BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?

Subject: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From: BlueJay
Date: 20 May 00 - 04:02 PM

Just a comment. I'm not too good with computers, and just today started trying my hand at "Newsgroups". From what I can tell so far, they are a pain in the ass to use. The responses to the posts are separated from the original postings, and you have to go through all this e-mail crap to post or respond. Maybe some are better than others, I've only tried a few.
Maybe I'm just spoiled, but it seems to me that the Mudcat has an INFINITELY superior format. Post it, and read the responses. It's a no-brainer, very good for someone with my intellectual capabilities. And so professionally done. I've not seen a site like it yet. Probably there are other well managed sites, just outside of my circle of interest. But these newsgroups really suck, from what I see so far. If you disagree, and think I'm missing something, please let me know.

I'm sure there have been similar threads in the past. I didn't search. But then, I'm really not even looking for a response. I honestly won't be offended if nobody replies. I just want to post my opinion, and give te Mudcat a pat on the back. Thanks, all, BlueJay

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 20 May 00 - 04:27 PM

BlueJay, I am one who disagrees. I prefer the Newsgroup format. The biggest advantage to me is where the equivilant of thread creep occurs as it is much easier to follow the legs or sub threads that you want to read. I also like the use of quoting which is common in newsgroups.

To me, the biggest thing Mudcat has to offer is a group of friendly people willing to exchange more than just plain musical knowledge (and there is a wealth of knowledge here). I know we have our bad moments but in all honesty, Mudcat is by far the best place that I know of on the internet for this.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From: GUEST,Chocolate Pi(in Mac again)
Date: 20 May 00 - 04:45 PM

BlueJay, there's a big difference betwen newsgroups on USENET (groups in the alt.*, rec.*, comp.*, etc. heirarchies), bbs's, and web-based boards like the 'Cat. Newsgroups were around before the web was commonly used, and therefore don't have the same sort of flashy interfaces. Your USENET experience does depend a lot on the newsreader you use; Netscape and Outlook both have built-in newsreaders which are ok for threading but have very little in the way of managment (killfile, etc). Agent is supposed to be pretty good, though I haven't tried it. I use trn or rn or even pine on my Linux box.
There are a number of other web-based bulletin boards with various capabilities: the best example is probably Slashdot.org, which is built on opensource slashcode, which has a moderation system and various fun things to play with. The Ultimate Bulletin Board system is widely used too; for example, at linuxnewbie.org, or somewhere on nitrozac.com, although their server has been down much of the weekend.
HTH.


Chocolate Pi (who managed to crash my Linux box (the first system crash I've had since installing Linux back in January, yay stable os) while compiling a nasty TeX file)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 20 May 00 - 05:46 PM

Chocolate Pi has raised a good point. I use Outlook Express 5 which inspite of all its sins, does present the information in a way that I find easy to follow. I find the web based solutions such as Deja-News a right pain (although I sometimes find Deja News useful for checking back).

Another point when using my type of reader is that you need to have access to a news server and not all ISP's provide this. I have 2 ISP's and the one I use most often has only recently (within the past 1 or 2 months)provided this service.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From: Jeri
Date: 20 May 00 - 05:58 PM

Forté make Agent and a free version, Free Agent. (Click to go to their page, where you can download.) I've been using Agent for a few years and love it.

Regarding the benefits of newsgroups compared to those of a web-based forum such as Mudcat, it took a while for me to get used to the things Jon mentioned. What you prefer may have a lot to do with what you learned and used first.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From: Mooh
Date: 20 May 00 - 06:14 PM

I haven't a clue what most of the above is about, but I'll defend to my death my right to be ignorant...I mean, I'm not very literate, computer-wise. Anyway...

A young friend lately recommended the D'Addario guitar chat site, so I checked it out this morning. I discovered how absolutely crappy such a thing can be. I honestly don't see any point in visiting, never mind contributing.

More evidence that Mudcat is well above the swill of music knowledge swirling around the toilet bowl of cyber-land. Long live the Mudcat.

Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 May 00 - 07:20 PM

"I haven't a clue what most of the above is about" - I'm with Mooh on that.

If there is another place on the net which begins to compoare with the Mudcat - well I was going to say, I'd love to know about it. But I need to do other things sometimes as well as sit at my keyboard, so perhaps it's better that I don't know such a place.

With 200 million sites or whatever the current figure is, there has to be something, I'd have thought - but all the newsgroups I've ever come up against seem to make the Mudcat seem like an oasis of peace and tranquillity and good nature, even when we are at our worst.

As for the kind of organising features that Jon Freeman talks about, when I come across them on something like uk.music.folk, well, I tend to find they get in the way, though they can be convenient sometimes when you are in a hurry. (I haven't been to uk.music .folk for some time, because my ISP wouldn't support news groups until recently - and the Mudcat is so uch more accessible. Among other more important advantages.)

For me - I find thread drift is often a very positive thing, like its equivalent when you are round a table in a pub. (I don't say that in order to start an argument, because I can see how some people prefer the other way of doing it.)

