 sj |
||
|
||
'Share this thread'?
|
|
|
Subject: 'Share this thread'? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Nov 09 - 08:15 AM I've just noticed we now have a new facility here - at the bottom of threads there is a button for "share this thread", which opens a whole menu of options such as FaceBook, MySpace, Twitter etc. I don't know how long we've had it, buut I only noticed it today This doesn't really seem to me a very good idea. One of the best things about the Mudcat has been that it has provided an opportunity to discuss all kind of things with people with whom we may feel strongly at odds with - but with whom we have a fundamental civilising link in that we care about folk music. Inevitably this has been eroded as people come in who don't share that interest, but these have always seemed to be in a minority, though often an extremely vocal and sometime strident minority. However the "share this thread" option feels to me like a step too far. Could I suggest that it might be better if it was confined to the music section, where it wouldn't be so likely to pull in too many people who have no interest whatsoever in folk music? |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Spleen Cringe Date: 07 Nov 09 - 08:32 AM Good idea. I agree with you. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Stower Date: 07 Nov 09 - 08:34 AM McGrath, I completely agree with you. (I also think there is a strong argument for making Mudcat members only, in terms of contributions to threads, to stop a lot of abuse from non-member flamers, but that's perhaps the subject of another thread.) |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 07 Nov 09 - 08:47 AM I agree, I don't like the 'share this thread' thing either. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Charley Noble Date: 07 Nov 09 - 08:57 AM I'm not sure what to think of it. Does Mudcat Central have an explanation or did it just happen? Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: wysiwyg Date: 07 Nov 09 - 09:14 AM I agree. Strongly. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Max Date: 07 Nov 09 - 09:24 AM experimentation You have to remember that social networking is based on relationships. One would expect that your Facebook friends or Twitter followers share the same sensibilities and interests as you do. We're not inviting strangers in, we're expanding our reach of connection. And connection is what made this place meaningful in the first place. A long-time member, whom I have much respect, made a comment to me recently that we've become a closed society that perpetuates the same ideology and opinion. I'm not exactly thrilled with the tone of late, we've become very... dogmatic, it seems. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Tim Leaning Date: 07 Nov 09 - 09:42 AM "we've become very... dogmatic, it seems." I thought that was all part of the tradition OOOps |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Sandra in Sydney Date: 07 Nov 09 - 09:53 AM I noticed the new feature this morning & got a hell of a shock when my cursor hit it sometime later & I ended up on a facebook page. I jumped out of that very quickly. I have a gmail address & a MyOpera photowebsite, but have not seen any need to join either community. Friends run a Flickr pool to which I could contribute, but again, I see no need to join another photo site. I find Mudcat & my other, non-music site enough for my on-line community needs. But then, I'm a bit odd - I don't even have a mobile (cell) phone, I've never needed one. I'll be interested to read comments from folks who use facebook, twitter etc. sandra (sitting here stunned after clicking on More under Share This Thread - just what are all those other things/applications/sites) |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Max Date: 07 Nov 09 - 10:01 AM Exactly Tim. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 07 Nov 09 - 10:05 AM Well, I'll be careful not to load the MOAB onto my Facebook page. Might lose a few friends that way. . . ;-D |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: wysiwyg Date: 07 Nov 09 - 10:16 AM Max, tech tools are nice, but intentionality is a higher value, and a much better mode to go slow enough on a slippery slope to be sure the direction is UP, not DOWN. .... You have to remember that social networking is based on relationships..... Well, I disagree, and I bet I am not the only independent-minded, crochety old folkie who does: we do NOT "have to remember" what ANYONE else suggests we "have to" remember, not even in a quick turn of a phrase for emphasis. The beauty of Mudcat is that this is so for all of us. It is the most anti-dogmatic, anti-doctrinal thing about Mudcat! :~) And this is the first Mudcat "new feature" magically appearing that I have ever seen that scares me. I've seen, welcomed, and used many new features over the years. I LIKE change. I've worked for it, often, in many settings, over a lifetime of career changes. But the real issue-- "social networking" as we know it in today's techworld is based on marketing captures-- with "relationships" as the trojan horse that carry the marketing. The data mining, the usage stats, the demographics, the trends that catch a buzz-- all of that is about money, not relationship. It is SOLD as relationship, but that don't make it so. It is not at all the same as networking in realtime with real flesh and blood, where people who exchange bizcards actually live in (and are accountable in) the same town or business community. Till now, Mudcat has been a smallish pond where the fish know each other, but now it can become a big one where sharks are costumed as dolphins. There is Big Money behind social networking. And ultimately, Big Money is only interested in one thing. === I don't think Max is part of all that, and I do not think that opening the Cat up to make it a mere click for the dogmaticians to spread their influence by dragging in more dogmaticians is the way to go, either. Sharing a thread, IMO, OUGHT to involve a certain amount of work and the pace of thought that the work allows. If I want to share a thread, I have to actually write a friend an email message. It's cumbersome enough that I have not done it often. There are some folks here who thank their lucky stars that it IS that way. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Rog Peek Date: 07 Nov 09 - 10:27 AM Could I ask, is this 'share this thread' facility available to guests who log onto the site? Rog |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 07 Nov 09 - 10:36 AM I loathe 'social networking' sites personally and think most of that stuff is a load of vacuous crap - and though I have created a MySpace Music page specifically for connecting with other people who make *music*, I tend to think that most 'social networking' sites seem quite devoid of any substance or content. I have made quite a few virtual and indeed real-life friends, through joining discussion boards focused on *specific areas of mutual interest*, and there's a vast difference to me, between a virtual community like this one - where there is a *unifying shared interest*, and general 'social networking' sites which have no apparent particular function other than 'being there'. All that being said, I thought the Twitter V's C. Ruck/Trafigura situation recently, was fascinating & heartening, so maybe I'll come round if I see more evidence of that kind of 'people power' thing arising from networking sites in future... All a bit of a thread drift there - but a good post Susan above, seconded. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Amos Date: 07 Nov 09 - 10:44 AM I hadn't noticed it before. There is a "What's this?" button on the drop-down list of choices under "Share This" which leads to a page run by a company called "AddThis", which provides the "share" function. Here's what they say
The list is impressive and includes Homeland Security (the agency) and a mess of other sites who are probably a lot more security conscious than anyone here. I think what Max meant is obviously that you have to remember that social networking ios based on relationship IF you want to understand why experimenting with Share This is of interest. If you don't want to understand, of course, you don't have to. A |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: GUEST,Dani Date: 07 Nov 09 - 11:00 AM I like it! I sure would like to not see it on BS, though. I think that it might too easily and quickly have unintended consequences. And, we all should probably be reminded that even on our cozy, home-like mudcat, everything you post is there for all eternity. The other day I spent some time and tears on the Thanks Sandy thread, and that's the wonderful part of 'eternity'. Some of my posts? Not so much. You choose your facebook community (and mostly who has access), but posts here are for the world to read. Dani |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 07 Nov 09 - 11:16 AM "posts here are for the world to read." Yes I'm not keen on that but I nevertheless let it pass - because Mudcat is an untrendy folk forum with a quaint but awkward and antiquated format - so virtually the only people who are likely to actually *bother* reading it, are a bunch of crusty and harmless old folkies... :) |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 07 Nov 09 - 11:38 AM I disagree. I find Mudcat's format efficient and effective. "Quaint", I don't know and don't care too much. But, when I get on other sites that allow group discussion or user-to-user communication (MySpace, FaceBook, and on and on) I automatically compare the format to Mudcat's, and always to Mudcat's advantage. "Antiquated"? If that means that other sites don't use the clear and efficient Mudcat format, but rather load the screen up with visual bells and whistles, then I'll embrace "antiquated". But Mudcat, with its list(s) of threads, readily scannable, readily searchable back to the beginning but with currently active threads given a visual priority, is what SHOULD BE the future. Don't belittle it by implying that it belongs just to the past! Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Nov 09 - 12:09 PM For the music threads I can see that it might be on balance OK. But I do not feel at all comfortable about having it with the BS, particularly with some threads. And I am glad to see that most peoiple posting on this thread seem to share my discomfort. I hope that, if this open-ended "share this thread" doesn't get removed soon, there is at least some intention to monitor how things go. I think it could very easily wreck things here. "But, when I get on other sites that allow group discussion or user-to-user communication (MySpace, FaceBook, and on and on) I automatically compare the format to Mudcat's, and always to Mudcat's advantage." I wholly agree with what Uncle Dave said there. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Nov 09 - 12:12 PM And now I see that there's a "share this thread" at the top of the thread as well as at the bottom. A bit like having a "kick me" sticker on your behind at a party... |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Nancy King Date: 07 Nov 09 - 12:13 PM I think I don't like the "share the thread" idea. For one thing, it puts Mudcat contributors who might not like to have their thoughts/words shared on other sites out there where they don't want to be -- and without their permission, presumably. I love Mudcat, and often enjoy Facebook, but they're two different things, and I say let's keep it that way! Just my two cents' worth... Nancy |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Bernard Date: 07 Nov 09 - 12:15 PM What's the big deal? If you like it, use it... if you don't then don't... nobody's holding a gun to your head! If you're bothered about people coming in here who are unwanted, then you'll have to block the search engines, etc. I, too, think Mudcat is the friendliest and easiest to follow of such sites. Spacebook, Myface or whatever are so cluttered with claptrap they don't even work peoperly these days! |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: The Sandman Date: 07 Nov 09 - 12:45 PM I definitely do not like share this thread,please can you abolish it. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: DebC Date: 07 Nov 09 - 01:16 PM For me, I think it's great as I can use it to help promote our music. I first saw it on the So. Portland, ME Concert Permathread. What I can do is share the thread and not only publicise my own concert, but any others that are taking place. I can see this as a way to get word out about the music we care about. There are many many folks who are not on Mudcat who may be interested in concerts and performances, or just want to know where they can go to participate in a singer's night. I can see Gainsborough FC, and some of the other venues that have Permathreads benefitting from this. Maybe as a compromise for now, just place the "share..." on the Permathreads. Debra Cowan |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Nov 09 - 01:23 PM For me, I think it's great as I can use it to help promote our music. Could well be useful for that. But removing it from the BS threads wouldn't get in the way of that. