Shrinking Mudcat?

Subject: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 04:37 PM

Recently every now and again I've found the Mudcat opening with miniscule print. I have to go to zoom and blow it up several times over before I can read it. The Mudcat is the ony site where this happens, and not every time, which rather suggests it's not a problem in my computer.

Anyone else experiencing the same thing? And is there any way to stop it happening?

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Crowhugger
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 05:17 PM

No font size problems for me. For at least 5 or 6 years I've kept my browser zoom set to 110%. Maybe twice it reverted to 100%, both times after an annoyingly large OS automatic update (during which various software ran as if on dual floppies) followed by a restart.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 05:23 PM

I have yet to encounter that here in Quebec, Kevin.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 05:38 PM

No, but I find this forum a whole lot less interesting.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: ripov
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 07:58 PM

I've seen it occasionally halfway through a post, staying small for 2 or 3 posts more, then reverting to normal. Always assumed it was inaccurate html in the post.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 08:51 PM

Agree with Charley Noble's comment.

Very little of any weight regarding folk music and lots of tripe from sad persons.

One of which will no doubt instantly tell me that I am the one who is out of step!

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: pdq
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 08:58 PM

I looked at a day's postings about two weeks ago.

There were only 403 total for the previous day.

Used to be 900+ every day.

Yes, Mudcat is shrinking. No moderation and too many name-calling ***holes.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 09:24 PM

Ditto

Charley....

The recent stats reveal...ten "members" have averaged over ten posts a day.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

something strange is going on this fall in the UK.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 09:29 PM

"No moderation and too many name-calling ***holes."

Moderators get to make rules. But fifty to one--posters to mods--sheesh, what they gonna do?

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 10:17 PM

Actually, I think it is competition, from places like Facebook, that have detracted from the traffic here. In the late 90's this was THE social networking site for folks of our kind.


A

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 10:29 PM

When I'm in my 90's I'll consider that remark, Amos. Say hi to D for me.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 10:41 PM

I tend to go to YouTube and look up performers and tunes that I see mentioned here(spending hours there), so it's more of a portal than a destination;-)

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Phil Cooper
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 10:45 PM

I check in several times a day, but seldom make comments. When there's a music thread I can help on, or have an opinion on, I will comment. Otherwise I just read them. On the BS threads, I'm not going to change anyone's opinion, so why bother.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 11:26 PM

People here love to argue.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 11:31 PM

I have sometimes noted posts that lament the paucity of "interesting" threads. I don't understand why those same people don't resolve the problem by creating interesting threads. :)

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 11:35 PM

EBBIE. Hi, and howzit?

It is great to see your post.

Hugs, kisses and WOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 12:02 AM

I am fine, luv. Kind of in limbo but well taken care of. You can't know and love KT and not be well cared for. :) She is a special person.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 01:12 AM

We have all been thinking about you, Ebbie. You, and your "interesting" thread;-)

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 02:31 PM

Too many "name-calling ***holes". My impression is that if there's a decreaseinnthe number of posts it would be more likely because there's a bit less of that around. That kind of thing can stir up the posting rate considerable.

I suppose stuff like Facebook and Twitter might be diverting some of the traffic. I never have any truck with those myself.
.............................

I'm still getting the miniscule typeface turn up from time to time, for example right now. And not on any other sites I visit. I hope whatever is at fault gets fixed.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 04:15 PM

Any forum...or club... or church...etc... is what you make it. If everyone who sees any 'problem' just leaves, it becomes what they call a "self-fulfilling hypothesis".

As Yogi Berra said: "No one goes to that restaurant anymore...it's too crowded."

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 07:34 PM

The "stats" are public.

October to October.

2010 to 2012.

For the mudcat to survive ... we must embrace the UK vermin.

Sincerley,
Garoyle

blessed be St Pancriatis has abandoned some of her throng.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Mick Pearce (MCP)
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 08:04 PM

According to webstats for Mudcat, 49.5% of traffic is from US, 11.3 from UK; we are but little to embrace it seems.

