'Share this thread'?

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,
Gargoyle

they know more than you wish they know.

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,
Gargoyle

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,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these — the homeless, tempest-tossed — to me;
I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door.

(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...