered? Is there any interest in seeing changes? Oh well just throwing it out for comments. Discuss.... Nick |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: JohnInKansas Date: 12 May 07 - 06:50 PM 1. If spelling is a problem, composing in your word processor and pasting a post after it has been checked is a simple solution. 2. Font Size, Color and Format: BOLD, italic, underline, and even 3. If you really need photos and can't find a place to put them and link, there's always Myspace where the children play. 4. Thinking before submit generally obviates the need to edit after posting. In really needful situations, you can request help from a clone. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: GUEST,Scoville Date: 12 May 07 - 06:56 PM HTML font codes work, as John pointed out. Does Mudcat really need to have every available bell and whistle? I mean, there were a lot of options I could have gotten on my car but I didn't and I don't miss them. I don't feel "frill deprived" here. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: artbrooks Date: 12 May 07 - 07:08 PM Getting the free Google toolbar gives you a spellchecker. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: Jack Campin Date: 12 May 07 - 07:13 PM Editing your own post is sometimes useful. The others I can do without. I suspect the server isn't powerful enough to do a significant quantity of inline images. (Might be handy to allow IMG tags with the image hosted somewhere else, though - no performance hit on Mudcat that way). |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: JohnInKansas Date: 12 May 07 - 07:39 PM For those of us with slow connections any significant use of IMG tags is a serious hit on our connection capacity, since it loads the image to the reader whether one wants to look at it or not. The posting of a link to an image elsewhere is quite easily done here, and the one reading has the choice of whether to separately open the link and look. I find that current method quite satisfactory. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: Jack Campin Date: 12 May 07 - 07:44 PM Can't all browsers be configured not to autoload images? No big deal, anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 12 May 07 - 07:46 PM Everything you ask for ....
|
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: Joe_F Date: 12 May 07 - 08:35 PM There *seems* to be a spelling checker in this window. I just deliberately misspelled a word, and it got a red underline. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 12 May 07 - 08:58 PM Joe, that will have to do with something in your browser. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: wysiwyg Date: 12 May 07 - 09:23 PM Over and over again, I see threads and posts where people want Mudcat to be like other online communities. It came first. It's unique. It doesn't need to function the same way later-conceived ones do. It evolves along its own line of development. It's like a Mac user whining that a Mac oughtta be just like a PC. It's like a sheepherder asking why the sheep can't act like cattle. It's like suddenly agreeing with Rex Harrison's character: "Why can't a woman be like a man?" Just because another forum's software makes its operation simple, does it necessarily follow that Mudcat's programming does? Mudcat has some special features we can use. It merely means engaging one's brain. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: Effsee Date: 12 May 07 - 09:31 PM If it ain't broke - don't fix it!! |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: Sorcha Date: 12 May 07 - 09:37 PM And the garg missed the font colour. Oh dear, what can the matter be? And, I would think that this thread would fall under 'discussing Mudcat Policy' which is no longer allowed. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: Joe Offer Date: 13 May 07 - 12:07 AM Version 2 of Firefox has a very nice spellchecker (although it thinks I spelled spellchecker wrong). We chose not to have editable posts at Mudcat, but we do have a "preview" function that allows people to double-check before they post. We chose not to allow photos in posts because they slow down thread loading, but photos of members are available for fellow members to see. As had been said above, Mudcat is set up to allow most HTML tags, so you can do a lot in the way of special effects. All those bells and whistles are nice, but they tend to slow down thread loading and create glitches that cause problems. Our Forum is based on an Internet database engine called ColdFusion, and the Forum is more-or-less the format setup by ColdFusion (with many customizations). We could have bought another database package, but we didn't. I don't foresee any significant new technical features coming in the near future. I do hope that we will have some additions to content fairly soon. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: mack/misophist Date: 13 May 07 - 09:52 AM Photos: I know I'm ugly and you know you're ugly so why bother? My cute little skull and crossbones icon isn't really necessary. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: Bill D Date: 13 May 07 - 10:12 AM If it were possible for everyone to edit posts ("why, I never said any such thing!") or post images, (naughty porn here) there would inevitably be abuse, making MORE work for the administrators. It is possible to set ANY browser to not load images, but then you wouldn't see the images that were linked to without selecting each one individually. (For one brief, shining period in the early days, we COULD post images, but loading times were a problem, and if a site was down, it froze things.) As has been noted, a polite email or PM to Joe can get something changed if it is really needed, and some helpful elves do simple corrections regularly (like fixing a bad link, or closing brackets to keep everything from being in italics) After 10 years, it's working pretty well....and if one is a member, LOTS of extra neat stuff works! |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: GUEST,Nick Date: 13 May 07 - 10:37 AM So I'm sensing a yes. And as for questioning policy even if it were allowed... I would never do such a thing. Nope, Not me. I was wondering how others felt on the subject, and with the exception of the condescension and elitism oozing off one post, views know were made clearly and politely. And everyone seems fine with the options that are available. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: MMario Date: 13 May 07 - 12:44 PM I find the neat clean format of mudcat a relief compared to the cluttered, almost Frantic posts common on many other forums - it's nice to know I won't be seeing whirling happy faces, bouncing balls, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: Bernard Date: 13 May 07 - 12:53 PM It's adequate for the purpose... |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: Willie-O Date: 13 May 07 - 01:01 PM Yup, there are lots of perfectly fine ways to skin a cat, and we prefer the ones that are less likely to screw things up. Incidentally Nick, Max, who invented and continues to run Mudcat at considerable expense of time money and energy, has oft stated his own technical ethic--he likes to innovate his own solutions to problems that arise--including occasional upgrades to keep up with the times. EG for many years we had to use HTML code to specify simple line or paragraph breaks--quite inconvenient in a site dedicated to sharing song lyrics among other objectives. HTML is still very useful for customizing your posts and I urge you to learn a bit of it--it's fun to be able to customize your posts. Thanks to Max's technical expertise and the Joeclones' underappreciated and generally polite thread-wrangling, Mudcat is still one of the best-looking, highest-content-value forums in existence. I sometimes would like to throw a picture up, perhaps in a few more years that won't be a problem. Meanwhile, as noted above, all you really need is a link. W-O |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: Peace Date: 13 May 07 - 01:07 PM Just what IS new improved lettuce? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: treewind Date: 13 May 07 - 01:41 PM What MMario said... Also, Mudcat's simple text+minimal HTML based format is also rock-solid-compatible with any web browser and loads as fast as the hardware and bandwidth will allow, and (at an educated guess) uses the minimum of resources on Max's servers. In other words, if you converted it so some modern ready-made system it would either run slower or need lots of $$$ expended on hardware to keep up - and either way people would complain. Anahata |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 May 07 - 02:24 PM Being able to edit out the mistakes in our posts for spelling and grammar mistakes is tempting, but it opens the way to the kind of unethical stuff that politicians do in Hansard,and no doubt in the equivalent official records in other countries, when they've made a fool of themselves. I think it's better for us to try to take care what we write, and accept that what we have written is there to stay. If we say something we regret, we should come back and clarify it, or apologise for it, or whatever is appropriate. Spellchecking is built into Firefox, and probably other browsers. (It does tend to see English spellings as misspellings, but it accepts corrections on that score easily enough, adding the more traditional spelling to its dictionary.) As for pictures, I recommend using Flickr to store the pictures, and write in a link here using minimal HTML code, so people can click on it and see the picture in question. Posting pictures here would mess things up and less convenient to use the site. Keep it simple is a good principle. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: dwditty Date: 13 May 07 - 02:37 PM Thanks JohnInKansas...At age 60, it has been a while since anyone called me a child. Made my day. dw |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: Bee Date: 13 May 07 - 02:49 PM I love the fact Mudcat loads in a second or two on my dialup connection - no other website I use does so. I could knit a sweater waiting for some of 'em to load, and that includes learning to knit a sweater. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: JohnInKansas Date: 13 May 07 - 04:19 PM dwditty - Most of the 'catters at Myspace are in the music section where adults (and even old farts like me) are the rule. I really had in mind the "general" areas. From my perspective, however, pictures of 60 y.o. persons of note do sometimes get tossed into my classification as "kiddy porn," - often for deletion as suspiciously young. (I like to play it safe.) John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: Bernard Date: 13 May 07 - 04:28 PM If you want to edit what you have written, tick the 'preview' box so you can see what your post looks like before you commit. Otherwise, as was suggested above, people could change the whole sense of a thread by changing what they wrote... and some would definitely use that to their own ends! |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: Geoff the Duck Date: 14 May 07 - 08:57 AM I stay with Mudcat because I can understand what is happening. I have tried looking up information on other web forums (or a web search pulls out a posting on a technical forum) and time after time it seems to just be a box of gibberish with a stupid picture attached. I try to use links in the posting to find the whole thread and just find myself in a loop which takes me back to what I have just read. Mudcat is simple to use, makes sense (it's the posters who don't), and does allow me to be if I can be bothered. I see no reason to alter the basic format. Quack! GtD. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: Geoff the Duck Date: 14 May 07 - 09:02 AM And the trouble with whistles and bells is.... you can't hear anything for all the bleeping noise!!! Quack! GtD. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: SingsIrish Songs Date: 14 May 07 - 09:13 AM I love this message board the way it is. Mudcat is a place of learning--HTML code, etc....it's great! Call it Mudcat University! Mary |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: John Hardly Date: 14 May 07 - 09:31 AM Sure, I know how things COULD be done. I COULD compose in Word, or I COULD preview the post EVERY time... ...or I could, as with every other forum on the entire internet, be able to come back in a edit a post after the fact without bothering a clone -- (all of whom seem to bear animosity toward me for my political or religious points of view). |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: John Hardly Date: 14 May 07 - 09:32 AM and, not a. See? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: MMario Date: 14 May 07 - 09:35 AM could, as with every other forum on the entire internet, be able to come back in a edit a post after the fact I belong to several lists where *no one* can edit posts without requesting the change through the site owner. there are a lot of forums where editing features have been turned *off* as they caused more problems then the owners/moderators wished to deal with. not to mention the forums where posts get wiped after x number of days, etc, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: Dave Earl Date: 14 May 07 - 09:37 AM Er It ain't broke (at the moment) so there's no need to fix it. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 May 07 - 12:38 PM "be able to come back in a edit a post after the fact " So we write something which we wouldn't have written if we were sober (for example), someone takes us up on it, and then we come back and modify what we have written so that the person who took us up on it appears to be an eejit who didn't bother to read what we had written... Perhaps what might be OK would be a facility by which we had five minutes during which we could change things, for those occasions when we push the post button, and only then realise what we have written is garbled, so it doesn't make sense. But I'm happy leaving it as it is - we can always post a modified version straight off. Maybe a clone will come around and get rid of the first one, but so what if they don't. We aren't here to not make fools of ourselves from time to time. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: Bill D Date: 14 May 07 - 12:52 PM Did you ever made a mistake in an email to a friend? Usually, they know what you meant without the need to correct it. This stuff is not being published. As has been said: IF you need a post corrected, someone will be along to do it. One way is to re-post the relevant, corrected section with a note asking for the correction and a request to DELETE the re-post after correction. The clones correct HTML and addresses and mistakes which alter the sense of the post everyday. as Bernard said above:"...people could change the whole sense of a thread by changing what they wrote... and some would definitely use that to their own ends!" |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: John Hardly Date: 14 May 07 - 02:07 PM "So we write something which we wouldn't have written if we were sober (for example), someone takes us up on it, and then we come back and modify what we have written so that the person who took us up on it appears to be an eejit who didn't bother to read what we had written... " Actually, most forums have a "reply to" button that automatically puts the statement to which you wish to reply into a quote box. If they come back later to edit their previous post, the original, as they wrote it, will still appear in the quote box in your reply post. I can't see how editing causes more problems for owner/moderators. More problems than having to go through the labor of reading every single goddamn post just to SEE if someone has requested that a clone come in and make a correction that the post writer could have corrected for themselves? That just doesn't make any sense. And as I said, the clones are not neutral in many of the worst "debates". I don't like knowing that they are on the other side when I enter without the ability to edit. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: PoppaGator Date: 14 May 07 - 03:03 PM I like Mudcat the way it is. The ubiquitous phpBB format is run into elsewhere is cute and all, but who needs it? Half the screen on those other forums is taken up with multicolored borders and a stupid "avatar" for each person. (Well, when it's a simple head-shot photo, it's not so stupid ~ but it is so very often a supposedly "creative" cartoon or something similarly dumb.) I prefer plenty of room for text, and a simple name (or fake name) to identify the person posting a message. The fake names and the truly unique nicknames, in most cases, are more memorable than most real names and give me a clearer sense, over time, of each person's separate identity. I always preview anything I post that is longer than one or two sentences in length, and usually catch most of the typos. When some minor error slips through, it may be a little embarrassing, but I generally don't care unless the sense of what I'm trying to express is impacted ~ not often an issue. I do not currently have any kind of automatic spellchecker in place for use during the preview phase ~ I suppose I should look into that... |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: JohnInKansas Date: 14 May 07 - 03:38 PM Mudcat does have an "edit after posting." You simply make a new post, explain what was wrong, and post your corrected version. If needed and appropriate, a sincere apology is acceptable. Example: In my post at XX:XX pm, I said "You're a horses ass." The statement was meant in the sense of an analogy and I really should have said "You look like a horses ass." I apologize to any horse who might have been offended. Politeness might require any horse who objected to indicate acceptance or rejection of your apology in his/her own subsequent post, but a truly polite horse usually will just quietly accept it and proceed with the discussion. It's called having a conversation. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: Cool Beans Date: 14 May 07 - 03:55 PM I like it the way it is. Don't mess. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: John Hardly Date: 14 May 07 - 04:05 PM In conversation I can usually say, "that's not what I meant.", rather than leaning over to some third party and asking, "would you tell that fellow that that's not what I meant?". Conversation is different. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: JohnInKansas Date: 14 May 07 - 04:39 PM Conversation is exactly the same. When you say something that offends, someone objects. You say something additional to ameliorate the situation. In conversation nothing you have said can be made unsaid. You must add to the conversation to be sure that you are understood and to resolve any hostility you may have (hopefully inadvertently) created. Here, you say something you wish you hadn't, you post an explanation that you regret what you said, or the manner in which it was stated, and you (usually) post something new to try to resolve the offense. You have the option of explaining that it was an error, or that someone misunderstood your meaning. The original statement is yours, and your responsibility. It does not need to go away since it's the basis for further conversation that should resolve things for you. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: Alice Date: 14 May 07 - 04:52 PM Fine the way it is. I'm on a dial up connection and a seven year old iMac... Mudcat is one of the web sites I can still access! |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: John Hardly Date: 14 May 07 - 05:08 PM You only posted again so that you could use the word "ameliorate" in a sentence. What a show-off. I'd use it in a sentence like... "How does Ameliorate?" "Better'n some, not as good as others". |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 May 07 - 05:50 PM "Amelia - sure, she's a very careful eater..." ................... I think Omar Khayyam put it best: The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it... |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: Bill D Date: 14 May 07 - 06:01 PM *tsk*...once some folks get it in their heads that 'this way is no good, it oughta be THAT way', it seems all the explanations in the world won't help. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: katlaughing Date: 14 May 07 - 06:05 PM John Hardly, we may not see eye-to-eye in some things, but as a clone I would never use my personal judgement to edit any of your postings unless you requested a correction of some kind. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: GUEST,Nick Date: 14 May 07 - 07:23 PM Given the number of responses I do not feel bad for having asked the question. Nick |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: GUEST,Me Date: 14 May 07 - 07:31 PM "You only posted again so that you could use the word "ameliorate" in a sentence. What a show-off" Check out his first post in the thread. OY! |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: John Hardly Date: 14 May 07 - 07:56 PM "...we may not see eye-to-eye in some things, but as a clone..." Sometimes a phrase it just TOO delicious NOT to take out of context! See, if you WERE a clone, then you could ABSOLUTELY see eye to eye with me. ...well, if you were MY clone, anyway. Otherwise, to see eye to eye, you would either have to become 6'3"... OR (and this would be even cooler)... ...you could have those eyes that rise up on stems above your head like a space alien's. Or, I suppose, if you had removable eyes and could hold them up overhead... ...so many possibilties and so few probablities. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: katlaughing Date: 14 May 07 - 08:06 PM ...you could have those eyes that rise up on stems above your head like a space alien's And, how do you know I don't? **BG** |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: JohnInKansas Date: 14 May 07 - 09:20 PM A satisfactory accomodation with a lovely lady can always be managed by having one or the other of you stand on a box. Now all that's needed is for you two to complete the "conversation." (I mean by exchanging the necessary information via polite conversation so as to arrive at a mutually satisfactory size - and perhaps placement - of the box.) And Kat: telling him "where to put it" may not be quite the best thing to offer. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: open mike Date: 14 May 07 - 09:33 PM some of the features of mudcat are not available to you unless you join as a member. If you are a guest, you are lucky to be able to post at all..on some sites you would not be able to. Perhaps you would like to join? You are welcome to do so, since you have so many thoughts about this site, you might find it rewarding. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: JennyO Date: 15 May 07 - 12:05 AM OR (and this would be even cooler)... ...you could have those eyes that rise up on stems above your head like a space alien's. Or, I suppose, if you had removable eyes and could hold them up overhead... Hey, John Hardly, that's some good shit you're smokin', man. Pass some over here! |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: katlaughing Date: 15 May 07 - 01:08 PM Size and placement of the "box", JohninKS?! I think I'll walk away from that one, right now!**BG** As to the quote, perhaps John Hardly meant this. (Let's see how many other links we can come up with pointing out great stories and songs that relate to this!) |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 May 07 - 01:45 PM Here's another version of that - Buffalo Eyes |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: Geoff the Duck Date: 15 May 07 - 05:39 PM Kat - I MISSSED the Once a Mudcat story. Is it too lae to read it and join in? Quack! GtD. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: katlaughing Date: 15 May 07 - 07:29 PM Not at all, Geoff...in fact it could use a shot in the arm or even a QUACK! |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: Geoff the Duck Date: 16 May 07 - 10:07 AM If Mudcat is Old School....... Should we have an Old School Song? Quack! GtD. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Should Mudcat Be This OLD SCHOOL? From: Snuffy Date: 16 May 07 - 12:43 PM The Cat is not quite as Oldskool as this. |
| Share Thread: |