The same site ranks Mudcat at 124,392 of 30,000,000 domains, putting it in the top 1%. That doesn't seem too bad.

Vermin Mick

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 09:09 PM

I have spoken to (when I bump into them) more than one person who was a regular years ago, but no longer frequents Mudcat. They said the atmosphere got so nasty they didn't care to spend their time here.

I believe they are on FaceBook now. You can blame those who left... but (presumably) folks generally hang out here because they think it's fun (and some, no doubt, because they care about the folks they've met/know here). But when it's not fun no more, there are SO many diversions and distractions begging for our time and attention, why stick around?

They didn't like the "heat", so they got out of the kitchen... didn't make a fuss about it - just left. That's what most people do.

FWIW, that's my two-penneth on "Shrinking Mudcat"...

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Willie-O
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 12:35 PM

Well here I am checking in after not bothering for many months. I would say the atmosphere here is still much more congenial than 95% of web forums of whatever type.

I'm kind of amazed that there are allegedly five times as many US-originated postings as UK-based ones. That's not the picture one gets from the lists of current threads... really though it's the "interesting" factor that is lacking. How many times can one debate 'what is real folk music?' and agree that McArthur Park is, or isn't the 'worst song ever'--(no wait, it's really "havin my baby" by my fellow Ottawan Paul Anka--that is decidedly the Canadian consensus fwiw)--and argue whether music stands onstage are unprofessional (they totally blow, but we use em anyway due to failing memories).

I do cherish the many real-life friendships I've made or reconnected here. On balance, well done Mudcat! Thanks Max!

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Mick Pearce (MCP)
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 12:44 PM

Willie-O. The figures are for web traffic to the site, which probably includes a large number of visits to the site that do not result in posts. Without some research I wouldn't like to say on the proportions of actual postings. (And I never look below the line, so I haven't any idea of what the overall posts might be. I read mainly song-related threads, so I don't have a very good picture).

Mick

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 06:43 PM

When did "unprofessional" become a particularly disparaging epithet for folk musicians?

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Bob the Postman
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 09:59 AM

Occasionally, a thread will open in tiny print on my iPad.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: stallion
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 10:25 AM

Don't have trouble with small print but I think Mudcat is evolving as is the world around it, I drop in two or three times a day to check it out but I don't seem to feel the need to contribute. I think that this place was a mine of information stored in peoples heads and also with a few keen to do the research for you, there is now so much stuff on the net and the search engines are so good at finding it that it is cutting out the "middle men". Facebook has taken some of the traffic away but I still use Mudcat.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: greg stephens
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 10:39 AM

I have no small print problem. But I do regret the gradual erosion of the amount of discussion on things that actually interest me.I'm more the trad-folk 1954 sort of chap really,the song not the singer: so when I see a thread called "Origins of St James Infirmary" I think, "Great I'll have a look"; then I notice it was started 12 years ago!

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 10:42 AM

There are currently nearly a thousand "members" of the Mudcat Facebook page, and there is little or no adversarial crap there and a lot of musical information. It is, unfortunately or not, the nature of FB that it is much more difficult to locate ongoing discussions than it is here, but that is where many of the 'who's performing where' and 'my new CD' posts are going.

And the only time my font decreases drastically in size is when I write something in a thread here - and that's only when I'm on (as now) my little laptop.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: greg stephens
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 10:50 AM

That's interesting. I never knew there was a Mudcat Facebook page. Maybe I will go across the corridor and have a look.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 10:56 AM

Look for the one called "Mudcat Cafe"; the one with the fiddling fish is bogus.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Beer
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 11:45 AM

I was not aware of this as well.
Adrien

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 12:18 PM

It's pretty bad when I only come back to check the Obits.

Well, there is also a tremendous archives.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Mr Red
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 12:54 PM

No problem in Rouge Towers.