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: LilyFestre Date: 07 Nov 09 - 01:27 PM I can understand several of the points being made here but I also think that it's nice I can share a thread I find of interest with someone I know on Facebook in just a second or two. I really haven't checked out the "Share This Thread" thing but being able to share a thread of Facebook means that only the people I am friends with (know and trust) would be able to access the thread...not some creeper with alternative intentions. I like it. Michelle |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Janie Date: 07 Nov 09 - 02:09 PM I'm with Nancy and McGrath. Perhaps OK with the music threads, but not with the BS. I am well aware that anyone can wander into Mudcat and read anything they care to, but I do not much like the idea of what I write here being easily posted without thought or pause to other sites. We do have extensive histories with one another, and many, many of us have met in 3-D. Mudcat is more than just a social networking site. It is a community. All of the conversations take place within the context of that community. It is not a hard community to become part of, if one has the actual desire and attraction to do so, but becoming part of any community is a process. Communities also have boundaries - sometimes very closed, sometimes very open, but boundaries, none-the-less. I would venture that the boundaries of the Mudcat community fall pretty near the half-way mark between those two extremes. I am here and comfortable because of community, and that is what I most value. (And it took a little while, and some effort on my part. That is why I am invested and care about this place.) It is already possible to put up links to threads or copy and paste specific posts from Mudcat to somewhere else. But it takes a little time and thought to do it, so people are unlikely to do it impulsively and without some thought. That's my 2-cents worth. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: LilyFestre Date: 07 Nov 09 - 02:22 PM I think that makes Mudcat an exclusive community. If you want that kind of thing, then I say make it a pay site. Otherwise, it's free for anybody and so why NOT share it with others on different sites? More people means more (potential) income in donations for the site. And really, for some of the *welcomes* I've seen around here, it's not likely THAT many people will stick around...that includes in the music section where people can be pretty damn uppity. Michelle |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 07 Nov 09 - 02:35 PM Are there 'pay' message boards on the web? I haven't seen any I must confess - though perhaps they are out there..? Still there are enough free ones never to need to pay for membership to one. For starters there are thousands of completely free Yahoo message boards which are either moderated or unmoderated, members only or visible to all, all depending whatever the forum originator/s decide on. Here's a couple possibly worth sharing for the forum members here: English Folk Song and Dance Traditional Song Forum All Ceilidh |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Nov 09 - 03:06 PM I think that makes Mudcat an exclusive community. If you want that kind of thing, then I say make it a pay site. There's no process by which that could be done by members, even if we wanted it, because it's not a site that works that way. It's a benevolent dictatorship rather than a democracy, and on the whole I like it that way, because I trust the dictator, probably more than I would trust the members. This is the first time in ten years I've ever thought a change that has been introduced is a mistake, The Mudcat isn't exclusive, and never has been. It's like a folk club in that way. Anybody is welcome, but it's best if they have some interest in folk music. I'm glad that the Mudcat doesn't have the kind of rules that limit us to talking about folk music, the way that a lot of online sites with a particular interest do, but I worry about a development which could derail us - or could even mean a move towards a more exclusive Mudcat in the future. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Nancy King Date: 07 Nov 09 - 03:09 PM Hear, hear, McGrath! |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Rog Peek Date: 07 Nov 09 - 04:00 PM I agree with McGrath on this. IMO, the music section is an invaluable resourse for all interested in folk music and as such should be as widely availble as possible. For this reason, I have no problem with non members posting, or indeed the sharing any contributuions I might make. When it comes to BS however, I tend to see this as discussions I am having with people I have come to know, to trust, and in many cases, who I feel are friends (even though I have to date only met one person here). For this reason, I have always believed that non members should not be allowed to post in this section. I understand of course that the nature of this medium is such that anyone out there can 'listen' in on these conversations, and I accept this. However, that anyone and everyone who visits the forum should be encouraged to take a proactive stance in sharing these conversations anywhere and with anyone they wish is a step too far for me. I therefore believe that the facility to post by non members should be removed from the BS section , and that the facility to 'share this thread' should be removed from the BS section altogether. Rog
fixed it for you:-) |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Bill D Date: 07 Nov 09 - 04:34 PM *IF* one wishes to call attention to something on Mudcat at Facebook or somewhere else, it is easy enough to do so. I am not sure why making it close to 'automatic' serves any useful purpose...except as noted, for those who have a vested interest in BEING promoted widely. Many folks arrive at Mudcat from a Google search for subjects that interest them. That, plus the option of just telling those who need to know, ought to be enough. When a 'Mudcat' page was created in Facebook, I registered out of curiosity to see what it was about. I made NO posts and stayed about 5 minutes...still, I immediately began getting requests..(53, up to now, I think) from people asking to be recognized.....maybe ¼ of whom I didn't know. I am a resonably gregarious fellow, but I simply cannot keep up with all that, and I dislike having to figure out how to 'opt out' and ignore and block stuff. Having so many connections be practically automatic bothers me, and I wish we had been polled on this BEFORE it just appeared. Mudcat used to have a logo saying "A magazine for blues & folk music". If it is now to be a forum for almost everything vaguely related to music, it does dilute one of the few forums anywhere that one CAN find folk/blues related stuff, and Facebook and Twitter and other 'social networking' sites being more closely connected is like having a 'party line' telephone. (trying to think of better metaphors). There are serious reasons for ANY site to have a focus and to not overdo extraneous discussions. Our BS section is supposed to for MEMBERS to discuss our wider interests, not to bring the World in...otherwise, why prohibit posts by unnamed guests? Let's re-evaluate what this new trick actually does, Max. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: katlaughing Date: 07 Nov 09 - 04:34 PM I agree with Janie, esp. and also with Rog and McGrath. My first inclination was "great!" then I started thinking about it. Not so great..we don't have to embrace every new social networking thingie just because it's out there. Without it, so it takes a little bit of time and effort to copy the addy, paste it into an email or on FB or wherever, so what? The world moves at too fast of a pace anyway, so slow down, smell the roses and share by taking the time to do so. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: artbrooks Date: 07 Nov 09 - 05:00 PM No thanks |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 07 Nov 09 - 05:02 PM DELIGHTFUL
Best Mudcat addition since the Blue Clicky
It is ALL about access... By the end of 2010... 14,000 new Mudcat Members... 1,000 a month - YES WE CAN !
Sincerely,
|
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: michaelr Date: 07 Nov 09 - 05:15 PM Max has been adding little things one by one, such as Google ads, that presumably make some money for him, and who could blame him for that? Then there's that recent thing with the little pictures that pop up on top, which requires one to click twice on the back button instead of just once, which is on the level of a minor annoyance. I don't know or care what that's about, but I put up with it. As I have said before, I prefer to conduct my relationships in meat space, and therefore have no use for "social networking" over the web. Bottom line: if it generates income for Max to keep this site going, more power to him. Other than that, I doubt I'll ever be inclined to "share this thread"; it just seems like more internet bullshit that keeps people from having a real life. Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Rog Peek Date: 07 Nov 09 - 05:18 PM Tell you what I would like, and that's five minutes to edit my posting. No matter how many times I read the bloody thing before posting, I never seem to spot the mistakes until I've posted, and then it's too damn late! Rog |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Jeri Date: 07 Nov 09 - 06:23 PM I think the worst is the fact Mudcat is searchable by Google. Not so much a problem with the music, but the searchable flame wars and personal (to someone) bugaboos have really attracted some nasties. Hell, even the music threads can get crazy when there are endless postings of the SAME lyrics. Facebook, and presumably other sites, don't really worry me. My Facebook friends would either enjoy the threads and be nice in them or not look. If I send out a links to things they don't like, they'll probably just ignore me. I don't think a lot of my friends are spammer-troll-predators. It would be better to have more people here who would appreciate the good stuff than stick with the same old crabby people with the same old complaints because of the same old bugs up their asses, and yes, I'm talking about me too. I rather like the thought of fresh voices with new points of view. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Beer Date: 07 Nov 09 - 08:15 PM I don't have a problem with it. I just won't use it. Beer (adrien) |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Kev Boyd Date: 07 Nov 09 - 08:39 PM I don't have a problem with it either - and there's a good chance I'll use it, if only occasionally. What most of the people objecting to this feature don't seem to take account of is the fact that the very people whose privacy they're trying to protect are the same ones who will be making use of this function. Who else do they think is going to use it? I appreciate there's a small and occasionally vocal group who'd prefer this to be a totally private forum but it's not... so get over it, frankly! Surely anyone who contributes to any open online forum must realise that their comments are liable to be disseminated beyond their original location. The 'share' function really doesn't change this. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: katlaughing Date: 07 Nov 09 - 09:28 PM With all of the BNP crap and some of the old stuff with IRA stuff, I think there is a concern if just one of those types of threads is "shared", it could bring on a whole slew of nasty posters who are not members. I suppose it could be argued this can happen, and probably has, from google searches, but why make it any easier if one of them comes here from there? FWIW, I still think the BS should be for members only with some accommodation for folks such as "Russ, Permanent Guest" but then I don't know what folks would do on the secret santa threads. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 07 Nov 09 - 09:35 PM Since I joined Facebook my concert attendance has risen dramaticaly. It outdraws Myspace and my own website combined. I am all for the new feature. And remember, you are still in control because you still have to push that little red button. The coice is still yours to make. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Sandra in Sydney Date: 07 Nov 09 - 09:50 PM If Secret Santa threads moved to the main forum, that would solve the problem of us logging out & posting as Guests But then we would still have the problem of the health/private problems threads where a member logs out to discuss something significant, or wants to contribute when they're not at their own computer. As Sol & several others have said, it's our choice use the new feature. sandra |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Janie Date: 07 Nov 09 - 10:02 PM I am not in control of someone sharing a thread that I posted to. Again, I understand that anyone can do a search and possibly find and read any thread here. But it takes a little work and desire to do so. Ditto linking threads to other sites. I do see there might be value to many who are musicians in making it easier for them to promote themselves, and there is priceless information in the music threads that I can see the value of sharing with interested parties with one click. But the BS section? I fervently hope not. If a link is shared to a music thread, that may well bring people to the site who have this core common interest. On further exploration, they may come back again, join, etc. But it will be their interest in the music that brings them. And that interest in music is what we all share, even when we differ in many other ways. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: GUEST,Russ Date: 07 Nov 09 - 10:07 PM Mudcat is the only thing I do that comes remotely close to "social networking" on the internet. I don't do Twitter, Facebook, et al. HOWEVER, I have no problem with Max's new option. Everything on the internet is accessible to everybody on the internet. Life on Mudcat is not like life in a gated community. It is like living in a house with glass walls al la Mies van der Rohe's Farnsworth House. Actually it's like living in a glass house with no curtains nor the ability to install curtains. Although I think Mudcat has become a bit inbred over the years, I still think it's a great site. GO MAX! Russ (Permanent GUEST) |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Nancy King Date: 08 Nov 09 - 12:39 AM "I am not in control of someone sharing a thread that I posted to." Exactly. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Mr Happy Date: 08 Nov 09 - 05:52 AM I've just scanned the list of other places on the 'share' menu. It doesn't include any music sites, which I find peculiar? |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 08 Nov 09 - 06:37 AM That's probably because they're all just a bunch of empty and vacuous 'social networking' sites, devoid of any genuine substance.. Message boards like this one, function like joining a real-world club filled with fellow enthusiasts for a particular activity or interest - that's why they naturally tend to generate virtual 'communities' which spill over into 3D - just like this one does. Some people appear to be under an illusion that Mudcat is somehow "special" because of that, I don't know how many other boards the members here belong to, but it isn't actually at-all unique in that regard. I've made great real-life friendships off other forums for other interests. As it is *old* and very established the longstanding members have however got to 'know' each other very well. And of course it's long history has left a great load of excellent material contributed from the many highly-informed members over the years - the volume and high-quality of those contributions, is what really distinguishes Mudcat from many of the other discussion boards out there IMO. And while I *can* see the value in members being able to share some of that archived knowledge with fellow enthusiasts, I just can't imagine it being particularly valued on superficial (IMO) social networking sites like Twitter or Facebook.. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Rog Peek Date: 08 Nov 09 - 07:09 AM Kevin Boyd - "Who else do they think is going to use it?" Any Tom, Dick or Harry that visits the site. As I said before, this function is available to members and non members alike. Good thing for music section, but IMO, bad thing for BS section. Rog |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 08 Nov 09 - 07:10 AM Incidentally, if I read him right, it appears that Max's purpose with the "Share This Thread" function, is to attract 'new blood' into Mudcat in order to shake-up the 'stuffiness' of the err orthodoxy a bit. That is IMO a good idea, especially as it seems that yet another of my fellow (and incidentally younger) generally like-minded UK PM'ers has recently more or less quit the forum. There are a smattering of folk here, that keep this place lively and interesting enough for me to continue to use regularly, but if many more of those few disappear, I'd be likely to exit too. I'm not sure what if anything could be done to reverse that seeming trend, and attract more fresh and independent minded contributors - especially as there are probably shed-loads of younger folk enthusiasts full of fresh thoughts in the UK now, but perhaps a thread for suggestions might be worthwhile? |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Jack Campin Date: 08 Nov 09 - 07:25 AM What worries me is more what it might do to the music threads - as Jeri pointed out, we already have a problem with people who jump in via Google with no idea of the depth of stored information we already have, and then post yet another copy of the same song lyrics or yet another repeat of the same urban legend. Or even worse, "introductions" like this one in the thread about the Glenroe theme tune: : Subject: Goga Gogi : From: GUEST,PloleBommaTem - PM : Date: 08 Nov 09 - 04:21 AM : : Guteb Tag Ich haise Goga That may be a spammer practicing, or it may just be an unusually clueless newbie posting so fast they can't spell even the simplest words. Either way, it contributed nothing to the thread. A complete ban on guest postings would make this feature into a positive one. It is helpful to publicize Mudcat's existence more widely, BUT we also need to make sure that people we bring here take the time to find out what it is. But maybe be a bit more selective about what services links get shared to. I doubt whether even Max knows what more than half of the services he's offering via addthis.com really are. The BBC has a much better approach - they offer you a choice of only four such services, all of them quite well known. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Geoff the Duck Date: 08 Nov 09 - 07:54 AM I am not sure what to make of this new feature. On one hand, I am finding it very annoying that when I open a thread, if my mouse pointer accidentally crosses a particular region of the screen on its way to somewhere else, a great big box appears and obscured everything beneath it. It may be bigger on my computer as I use Firefox with the text enlarged so I can read without having to be too close to the screen, but that doesn't make a pop up less annoying. As for the "sharing", I am not on the various networking sites, so cannot really assess if the idea is worth trying. My one specific misgiving comes down to the ease of clicking a box, or, as happened to me yesterday, the ease of ACCIDENTALLY clicking a box, and as a result a thread exploding out through cyberspace. We have often had comments from mudcatters that specific postings have been made in the heat of a thread, and when looked at later, they wish they had held off and not typed their comment. This clicking seems to me just too easy. There will be the puffed up self-important poster, who thinks the world should be inflicted with any comment they make, however trite, offensive or vacuous. There will be some enthusiastic newbie who just clicks on EVERY thread, flooding the internet with stuff that ought to be allowed to disappear. If you make the sharing just a bit more effort, then people would think before sharing, and as a result, only share the threads which they believe have sufficient value. Quack! GtD. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: John MacKenzie Date: 08 Nov 09 - 08:30 AM Wait for me, Crow Sister. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: LilyFestre Date: 08 Nov 09 - 08:41 AM Jack.... You wrote: "It is helpful to publicize Mudcat's existence more widely, BUT we also need to make sure that people we bring here take the time to find out what it is." I agree but on that same note you can't expect someone who is visiting a site for the first time to spend tons of time trying to figure out what is going on, where to find things and if it the same question has been posted and answered within the last 10 years without simplifying things. It's how folks respond to those questions that either keep people coming back or send them packing. You can't expect everyone to know how this site works right off the bat...I'm sure you didn't make a study guide of the FAQ before posting or reading a few posts. As for the post not adding anything...so what? There are PLENTY of posts here that add nothing to a conversation or discussion. In the end, this is Max's site and if HE feels that adding a SHARE link is a good thing, then that's his decision. If you don't like it, you (and others) are surely free to go start your own websites to run as you desire. I have no idea how long the Share button has been up but has it created any problems yet? Just asking........ Michelle |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 08 Nov 09 - 09:38 AM Why of course John my dear, as if I'd leave without you! :) Just realised how dreadfully rude that prior post sounded now. It was rather poorly worded because there are *lots* of interesting characters on here, and some great camaraderie too. But the people I've felt a greater degree of personal identification with on here, do for whatever reason appear to drop away somewhat.. Manchester incidentally is a great cosmopolitan town with some equally great people in and around the area - always dabbling with the notion of heading in that direction myself.. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: katlaughing Date: 08 Nov 09 - 10:26 AM But the BS section? I fervently hope not. If a link is shared to a music thread, that may well bring people to the site who have this core common interest. On further exploration, they may come back again, join, etc. But it will be their interest in the music that brings them. And that interest in music is what we all share, even when we differ in many other ways. Couldn't agree more! |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Uncle Phil Date: 08 Nov 09 - 11:12 AM Some observations: Everything we post on Mudcat, music or BS section is already available to anyone with a web access. Our posts are indexed by search engines such as Google. We have no control over who reads, quotes, or uses what we post. Anyone waiting for people to ask permission to link to their posts on a public internet forum is going to be unhappy living in this millennium. It is already quite easy to create a Hyperlink to a Mudcat thread to any web page whether it is on Max's list of not. Let's try it and see how long it takes. Link to Mudcat Thread is in the upper left corner About 3 minutes. Now let's link to Facebook with the new share feature. Hmm, a few seconds to create a link on Facebook. Most of the time was spent writing the comment. (Plus a few seconds to delete the post, a wonderful feature). Let's link to Facebook again by cut and pasting the Mudcat thread URL from the browser address window to Facebook. A few seconds, also. The resulting link on Facebook looks exactly the same as it did using the share feature. The Facebook links were only visible to my Facebook friends. The link on the webpage is visible to the whole WWW. The share feature is available to guests. Log off of Mudcat and see for yourself. Don't forget to log back on. Members vs. guests. Let's log off again and join under another name with a different email address. About 30 seconds. (It looks like I'm stuck with it forever, too. I don't see any way to un-join). Limiting the share feature to members seems pointless when any guest can become a member in less than a minute. Some opinions: I think sharing threads with like-minded friends is a great innovation and I hope it brings in new Mudcat members who will introduce me to new music and ideas. I hope their opinions are different than mine and that they will discuss them. I'm not frequent reader of BS threads, other than reading the joke threads--I love the joke threads. Anyway, everything there is already readable, searchable, and linkable for anyone on the web--with or without the new share feature. - Phil |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: PhilDoubleu Date: 08 Nov 09 - 11:13 AM Hi, I'm Uncle Phil's evil twin and a new member |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: The Sandman Date: 08 Nov 09 - 11:50 AM I thought anonymous guest posts were supposed to be deleted |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Kev Boyd Date: 08 Nov 09 - 11:59 AM Me: "Who else do they think is going to use it?" Rog Peek: "Any Tom, Dick or Harry that visits the site. As I said before, this function is available to members and non members alike." But that's my entire point - you will have already found Mudcat, read the thread and possibly contributed towards it before you get to the point where you feel the need to share it. In other words, it's only Mudcat users who will ever use this function. If the fear is that it will bring unwanted attention from 'non-members', I think this is unfounded. If I choose to share something, my 'folkie' friends on, say Twitter or Facebook may have already read it but if they haven't then I'd expect it to be something they'd be interested in either reading or contributing towards - why on earth would I share it with them otherwise? On the other hand, my 'non-folkie' friends wouldn't have the slightest interest and would instinctively ignore it. At best, they may read the thread and come away with a better understanding of that weird folk music that I'm always going on about (although this is optimistic given the nature of some threads). I don't imagine they'd ever feel the need to contribute towards any of the threads. I'm sure they have far better things to do. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Nov 09 - 12:11 PM "I thought anonymous guest posts were supposed to be deleted" It's not an automated process, someone with the magic power has to see them and junk them. And no doubt they will before long. Obviously everything here is in principle already wide open, and has been since Google starting indexing us. But there's a difference between people being able to find their way here as individuals and an open invitation to join in a fight sent out to people who are looking for a fight. "If you don't like the share this thread don't use it" misses the point. There's nothing any of us can do to stop all our threads being paraded on the nastiest sites and to the nastiest people on the net, at a touch of a button. And, as the recent going on with people being harassed on FaceBook should remind us, there are some pretty nasty people around. I don't like it being made too easy for them. I just hope there are second thoughts about this, so far as the BS threads are concerned. Crossing my fingers. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Beer Date: 08 Nov 09 - 12:27 PM I think the key word that Max used was "experimentation". I guess this means that once most of the feedback has come in he will make a decision to leave it as is or take it off. Ad. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Tootler Date: 08 Nov 09 - 12:34 PM My, aren't we all just a little bit paranoid! If you don't want to share a thread, don't click on the link. If you are worried someone else will, then just think a little more about what you have written before you post. Check the preview box first then take a second look before you finally post. As others have said, everything is there for others to find anyway. Simples |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: bobad Date: 08 Nov 09 - 12:54 PM I am not bothered by this feature. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Nov 09 - 12:57 PM I'm hoping you are right there Beer. So far it appears the feedback on this thread is against the innovation. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: VirginiaTam Date: 08 Nov 09 - 01:02 PM ...virtually the only people who are likely to actually *bother* reading it, are a bunch of crusty and harmless old folkies... I take exception to being called harmless. :) Have to say I would worry too about the wrong sort breaking into our little club. Like we wouldn't want an rappers or RnBers coming in here and discovering a wealth of musical material. They might corrupt some of it, by laying the lyrics and melodies to a different beat. Godsake, they might get interested in Morris dancing. Like this guy As far as inviting people to join them in a fight, there is nothing stopping that now. Anyone can put a link to a mudcat thread on their twitter or facebook, if they so choose. The Share this Thread facility on Mudcat, simply makes it a tad easier. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 08 Nov 09 - 01:30 PM I find it invasive, because it moves the goalposts. I knew what I signed up to here, when I signed up to it. I don't really need reminding of what it was: like I said before it's a forum of charmingly crusty and essentially harmless old folkies - which despite the 'openness' of the internet at large still existed in it's own little quiet corner of the internet, essentially unmolested by all the virtual viral bullshit out there. If the 'share this thread' remains I think I may well go the way of others of my aquaintence. I just like to know the score. We each make an educated choice about how much and what kind of information we share within a virtual community like this. And the Share function subtley but intrinsically alters the existing boundaries of this community, as Janie say's. The fact that I leave my backdoor unlocked for guests, isn't the same as putting up a big sign in my window saying "burgle me!" It is perhaps a subtle, but important difference. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 08 Nov 09 - 01:35 PM Considering the problems that many of us here are having with Facebook....and the person making the bogus pages of us over there is now over in Myspace too, doing exactly the same thing, I don't think it's a good idea at ALL. By all means, share Mudcat around, but not like this. Suddenly, we're all in a shop window....being looked at under a microscope....and I think it may put many people off posting on here altogether. Sorry to be a killjoy, Max, but when so many of us are being 'stalked' this just makes it even easier for The Weird Ones to pass Mudcat on to their Weird Mates, and that's not a good feeling, or a safe one. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: bobad Date: 08 Nov 09 - 01:42 PM IMO there is much over-reaction to this feature. As has been pointed out by others, anyone can easily copy/paste a link to a thread onto their Facebook or any other social networking site, all this does is save a few clicks. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 08 Nov 09 - 01:52 PM "Like we wouldn't want an rappers or RnBers coming in here and discovering a wealth of musical material. They might corrupt some of it, by laying the lyrics and melodies to a different beat." I so love your optimism.. :) |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 08 Nov 09 - 02:21 PM I agree with the others who have complained of the nuisance factor. If we're going to have it, please please PLEASE move the one at the bottom to the right of the Add To / Delete From Tracer link instead of just above it; in fact don't put it near that blue box at all. When I go to add a thread, the link I want keeps getting covered up by that $%&@^£%$!!! big "Share This Thread" menu that drops down over it. It just feels like spam, even though I know it isn't, and it's doing serious damage to my one remaining brain cell, already an endangered species. (OK so I've had a hard day . . .) Surely moving the bottom Share link over to the right and clear of that whole blue box would not cause problems? As to the feature itself, I don't belong to social network sites and haven't used it so I can't really comment. I agree with the general sentiments regarding the amount of negativity and in-fighting that surfaces so often these days (which are not the happiest of times anyway) and is doing some harm to Mudcat's reputation*. I tend to stay out of those discussions, but then I find myself staying out of other threads too, and generally posting less. - - - * Unfairly, I think: A lot of what this site gets criticised for is just the usual internet crap that you find all over the web. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: VirginiaTam Date: 08 Nov 09 - 02:31 PM If I shared this thread on my facebook page, I am only sharing it with my friends on Facebook. I don't have that many and most of them are already here. I really don't think my daughter or her friends would follow the link, and even if they did they are not likely to forward it on. I realise some people collect friends on networking sites indiscriminately. But do many of us here really do that? Maybe there is a danger of the random visitor clicking the share this thread link, but I just don't see it happening very often and certainly if a load of non members come in start stirring things up then there are processes in place to curtail it. Deleting posts, issuing warnings, ignoring trolls and flamers (especially when they are not known to us) and closing threads. The perps eventually lose interest and go away. That's just my take. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Kev Boyd Date: 08 Nov 09 - 02:31 PM McGrath of Harlow: "There's nothing any of us can do to stop all our threads being paraded on the nastiest sites and to the nastiest people on the net, at a touch of a button". As a few people have already pointed out, this is entirely possible already. I suspect that anyone wishing to post a link to a Mudcat thread for nefarious reasons would already be capable of doing so without the aid of the 'share' button - it's an incredibly simple operation. And the idea that the new function allows sharing "at a touch of a button" is not entirely accurate - it still requires you to sign into the other site and then approve the link. A simple enough process, but no more so than copying and pasting the url directly, although I notice that if you post to Twitter the link is automatically generated as a "bit.ly" url, saving you the need to generate your own. Lizzie Cornish 1: "By all means, share Mudcat around, but not like this." So how, exactly? You either agree to participate and accept that your posts are available for anyone to read, share and comment upon, or you cease to be involved and "The Weird Ones" have won. If you mean "only share amongst friends and people who I know and trust" then it's an admirable sentiment but you may as well not share at all as you're simply perpetuating the sense that Mudcat is some kind of private members club. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Nov 09 - 03:16 PM If it doesn't make it significantly easier to share threads, what's the point of having it anyway? If it does, why is that a good idea so far BS threads are involved, since it's simple enough anyway? And I agree with Bonnie's point about the annoying way the menu of Twitters and the like leaps out and takes over anytime you move the cursor across the button. (Over 170 options for sharing, I see...) Inelegant - one of the things that makes the Mudcat different is that it is elegant and simple. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Bill D Date: 08 Nov 09 - 04:29 PM Given Mudcat's format...with all threads in a row and all showing.... I'm not sure whether LOADS of new members, no matter what their inclination, would be easy to cope with. I can barely scan the topics as it is. (Some fora (forums?) have the various topics divided, so that the main page has listings of topics, instead of going right to threads. That allows only loading part of the forum. (I'm not in favor of that...I LIKE our format, but add a few thousand more members, and it might get pretty hard to read.) (Yes, I know...some would like the BS area to be out-of-easy-sight anyway. Things to think about.) |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: MartinRyan Date: 08 Nov 09 - 04:47 PM Hmmm. I think McGrath's basic point is very reasonable. It has taken a long time for Mudcat to build up a community of expertise and of interest - not to mention the set of controls and conventions which, most of the time, allow that community to function relatively harmoniously. Pushing out into the wider world through "social networking" mechanisms runs the risk of putting one or more of those three elements under stress. No doubt Max has some notion of what might constitute "success" in this context and a sense of the metrics that might establish its achievement. The basic risk is of constant trivialisation, rather than of increased frequency of venom, I suspect. Regards |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Bill D Date: 08 Nov 09 - 06:32 PM I've been thinking about why I have said what I have....My basic, 'gut' feeling is... not every clever new gadget, feature, concept, idea, movement, cultural whimsy, cute trend etc. ,ad nauseum needs to be incorporated in a fairly narrow forum. This 'feels' like a nod to the idea that more=better. I guess I'm now old enough that there is just-too-much going on in life to sort thru and decide about. I am just about to cancel my subscription to the print edition of my newspaper, The Washington Post...ending (I think..for now) a 60+ year habit. I 'think' I can get most of the news and comics in a more readable way online, and piles of newspapers are being tossed out without being read. So....I admit that my opposition to this new feature 'may' be colored by that general attitude....but it still feels unnecessary. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Janie Date: 08 Nov 09 - 08:24 PM Here is an example of why I am personally uncomfortable with the BS threads being easily shared. Dani, hope you don't mind, but I am going to use the two of us as an example. Dani and I both use the same name on Mudcat that we are known by in the place where we live, a small community. We are very close and intimate friends. We have both lived in the same small community for a long time, attend the same church, shared a booth at the farmer's market for a couple of years, and have kids the same age who went all the way through elementary school together. We know, or are acquainted with a large number of the same people, but that does not mean we are good friends of the same people. Dani has local friends on Facebook that I do not, and visa versa. Few of those people would be likely to stumble across my postings to BS threads through a Google search on any given topic. While it is possible, it is not probable. If, however, Dani were to share one of those threads on Facebook, a number of people that I know, am acquainted with, or perhaps know who I am even if I do not know who they are probably will read it, and will correctly assume that Janie on Mudcat is the Janie they know, or know of, in 3-D. Or will wonder. Then, Dani's local friends on Facebook have other local friends on Facebook who are not Facebook friends to either Dani or me, but may well know or have some local indirect link through family, friends, work or community involvement to one or both of us. Perhaps one of those friends pass on the link. Easy for something to go "viral" in a small community. I reveal a lot about my personal beliefs, philosophy and attitudes, as well as some personal information about my relationships in threads on Mudcat. It is a large, international site. My next door neighbor could run across that thread on Mudcat through a search engine, and have no idea or inkling that the "Janie" posting is their next door neighbor. A person who reads that same thread because Dani linked it on Facebook, might very easily decide that it is me. It has been the very rare occasion, if at all, that I have posted anything or written in a way that would embarrass me, but if I don't choose to share my personal views on politics, religion, or fart jokes with my next-door-neighbor in 3 D, I am not comfortable with them reading those views on a Mudcat thread that Dani linked to. It is very much a privacy issue. If Joe Blow from Peoria reads what "Janie" posts to the 'Cat, I am still anonymous. Not so if the the leader of the alter guild at church reads it because Dani linked to it. More importantly to me, I am a social worker who has worked in the public mental health facility that serves our county for a number of years, and also have a private practice here. It is hard work to maintain the boundaries necessary to be an effective therapist when one both lives and works in the same small, rural community. It is essential to my effectiveness as a therapist that many of my personal views remain personal. I can tell you it is a very small world where I live and work, and will leave it at that. Perhaps I am the only person on Mudcat for which that kind of loss of probable anonymity is likely or even important, but I doubt that. I note that a number of people in favor of the "share button" keep saying that anyone can come across Mudcat threads with the proper search term, and/or that it is possible already to link to Mudcat threads at other sites. Please note that most, if not all of us who have serious reservations acknowledge these facts in our posts, but are inclined to think that having to do just a little more work to do so is a good thing as it allows some time for thought. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 08 Nov 09 - 08:51 PM I my earliest days on the web I believed that things changed like the seasonal tides...every 12.45 hours ALL was washed clear of the writing in the "sands of the beach of time." It was like the morning newspaper... worthy of wrapping the day's fish scraps in at night. Everything - I mean EVERYTHING - on the web continues....and continues...and continues.
Oh, it may longer show up in a "search engine" but I promise you ... EVERTHING ... is archived ... and is a few key-strokes away.
YOU - may not how to find it...but others do. Believe that the "great white throne judgment" is bogus? The files avaiable from your postings to Mudcat could make you cringe in shame....AND they are ALL publicly available. ALL!
Every move you make, every mouse click you take. For some, it is the closest they hope to come to worldly immortality. For others, a jail-cell, if traveling through the wrong country, might be waiting at the end.
Sincerely,
|
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Bill D Date: 08 Nov 09 - 09:06 PM I see that there is now a button at the top for a link to RSS feeds for Mudcat. This is quite different than "social networking", but I doubt that many will be interested in it....and perhaps many have no idea WHAT it is... here is a general outline I use RSS in standalone programs called "news aggregators" which allow one to subscribe to a wide range of 'feeds' on various topics. One can get instant updates on topics of interest without seeing 'everything' a site..(often a newspaper or magazine)..might have available. here is just one of many such 'readers'. And here is another. These can be VERY useful for those who wish to follow specialized topics such as tech stuff, political news...etc. I suppose that this would allow you to get updates on Mudcat threads of interest thru your email, or by opening it in some RSS aggregator...(these are built into some newer browsers, though I personally prefer dedicated, stand-alone programs for specialized tasks.) I will possibly try out the Mudcat feed(s) and see exactly what it does....if I learn anything of interest, I will report back. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Bill D Date: 08 Nov 09 - 09:23 PM Well...that didn't take long! Here is a screen capture of part of the MudcatRSS feed as seen in the RSSBandit program Clicking on the orange lettering gives me the thread on 'identifying a banjo', so this is just one more way to read Mudcat..plus, it can be set to update at various intervals and play an alert...etc. Play with it if you wish...(it's relatively easy once you do it twice) |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 08 Nov 09 - 09:29 PM Argh! Don't get me wrong I continue to believe that since the BlueClicky this is the MOST
DELIGHTFUL
Best Mudcat addition since the Blue Clicky
Of ALL Mudcat contributions...PERHAPS...it will make "the critters" aware that...YES, the World reads this Forum.
That recent "eye-opener" has made ME more acountable -
The acknowledgment by other "long time" catters that civilility and appropriate threads - and the dissolution of the petty-posting of -personal-problems - are out-of-context... will be nice.
The best day for ME...was when MAX created the "lower kingdom" of BS.
Sincerely,
Now if moderators can only adapt their sense of smell to distinguish the difference....every Limey that fell in the shit-pot is attempting to cloak themselves in a ward-robe of roses. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Max Date: 08 Nov 09 - 11:17 PM This is all very fascinating. First, I agree with the BS threads issue, I will work on removing it from there. A few quick points: I'm seeing a lot of fear here. I'm seeing a lot of comments from people who know not of what they speak, but speak as if they do. I'm seeing people that have known me, personally for many years, not trusting my intent or my knowledge of these things. Now, I can only speak of what I believe, what I believe in and how I choose to spend my time and energy. I know and you know how I get and talk (grandiose philosophical waxing) when I post in threads like this, and this one is going to set records, so skip to the last paragraph where I summarize or hold on, cause here it goes: Today's Opus is: Trust me. (and we're taking the long route so buckle in) Lets assume for a moment that mudcat is good. When I think about mudcat, I am really thinking about Folk. I make my decisions about what I want to do to mudcat as to how it affects Folk. I believe in Folk and I have dedicated much of my adult life, one way or another, working for Folk. I believe that history is the story of the rich white man. I believe that Folk is the story of the rest of us. Folk is all of us, of which I am but one. All of us. Mudcat came alive when the forum was added. That was also the moment, that I was no longer in control of what it contained. The songs in the DigiTrad were no longer static, indisputable and authoritative. In 1996, discussion forums, or interactivity for that matter, were a new and scary rarity. This is also the moment that I became truly interested in what I was doing here. I am interested in how tradition travels through generations, across borders, between communities and families. Tradition is existential, in that we make them, decide what they mean and choose whether they are important to us. Tradition comes from people yet they become so sacred that we suspend belief and stop questioning their origins and make it divine. Some feel digging into them destroys them, and some, like me, think that that is precisely what makes them beautiful and powerful, that fact that they come from men and women just like us. People complained then, and still complain now, that the forum should never have been associated with the DigiTrad (song database). Dick Greenhaus, however, (at least then) felt differently, and it was his interest that made him put all that work into collecting those songs. I have never stopped feeling honored that he trusted me with his decades of dedication. The fact that FSGW, albeit cautiously, welcomed me and our members to their gatherings, gave me that same feeling. You may believe something different, and I am sure this thread will continue such that every one of my points here will be negated, debated and refuted, the point remains that it is my interest that keeps this site running. It's my interest that created this site, this community. It's my interest that makes me wake up at 4am when I get a text message to reboot the server. It's my interest that I stay up late and backup the database in the middle of the night. It's my interest to spend the time pondering changes, innovation and growth. It's my interest to take the time to write this lengthy post. I created mudcat for reasons and purposes that are still present, but not necessarily the only things it is anymore. My interests were Preservation, Research and Connection. That's all. I wanted to know the words to a Leadbelly song. I wanted to know what kind of strings he used on his guitar. I wanted to know someone that was as excited as I was when they released his Last Sessions CD and wanted to talk about it. I wanted to meet people, that wouldn't think I was crazy, to sing the response to my calls while performing a Leadbelly field holler. This 24 year old kid couldn't find any of those things in Downingtown, Pennsylvania in 1996. I founded and began managing an online community 13 years ago. Social Networking that we are seeing and hearing so much about these days, is them (corporate) trying to do what we did here at mudcat without the focus of a particular interest with the goal of making money. We have Folk to bind us and money is not why I do this. Interest is why I do this. And having done this for so long, I am an expert at it. While some of you feel that I do a terrible job that is a detriment to Folk, I, and a few others, view it as a success to have not self destructed and that we continue exist at all. Think for a moment about the challenge. We're global. How many different cultures are we dealing with? The Internet, and mudcat, provides anonymity which opens the door for misbehavior and lacks accountability (but also happens to be a form of freedom). We have only words on a page, no body language, no eyes to look into, no empathy for other words on a page. The Internet is besieged with flamers and trolls, stalkers, spammers, nihilists and anarchists who hide behind all the things that I provide. Yet