We had a problem at Stroud FM after viewing Farcebook, but that turned-out to be a zoom problem. Farcebook managed to re-size everything and the poor guy seemed to think it was the machine. A quick demo of cntl-scroll and hey presto he is a zoom expert now.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Joybell
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 05:20 PM

Sorry about the further thread-drift but I see I'm not the first. I came in here after not posting much for a while too. I agree with so many here. Like Willie-O I have made many dear friends at Mudcat over the years. I check in from time to time but I rarely post now. I don't like Facebook much.
I like to connect with like-minded people here and I have always loved Mudcat.
Hello old friends. Are you still out there.
Cheers, Joy

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Haruo
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 02:03 AM

I have a problem in that my Firefox (my preferred browser) for some reason for several months now has had an allergic reaction to domains ending in .org, when I go to them it opens billions of copies of spammy looking pages, four or five tabs each. Eventually it calms down and I can close each of the dozens of misfires (do I want to close multiple tabs? yes) one at a time until I get back to the first one, which is Mudcat (or Hymnary, or whatever .org I was trying to visit). But this is extremely time-consuming.

On the other hand, I can visit .org's in other browsers (I'm in Safari at the moment) with no such viral-acting reactions. But I prefer Firefox, alas.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Peter
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 03:52 AM

I have no problem with FF 17.0.1
Assuming that your firewall has detected no problems have a look at your FF plugins and extensions as the problem might be with something legitimately installed.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 05:33 AM

""From: GUEST,.gargoyle - PM
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 07:34 PM

The "stats" are public.

October to October.

2010 to 2012.

For the mudcat to survive ... we must embrace the UK vermin.

Sincerley,
Garoyle""

Speaking of name calling (- epithet deleted -) posters.

At least ours tend to be reactive, rather than gratuitous.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 05:36 AM

P.S. Also confined to B.S. rather than up here.

DT

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 01:12 PM

The garbage in the below the line posts has turned away more than one person seriously interested in music.

I post stuff below the line, and find some threads of interest, but as Gargoyle says, there are vermin down there that post only to show their ignorance. A thread may start seriously, but often is drowned in mindless argument and name-calling. Some have never posted above the line and seemingly no interest in music. Their kind should have been barred long ago.

Like Charley, I agree that the lyrics and knowledge archives are important for many of us, and many visitors as well. Perhaps the main reason that Mudcat continues.

Very little in the way of new material is being posted; the Noels thread by Monique and Artful Codger a welcome exception.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Jack Sprocket
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 06:35 PM

Greg- most original threads on traditional folk themes are almost bound to have been started several years ago- it's trad, remember? Not much new turns up in source material. What does change is interpretation, which is driven by the performer's way of reconstructing the music. In our youth, that was overwhelmingly social and socialist- and all the better for it. Later it became increasingly individual and all too often conservative, as living memory of old hardships receded, and the arcadian perspectives of some of the early patrician collectors were reasserted.

The heirs of former colonials will observe that this is from a Smallislandian point of view.

I used to have quite a few friends here, almost all have passed on now- to elsewhere in the web some of them, others to the recycle bin...

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Brian Grayson
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 07:17 AM

Totally in agreement re the not-at-all-shrinking level of vitriolic slanging. Whatever happened to mannered discourse?

Incidentally, has anyone else besides me discovered UWall TV?

http://uwall.tv/

It's a great place to find YouTube clips in one spot!

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 09:12 AM

Seasoned forum junkies have developed a routine to ignore all vitriol-contaminated threads. What I currently miss is the creative aspect, as represented in the SONG CHALLENGEs of former years.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Soldier boy
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 11:47 AM

I agree with many here. The vitriolic trolls poisoned this site like a plauge and put a lot of people off from using the site.
Trouble is many former regulars have logged off completely or visit the site less frequently but the sick-minded trolls are still here in the same numbers it seems. And the trolls are getting more mad and vitriolic because less traffic on the site means less victims to attack to suck their blood and poison their minds and souls.
The trolls are now like sad and desperate ghouls and vampires whose thirst and lust and craving for attention to spit their foul bile is not being satisfied. They weep and curse and howl their rage and desperation at the moon and scuttle down long empty corridors feverishly looking for new innocent victims to sink their teeth into and not let go untill they have sucked their prey dry.
But now the prey are very few in numbers and they mourn the passing of the times when the prey were plentiful and they grew fat and bloated in their feasting and were full of glee for their nasty work.
These sad pitiful creatures are like gollum, they live in the dark and their hearts are turned black by an evil that possessed them many years ago when they were young and could still laugh and dance under the sun.
They are trapped now in a living hell from which they cannot escape and find a way out and now their heightened fear and desperation makes them even more bitter and malign and evil than before.
They have become vermin in the sewers of hell and must be banished from this forum for all time so that sanity may return and with sanity may come a healing and a return of all the noble and innocent and magnificent that once blessed this forum.
Their laughter, intelligence, interesting discourse and common gentle respect, decency and support of each other can shine again in these hallowed halls but first the vermin and the trolls must be cut off completely to wither and die in their own vile vomit and bile.
Banish them and allow no access ever or their stench will forever hang heavy in these walls. These 'Members' are no longer welcome in this membership. Cut out the rot now Max or your treasured vine may never recover at all and that would be such a massive, massive shame.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 12:13 PM

Two or three threads are still uncontaminated by the feces of the vermin.
I hesitate to mention them because trash might enter them as well.

Yes, cut out the vermin. This miserable lot is killing interest in the site on the part of those who have interests in the things that gave growth to Mudcat.

Soldier boy said this better.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Beer
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 12:22 AM

I'm sorry McGrath for hi-jacking your thread but I see that it has been done a long time ago and a thought came to mind and the way this thread is going I think that maybe it is appropriate for it to be mentioned here.

Are opinionated members bullies? Or are bullies just opinionated members?
Think about this. Some folks will come on a thread and shout aggressive language and say things like " And that's the f...ing way it is O.K". Then folks back off and say nothing or another bullie opinionated person will challengenge that person and away it goes.
I don't know if I have a point here or not. I just know that I also have friends on mudcat who opinionated and say things which I wish they would leave an opening so i could response without getting them up set. Opinionated folks do not leave an easy way for one to response without starting an argumentment.
This is one of the reasons for a shrinking mudcat. I.M.H.O. Is that clear enough! Do you hear me!. or should i have said I.M.H.O. but i could be wrong. Now i left an opening for my friends to respond without an argument ingsuing.
Question for max or other folks in the loop. Is Mudcat shrinking? I see a lot of new members as old one move on.
If i had the means i would love to ask those that have left the reason why the dropped out. I think it would be very useful to folks like Max and others. Maybe something could be added on a sign out for a member who is leaving to state a reason. Just a thought.
Another thought comes to me is that the problem is not Max, Joe, and all the other helpers, but it is us. It is us who create the problems then we ask for Max intervention. We are so full of shit as adults. We just hurt and hurt each other.

I don't post as often anymore. In fact I gave it a deep thought before I contributed a modest amount to Max's request. The way folks attack a thread pushes us away. Excuse me. I should have said "me" away.
I have made friends here and some I have come to respect and visit as often as i can. Others are distant friends which I will only see throught this forum. I miss those who have left us and wish they would come back.
Good-night.
Adrien

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Beer
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 12:25 AM

Sorry for all the spelling errors but my spell check is acting very strangely.
ad.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: gnu
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 11:01 PM

Typos... nah... what you said was loud and clear. Well said.

Subject: RE: Shrinking Mudcat?
From: Beer
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 11:43 PM

Thank you Gnu. Nah!! Thank you Gary for your response. You have left many doors open for a reply and I will just say this. Thank you for your understanding. And I mean it very sincerely.

ad.