we've not yet self destructed. But sadly, many of my friends that kept my interest have left, which saddens me to no end and we are waning, in my opinion, which is why I ponder and why I tinker. I mentioned the FSGW above and will speak of them again, only because they are another Folk organization like us, that I have enormous respect for their organization, and that I happen to know many of its mothers, fathers and caretakers. The FSGW was waning once too, and perhaps thought that inviting me and my mudcatters would either infuse them, destroy them or change it into something they themselves were no longer interested in. How did it turn out? I don't know, but it seems like a case study in what happens when you try to add to the folk organization gene pool. Sadly, the rolling river that has been my personal life has kept me from bathing in the loving embrace of that group of profoundly wonderful people for years now. I feel the regret that many sons must feel when their fathers pass and they didn't get to see them one last time. Sandy and Barry were my friends and mentors and I needed to tell them what they meant to me, ask them why they do what they do and what I should do, one more time before they passed. Now I look up and only talk, for they have no more answers for me. I look at many of you still, for that wisdom as caretakers of Folk. The highest of integrity and thoughtfulness of Dick Greenhaus, Dick Swain, Bill D & Rita, Nancy King (and her offspring), Art Theme, Kendall, and many many more... as well as the extreme views of gargoyle, Joe Offer and a healthy percentage of our UK base. When you get down to it, its the collective of which I am but one member that guides my two hands. I stay grounded in my thinking (not getting angry and pulling the plug, not getting hurt when criticized or attacked, not getting too self important when feeling proud, not feeling a failure when our community is degraded with bigotry, dogma, sociopathy, personal attack and plain old BS), I remind myself that all of you also have two hands. The problems we have here are the same problems that the world is having. Some of you look to me or Joe or Vols to solve them. We don't have that kind of wisdom, power or influence, nor do the leaders of our nations to solve the world's. We have to solve them together. Along with my two hands, I also have a plowshare (or sword) which is technology. I feel like I've done pretty damn good with it so far, so I'm always a bit surprised and disappointed when my changes or proposals are met with such disagreement. And you may be absolutely right, I can't argue, because with innovation comes uncertainty. I am merely making an experienced and well educated guess as to what's ahead. A wise man once told me, "If you don't make mistakes once in a while, you are clearly not trying hard enough". So what am I trying exactly? Fair question. I am trying to stay interested, for one. I'm trying to maintain a community that I want to be a part of. I'm trying to return to my 3 founding principles. Facebook is shitty because it has no binding for it's community. Myspace currently is trying to fend off irrelevance with a focus on bands and music. Our community now suffers because the social aspects of our community have weekend our binding, our founding principles, Preservation, Research, Connection. Connection is the dangerous one. I'll bet I get 10,000 emails per year. Just to ballpark their nature, I'd say 10% thanking me for some piece of information they found, 10% providing additional information, 20% asking me for more information, 5% threatening to sue me, 10% asking me to referee a fight, 5% (eg) asking me to look at a chat log from 3 years ago to settle an argument that is a matter of life or death, and 40% thanking me for being the means in which they've found a new club, venue, gathering, festival, new friends and even husbands and wives. So while it may be the problem child, it is making the biggest emotional impact on our community members, myself included. I never could go to members-only posting, though it's been pushed on me from all sides for years. Why do I not waver on this point? Give me your tired, your poor, (not exactly) I felt very alone in 1996. For some reason I had a passion for something that my peers had no interest in. (It was that damn folk box my dad had that did it to me) And I know for a fact, from 40% of 13 years worth of emails (50,000) that many of you were lonely too. Earlier this year I moved to a new town where I didn't know a soul, in the loneliest and saddest time of my life. The 2nd night here I went to a song circle at a local church, and made 30 new friends, many of whom knew about mudcat. Not a bad social lubrication for new introductions. If it works for members, imagine what it does for the founder. Mudcat had nothing to do with that song circle being there. It was Folk that did something for me that night, this life. [posted about it here] So there is my defense of Connection, I guess. We are connected already, and the fear that I see is that those connections will be threatened or changed in some way. But I think not of us, I think about the lonely or thirsty (for knowledge) yearning for a connection who have not met us yet. An argument is being made to close the gates and I find that to be selfish. Even though I could bask in the glow of y'all blowing sunshine up my ass from the confines of my virtual castle. I believe that technology can make us more accessible while broadening our benefits. The strength of the community, and its various factions, has outgrown my ability to influence its behavior, so I'll use technology to filter it rather than moderate it. I will invent tools so that users can create their own filters so that they can get out of mudcat exactly what they want. Then what would there be to complain about? And as for these words being saved forever, gargoyle is very right. The internet has always been and will always be that way. And all of life is becoming that way with cellular phones, smart keys, surveillance cameras, credit histories... Welcome to the 21st century. I'll address this issue, my stance and my suggestions with a quote from Thomas Fuller: "Govern thy life and thoughts as if the whole world were to see the one, and read the other." I'm losing interest in this lengthy diatribe, and I'm trying to flirt with a woman on twitter (a different sort of lonely) while writing this. Also, I have paranormal eye-rolling detection, and have clearly reached my quota for the year, with this lofty post. So in summary, 1) Trust me, I wouldn't let anything ruin mudcat because 2) I believe, passionately, in Folk. 3) Innovation was a cornerstone to mudcat becoming anything in the first place and I believe that it shall continue to serve us well because 4) I am very good at this. 5) Change must come from all of us. I've been trying to make this point for years, so maybe there needs to be 6) more us. 7) By sharing things we find interesting from our community we are most likely to attract more folks like us. 8) I am using technology and tinkering because 9) there is too much BS and needless needling that interferes with Research, and I am displeased at our inbred dogma, bored with the same old fights, and missing some friends that have left, which all make me less 9) interested. 10) If I am not interested in mudcat, mudcat does not exist. (how is that for existentialism?) (I warned you) |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Janie Date: 08 Nov 09 - 11:37 PM Good on you, Max. And sending a Mudcat {{{hug}}}, fwiw. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: John P Date: 09 Nov 09 - 12:01 AM There seems to be some thought that Mudcat is a social networking site. It actually bears no relationship to Facebook, MySpace, or whatever. It's really more like a bulletin board. Why should we try to be a social networking site? All of my experiences with them tell me they are an incredible waste of time. How is having a "share this thread" button going to make the tone around here nicer? I'm sure we'll add some nice folks, but we'll add as many jerks. I don't really care if anyone sends a thread to Facebook, unless they start sharing political threads with a million ditto heads who all come here to pile on. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: JesseW Date: 09 Nov 09 - 12:43 AM First of all, thanks Max for the (lenghy) post. I enjoy such things -- and greatly sympathise with the points you are making. I would suggest altering the button at the *top*, though, maybe replacing it with a link to the bottom button, just to prevent the "what's that poping up thing?" effect. Also, I'm delighted by the idea of various filters/increased organizing tools for the mudcat -- merely something to enable distinguishing UK from US events would be very nice. Also, maybe an easier way to link between threads... (Let me know if this should go elsewhere) |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Tinker Date: 09 Nov 09 - 12:54 AM My carefully constructed post just flew off into cyber space.... so I'll try again. Like Janie I have a job that requires a tad of decorum (Children's Ministry) --- Okay Max you can roll your eyes now--- and I've been reflecting for awhile on the "Govern thy life and thoughts as if the whole world were to see the one, and read the other." Particularly in regard to Mudcat. Mudcat has given me opportunities to reach out and shine in ways reflective of my best self and to remind me of the possibilites of a younger, foolish less inhibited self. (Insert grin) I did spend some time talking to Barry about perhaps having to "clean up" some of my repetore and how torn I was feeling.... His very Barry response.. "Why the hell would you want to do that?" .... He's still waiting for an answer.... One of the wonders of Mudcat is the number of walls it has managed to break down ... It's just one more open door Thanks Max |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: nickp Date: 09 Nov 09 - 05:17 AM Ok Max, I'll trust you. I may not trust Facebook (although I use it a little) and for an unexplainable instinct avoid MySpace but I trust the mighty Mudcat. Keep her rolling. Nick |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 09 Nov 09 - 06:13 AM > My interests were Preservation, Research and Connection. Preservation Research Connection I think everyone should write out these words 100 times on the blackboard after school. And take them to heart. I would also pay strong heed to: > I am trying to stay interested, for one. I'm trying to maintain a community that I want to be a part of. Thank you for that wonderful post, Max. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: theleveller Date: 09 Nov 09 - 07:13 AM One of the reasons I post on Mudcat and why I stopped posting on the BBC Message Board is the ability to widen discussion beyond purely music because, for me, the music does not exist in isolation and cannot always be fully discussed in isolation. I have no particular worry anout the 'share it' option since, as I've always said, I don't post anything here, or anywhere else, that I would be concerned about anyone reading and which I would not say openly and face-to-face to anyone. Perhaps the 'share it' button will make us all think a bit more carefully about what we are posting. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Azizi Date: 09 Nov 09 - 08:17 AM I believe that history is the story of the rich white man. I believe that Folk is the story of the rest of us. Folk is all of us, of which I am but one. All of us. -Max Because I have come to know you, Max, through this forum and through your responses to my occassional pms, I believe that when you wrote that first sentence, you meant that the victors write history the way they want it to be known, and since "rich white men" have been the victors for much of written history, they have written history to center around them. This one sided depiction of history is not the history I want to read more about. Nor is White people's Folk music the only Folk music that I want to learn about and post about on Mudcat or anywhere else. And because I have come to know you, Max, through this forum and through your responses to my occassional pms, when you wrote that "Folk is the story of the rest of us. Folk is all of us, of which I am but one. All of" I believe that you meant that Mudcat should broaden its community to include discussions of the folk music of People of Color with actual People of Color. What a concept! I have learned a lot about spirituals, and blues, and shanties, and other types of Black music from people who have posted to this forum. But to paraphrase Fannie Lou Hammer, I am sick and tired of being sick and tired of being just about the only self-acknowledged Person of Color who posts to Mudcat's music/cultural threads and the BS threads. I'd love it if Mudcat had more self-identified and publicly self-acknowledged People of Color who would post about various types of music and who also would post to those BS threads which are constantly talking about race and racial issues. And yes, I have tried to interest other People of Color in this forum. I have suggested in other posts that Mudcat engage in targeted recruitment of People of Color at forums which predominately have posters who are People of Color. I have posted links to certain Mudcat threads on several of those forums and I have posted numerous links on my website (which does not necessarily predominately have readers who are People of Color). To my knowledge, only one person joined Mudcat as a result of those postings (Quakoo from Ghana) who unfortunately hasn't posted on Mudcat for a while. I very much want to see a consistent number of People of Color posting on Mudcat's music threads and Mudcat's BS threads-and not just about posting about issues of race and racism. I'm concerned that People of Color might read your words that I quoted Max and come away with what I believe is the wrong conclusion- that you feel that Mudcat should be a place for White people to talk about their (White People's) music and People of Color's music and that Mudcat should be a place for White people to talk in the BS threads about their (White people's) take on Black people and on other People of Color. I believe that's what Mudcat is now, but I hope it becomes more than that. I think you want Mudcat to be a forum for all people too, Max. With the best of intentions, I'm breaking my self-imposed hiatus to write this on the public forum, Max, so that your words aren't misconstrued as they are preserved on the Internet. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Nov 09 - 09:19 AM First, I agree with the BS threads issue, I will work on removing it from there. Trust rewarded! Thanks for listening Max. (And as always, thanks for the Mudcat.) |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: wysiwyg Date: 09 Nov 09 - 09:28 AM Max, I trust YOU. What I do not trust (and hope you will continue to research before adding more of it) is Big Bidness. It will bite you in the butt and it will chomp off things you care most about. I just think that the purported ways "social networking" will help the Mudcat will turn out to help only Big Bidness in the end. It's not fear of loss of control, or fear of most anything. It's a gut reaction about which way is Up. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Bill D Date: 09 Nov 09 - 11:17 AM **thinking about all this** (I thought before I made my other posts, also...just need to do some more) |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: DebC Date: 09 Nov 09 - 11:38 AM Thanks, Max. Deb Cowan |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Rog Peek Date: 09 Nov 09 - 12:15 PM Thank you Max for listening and for the very detailed posting. Rog |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Jack Campin Date: 09 Nov 09 - 12:21 PM Max, I may be willing to trust YOU, but that does not make me willing to trust every single user of Amen Me!, BallHype, Connotea, DotNetKicks, Edelight, Fresqui, Gacetilla, Hipstr, InvestorLinks, Jamespot, kIRTSY, Laaikit, and Mister Wong? Do YOU know the implications of sharing with each and every one of those? (One in the list I did try, since I could at least understand what its name meant, turned out to be a scarily insecure Turkish language version of Twitter). Something to think about: The Slashdot effect |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: GUEST,hg Date: 09 Nov 09 - 01:15 PM So Max, should we start calling you Max "Oppenheimer" Spiegal from now on? hahahahaha I like the idea so far...if you would add a delete button....and more editing capabilities... |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Nov 09 - 01:48 PM I keep thinking about a man I knew who had a party in his flat and someone went down to the local pub and told everyone it was openhouse, and they completely trashed the place... |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Maryrrf Date: 09 Nov 09 - 06:05 PM I'm not really worried about this because it doesn't change anything. It has always been possible to "share" a thread, simply by copying and pasting a link. Now it's a little easier, that's all. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: katlaughing Date: 09 Nov 09 - 06:56 PM ...I am displeased at our inbred dogma, bored with the same old fights, and missing some friends that have left... Same here. Thanks for explaining...it's ALWAYS good to hear from you, Max. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Janie Date: 09 Nov 09 - 07:32 PM I have no discomfort at all with the very easy sharing of the music threads this feature allows, and the "share this song" feature for the DT is "the 'Cat's meow!" I'm glad you are reconsidering the feature with the BS threads. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Jack Campin Date: 09 Nov 09 - 07:35 PM Azizi - are any of the services addthis offers particularly popular with Black people? I know nothing at all about 95% of them. If any are, then you have a good point. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Jeri Date: 09 Nov 09 - 08:09 PM Why "share this thread" can help. Most (all?) of my friends on Facebook are folkies. Some are on Mudcat and some aren't. While they may not be interested in the drama here of perhaps even much of the music discussion, they may be interested in certain threads. I don't know Twitter or MySpace or the other social networking sites very well, but I would assume you share only with those who are already connected to you, unlike with Google searches. And Max, I didn't roll my eyes once. I did sorta think I knew who said "If you don't make mistakes once in a while, you are clearly not trying hard enough", but a lot of wise guys...er, men...uh, PEOPLE could have said that. Thanks for writing. You should think about sending that whole article off to Sing Out!, Max. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Azizi Date: 10 Nov 09 - 03:26 AM Hello, Jack. I don't know the answer to your question. Perhaps there are statistics for those Share The Thread listings that give a breakdown by race/ethnicity (by "ethnicity" I mean the USA definition of Latino/Hispanic). When I wrote that post I was thinking of targeted contacts with the owners/moderators of certain blogs and discussion forums that have a high readership/participation of People of Color. And I was also thinking about targeted contact with owners/moderators of identified blogs that have a high readership/participation of other populations who might be interested in knowing about and/or participating in or increasing their participation in Mudcat. Those targeted contacts could be made by Max and/or moderators and/or members they designate and/or any other members with or without prior knowledge of Max or the moderators (I'm not sure which is best. Maybe it depends on the blog/forum which is contacted). But it seems to me that those targeted contacts would be best received if they were formally directed to the owners/moderators of specific blogs and not to the readership of those sites. And it seems to me that whoever is contacting those blogs should have examples in mind of the kinds of Mudcat threads that may be of particular interest to those blogs members/or core readership. For instance (to use three of the Mudcat threads that I started) it would be interesting to see if any blogs for Black Britons (my apologies if that's not the correct referent) would be interested in their members participating in the discussion on the Mudcat thread about Black Britons & Folk Music? and on the Mudcat thread BS: Seeking Information About Black Britons. And it seems to me that religious (Christain and otherwise) with Black membership and/or with members/readers of any other races/ethnicities might be interested in posting to a thread like Religious Songs That Speak To You. Furthermore, because we want to attract and keep new members, it seems to me that Max and the moderators might want to revisit the idea of rewriting or greatly revising Mudcat's Frequently Asked Questions page (which operates as a thread which I think is part of what makes it so complicated and user/unfriendly). And it also seems to me that Max and the moderators might want to revisit the idea of having at least one above the line meta thread at a time in which members (and maybe also guests)could share ideas and concerns about the Mudcat community. Maybe one of the reasons why some people have left Mudcat is because there are only sporadic administrative sanctioned opportunities to discuss the "state of the Mudcat union" and share ideas about possible improvements to this community with the belief that our opinions and concerns won't be brushed aside or be seen as trouble making. The opinions and concerns that members have posted in this thread about the Share This Thread feature being in the BS threads-which I agree with-and Max's almost immediate response to those concerns is one notable exception to this statement. And I'm sure there are other examples that are exceptions to that statement. But the overall feeling I get is that it's a no no for members to engage in public analyzing/discussing and sharing suggestions about what might make Mudcat a better place for all. My sense is that to do so means that you become labeled a trouble maker. I think this is a big mistake. I wish I could end this post on an up note. But most African American songs end on down notes, don't they? Well, at least I can say Best wishes, Azizi |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Nov 09 - 07:34 AM "But most African American songs end on down notes, don't they?" Do they? I've never thought about whether that's the case for any songs. It might make for an interesting thread... |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: GUEST,hg Date: 10 Nov 09 - 10:02 AM "But the overall feeling I get is that it's a no no for members to engage in public analyzing/discussing and sharing suggestions about what might make Mudcat a better place for all. My sense is that to do so means that you become labeled a trouble maker. I think this is a big mistake." I believe this was decided arbitrarily by the clones and had nothing to do with Max. It does seem that not being able to give dissenting feedback or criticism is a bit autocratic, I think... |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: katlaughing Date: 10 Nov 09 - 10:18 AM Speaking as a clone, I was told public discussion of Mudcat policy was not allowed for certain reasons which it is not my place to say. As far as I know, that came from Max, through Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Bill D Date: 10 Nov 09 - 12:18 PM "It does seem that not being able to give dissenting feedback or criticism is a bit autocratic, I think...." Your post, and the one that inspired it, were not deleted], were they? Mudcat has many many threads discussing, debating and critiquing policy. Management always has the option to decide when discussing, debating and critiquing become distracting and haranguing and to limit such things. It would never work without SOME controls. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: katlaughing Date: 10 Nov 09 - 12:26 PM Good points, Bill. I should have said certain Mudcat policies, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Nov 09 - 02:14 PM And there is nothing to stop people making suggestions or discussing ideas through PMs. There has often been a tendency for discussions about the Mudcat to become great stamping grounds for trolls of one kind and another. It's not unreasonable for Max and Co to try to head that kind of thing off. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Max Date: 10 Nov 09 - 06:08 PM It is impossible to please everyone. When we discuss it, it immediately becomes overwhelming and unmanageable. Too many members with too many opposing needs and desires. I have 224 PMs currently, 87% of which are suggestions, demands and desires, each of which are the opposite of the next. You may discuss it all you like, but I am but one man. Reading it all would take a lifetime, let alone implementing any of it. Please know that I am trying. I am trying to settle disputes, quell cantankerous members, deal with the BNP, find a balance of UK and US, find a balance with Vols, improve the technology, upgrade the server, speed the search, update the DigiTrad, add your photos, delete your photos, find the CD you sent me in 1998, fix your spelling errors, answering your pm's, watching threads, fending off publishing companies, consulting with Vols, answering emails (5,781 in Oct), etc and so on. If you don't see me posting here, you assume I am off on a tropical island spending mudcat contributions on Mai Tai's and happy endings. Lets just say that I am here a lot more than you may be aware and I've only spent mudcat money on a prostitute once, and that was because she had a heart of gold. Every day, all day on every computer I own is a constant stream of every message that is posted to every thread. Can I read all of it? No. I have a job, and kids, and a beagle. Plus, I'm actually only into Hip Hop music. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: maeve Date: 10 Nov 09 - 06:12 PM Thank you, Max. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Bill D Date: 10 Nov 09 - 07:02 PM Hip Hop??? That's not where you find prostitutes with a heart of gold. ....you must have gotten lost at some 'folk' event... *grin* and you may ignore all the telepathic messages I have sent you.... |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Jeri Date: 10 Nov 09 - 07:44 PM "Every day, all day on every computer I own is a constant stream of every message that is posted to every thread." I'm now imagining the Mudcat version of the Matrix, with every message flashing across a screen like the code for the Program. Max is truly the One because he can do shit nobody else can do. There is no spoon? Then you'll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. (It's kinda like that with a lot of things around here: it's not so much about what other people say as it is about our own reactions.) |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 11 Nov 09 - 06:28 AM "Max is truly the One" Cripes, he's finally come back? Damn it, where did I leave that alabaster jar? ;-) So anyway, if Max "loses interest" as he's suggesting he might be below, what options are there for turning this great archive with all the material in it that has been submitted to the forum by the membership over the years, over to another caretaker for the site, or indeed better-still, an appropriate organisation? Surely there would be plenty of takers out there, willing to adopt it if Max lost interest rather than him just err 'existentialising' it all...? It'd be criminal to just dump all the research materials so many people have invested time in sharing, simply because the present management became disinterested in it, or perhaps incapable of maintaining it, due to other commitments. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 11 Nov 09 - 06:43 AM Hehe! Total random thoughts... I have visions of a Willy Wonka style 'golden ticket' scenario now at MC. Where all the naughty boys and girls are eliminated through moral trials, and only little Charlie Bucket is good enough to inherit the chocolate factory! If Max is Wonka, I guess it's obvious who Grandpa Joe is.. And the rest of us must be Umpa-lumpas. I probably aught to take my tablets now. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: GUEST,Dani Date: 11 Nov 09 - 07:43 AM Max, you warm my heart. I hope that any money that ever came from me you DO spend on mai-tais and happy endings. Life gets complicated when you get old/er, but if you do it right, it just keeps getting better and better. Dani |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: My guru always said Date: 11 Nov 09 - 09:15 AM Dani, I share that sentiment, Max can definitely have a Mai-Tai (whatever that is) on me any time!!! In fact, if he ever makes it across the pond I'll buy him 2 *grin* Goodness knows he deserves a break! |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: wysiwyg Date: 11 Nov 09 - 10:56 AM Well, I doubt MudFunds are flush enough for Mai Tais, but do they have the little umbrellas? I bet those can be afforded. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Jeri Date: 11 Nov 09 - 05:46 PM Crow Sister, the problem with the Willie Wonka bad people eliminator dealie is that we'd all be out at some point and nobody would win. We could have some fun discussing what our individual punishments might be... or not. I like the whole Star Trek way of complaining/suggesting/improving: people get to voice their opinions respectfully, then when the Captain makes a decision, they support him. If the implemented plan has problems, they then look at how to make the Captain's plan work. We hit snags here, and it's too easy to want to completely scrap the Captain's plan. Instead of 'how do we fix this' we jump in with 'here's what I think we should do INSTEAD'. I admit I can voice the same opinion (or a similar one) a few times, but I usually give it a year or several in between. I think it's probably better (for me), to just back off for a bit and let those major complaints turn into slight annoyances with some distance-enhanced perspective. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: John MacKenzie Date: 12 Nov 09 - 03:34 PM Well as far as I'm concerned, Mudcat is now just another clone website, with the Digital Tradition as the only thing to differentiate it. There are scads of looky likey sites on the internet, and what individuality Mudcat had, is fast disappearing in a plethora of gimmicks. Long live Numachi! So shoot me. JM |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 12 Nov 09 - 05:32 PM "and what individuality Mudcat had, is fast disappearing in a plethora of gimmicks." Eh? Well, I may be relatively new here, but I think that's a tad strong :) As a new singer of traditional songs, if I search for a song, I find a bunch of threads with all kinds of material that's been submitted by all kinds of people over the years. The problem is IMO (much as the management might find it a pain in the arse), that the grumpiest awld beggars, are also the ones who contribute the real gold - or at least so it seems to me. If you put a muzzle on them, then you'll be left with routine toilet banter in BS, and little else of any actual musical merit. What concerns me is that if the management is indeed in danger of getting tired of the show - as suggested, the vast current archive of contributions made by worthy academic minded contributors over the years, might be insecure. That would be a great shame. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Janie Date: 12 Nov 09 - 05:51 PM You know Jeri, the thing that is so annoying about you is that you are so insightful and adult in your thinking:>) |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Max Date: 13 Nov 09 - 11:55 AM I'd just as soon get rid of my son as I would the data from 13 years of mudcat.org. And the only one I would consider handing off to would be an academic institution willing to trade it for an honorary PhD in ethnomusicology. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: katlaughing Date: 13 Nov 09 - 12:12 PM Which you have certainly earned! |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Gulliver Date: 13 Nov 09 - 12:35 PM Keep it, and review it again in 6 months time after people have used it and understand it and are then in a position to discuss it, instead of speculating, sometimes without even knowing much about what they are speculating on. Although I still think Mudcat is a great site I have been spending less and less time on it because I have been getting tired of seeing what appears to me to be an ever smaller number of the same old contributors voicing their opinions. All very comforting to themselves, but often boring. I'd like to see some fresh input, preferably from younger people. I get the impression that many of the more established 'catters fear this kind of input, and what it may result in. Well, this week alone I've seen as much asinine waste of bandwidth contributed by established 'catters to BS as could be found anywhere on the Internet. I thought Uncle Phil above put it very well, as did Virginia Tam, and I agree (98%) with Max. I recall the lack of enthusiasm when I first suggested creating a Wikipedia article for Mudcat, and some negative feedback after I did so (with a few notable exceptions in both cases). I think Max is doing a good job - keep up the good work and many thanks! Don |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: GUEST,hg Date: 20 Nov 09 - 11:23 PM What happened to "share this thread?" |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Max Date: 20 Nov 09 - 11:30 PM I made it smaller and out of the way a bit. See the orange square with a plus sign? That's it. It is also now not available for BS threads. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Janie Date: 20 Nov 09 - 11:36 PM Thanks Max. For all of it! |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: GUEST,hg Date: 20 Nov 09 - 11:47 PM all I see is the square next to RSS feed. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Jeri Date: 21 Nov 09 - 12:08 AM In right side of the dark blue box right above the window to write messages. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Jeri Date: 21 Nov 09 - 12:12 AM If you mouse over it, you get the choices. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: catspaw49 Date: 21 Nov 09 - 12:18 AM We need to give Max a drum............. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: GUEST,hg Date: 21 Nov 09 - 01:19 PM geez, I didn's see that yesterday...too much merlot....how can we share the joke threads if they're in BS? |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Nov 09 - 02:33 PM Thanks, Max. I knew you'd come through on this! As for "how can we share the joke threads if they're in BS?", easy enough, just give a link to whoever you want to share it with. Pretty easy, it just needs a fraction more effort and a fraction more motivation to take that effort.. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: wysiwyg Date: 02 Dec 09 - 03:07 PM I REALLY like the discreet (tiny) but still-red and thus highly visible thingie to get the "share" menu to pop open, and I LOVE the placements (I saw two places). It draws the eye without distracting/insisting upon itself-- good 'un, Max. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: dwditty Date: 02 Dec 09 - 04:40 PM My thoughts: 1. Max has always struck me as having the best interest of mudcat and its members at heart - not to mention the fact that he is the one who has logged the thousands of hours to make it happen. I will support pretty much whatever he decides to do, and this instance is not an exception. 2. If one posts here with any thought of, "Gee, I hope so-and-so doesn't see this." then suffer the consequences if it gets out by any means. A few years ago our associate pastor was discussing MySpace with a bunch of teens. She wanted to see some of them, so they all trekked up to her office. As she viewed several pages, she heard one kid whisper, "Don't let her see mine." She turned to the kid and said, "Bob, what could possibly be on your page that you would not want certain people to see?" The kid actually got the point - if teens can grasp it, I think we can, too. 3. For anyone under say 25 +/-, social networking is a fact of life. Many of the big controversies we "adults" spend hours arguing and agonizing over are simply of no concern to the next group coming up. To say we, as a group in an open forum on the net, do not want to participate in a world with social networking is naive at best and (fill in your own adjective) at the worst. 4. Have any of you "shared" a youtube video, even by passing along an email that was sent to you. Have you violated the person who put it there, or are you willing to live with the double standard? If one acts responsibly here, there is not reason to fear that someone may bear witness by finding mudcat by accident or by facebook. I, too, long for the good old days, but they ain't coming back. Perhaps we can do the most good by sharing as much as we possibly can of the positive aspects of mudcat as a community. There are many, many examples of wonderful human fellowship at Mudcat. I don't post much, but have been accepted here since 1997, and I have always felt that I could say whatever I want. The fact that my words are someone isolated from the typical open and random access characteristic of other social networking sites, has in no way served as justification for me to behave in a way that might embarass me. dw |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Donuel Date: 02 Dec 09 - 04:44 PM As an option it is a wonderful idea. All living systems grow. If mudcat is to survive it should grow within limits. This may seem to some as needlessly swimming upstream but only dead fish float downstream. |
|
Subject: RE: 'Share this thread'? From: Pierre Le Chapeau Date: 02 Dec 09 - 06:04 PM Hi Everyone. I saw the Icon a week or so ago and with some of the trouble we have had with Facebook refusing to remove identity theft of Mudcat members posted by The BMP. I do not think it is a good idea. Regards to all Pierre, |
| Share Thread: |