It'd be fun though if there was a Mudcat equivalent somewhere which was primarily about the kind of things which at times get frowned on here. We could go along and talk about folk music and see if we got jumped on as deviationists.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From: Peter T.
Date: 20 May 00 - 07:37 PM

As I have said many times, this is the cleanest, most elegant site I have come across, partly for the reasons you cite, Blue Jay. The threaded newsgroups are a total pain, and do not lend themselves to easy reading. They certainly don't give you the kind of feel for a common posting space and mutual interaction that this one does. There are others that come close, but they tend to be just messy text, followed by messy text. Max may have borrowed this format from somewhere else -- he has never said so, and I have never found anything like it, so I assume it is all his creation. It is very subtly simple. I am constantly citing this place as a reference to professional Web site designers -- I am only an amateur designer. There are lots of flashier sites, but I don't know of any that are so supportive of a format for simple queries, comments, and replies, and so clean. It is really remarkable.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 20 May 00 - 07:38 PM

McGrath, here are my feelings on thread creep. Firstly, I am not against it but I find that using, shall I call it a linear format (like Mudcat), what tends to happen is that once a thread has drifted, the original topic is not returned to and I have found this particularly irritating when on the rare occasions when I have seen a musical thread degenerating (at least for a while) into a succession of jokes. My feeling is that with the other system, it is easier to enjoy the jokes if you wish and keep track/ contribute to the original topic.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 20 May 00 - 07:47 PM

PeterT, I think the quality of Mudcat has little to do with the format used although it has been well designed and done in a way that is accessible to many. It is my belief that the quality of any discussion group is down to those that contribute and on that score, I believe that Max's policy which involves little in the way of moderation but provides encoragement towards a "community" feeling has paid great dividends.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 20 May 00 - 08:13 PM

RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?

It's enough for me.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From: Peter T.
Date: 20 May 00 - 08:21 PM

I don't disagree with the latter half at all, Jon, I admire it tremendously. I have been in other sites where the moderator is immoderately interfering -- and given that after all Max has a lot of knowledge in these areas, his reticence is commendable. But I think you underestimate the power of the format to reinforce the obvious quality of the participation. It is hard to describe it, but it has something to do with the mixture of egalitarianism (all posts are treated equally) and lack of busyness in the main thread page. It has a kind of transparence that many other sites either struggle to achieve, or clog up with crap. So we can get on with being or saying what or who we are.

Sorry to go on like this. But I think the sociology of Internet participation is completely understudied, and that it is either carried out by people who have no understanding of sociology, or no sensitivity to design, or the relationship between the two. That is why there is so much dismal crap out there, and why the Internet is disappointing some of its original promises.

Anyway, I always enjoy reading your wise words here! (funny that it is so easy to do here, huh?)!!!!!!

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 20 May 00 - 09:44 PM

PeterT, I am still not sure but I can at least see your point and I agree with your comments regarding the "sociology of Internet participation being completely understudied" and the cynic inside me suggests the main reason for that is mostly to do with people viewing the Internet purely as a business and that the interest is in market study rather than human study.

I'd be interested to hear other Mudcatter's comments on any of the topics touched on in this thread and thoughts on evolving cyber communities in general as I think it is a fascinating subject and one with implications for us all.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From:
Date: 20 May 00 - 11:37 PM

Here's the deal. I went on line for the first time 5 weeks ago and found Mudcat 4 weeks ago. You all speak my language! I can say any dam folk thing I want and the worst I get in return is hits on the head for being stupid or correction of my facts. What a funny term "mudcat." How does it relate? Here's a reason for all my joy: a week ago I started a thread, "Your folk switch" and to date there were 65 replies. Does that give me a big head, or what? But I'm not here to get a big head. I just wanna have my questions answered and my opinions respected. Mudcat is the place for me. It rules. R U having a fundraiser? I'll write a check!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 21 May 00 - 03:44 AM

GUEST,Mrbisok@aol--

MUDCAT MEMBERSHIP COMMERCIAL, TAKE ONE:

This Forum is brought to you by Onstage Media and the Mudcat Cafe-- where the Mind of Max is Made Manifest!

Perky Jingle:
"Join us if you can, and don't delay, You can be a Newbie at the Mudcat Cafe!"

Announcer:
"Yes, folks, you can get your very own personal message page and a wacky name of your own choosing, right here at the Mudcat Cafe, where it's all folk all the time! Except when it's blues! All blues all the time too! That's Max for ya! Join now for ALL the features! And all it'll cost ya's a cookie!"

Jingle:
"Surfin' can be fun but join today! And do check out the Auction at the Mudcat Cafe!"

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From: Jeri
Date: 21 May 00 - 08:46 AM

Mrbisok, you can click on th "Help Support the Mudcat" icon up at the top. (It's the fish jumping out of the banjo to the left of the blue search box, and is the only thing that "moves" on the page.)

I love trying to figure out why groups work the way they do. <soapbox> While the nastier messages get in the way sometimes, I applaud Max for not moderating this forum. It's a hard thing to do, but we learn how to deal with nastiness and grow as a community. If bad things never happened here, or we were sheltered from them, we would be a lot more vulnerable than we are. Sure, I lament the loss of innocence along with everyone else, but it's the way the group chooses to deal with nastiness that will make or break us - not the individual nasties. Growth doesn't happen without change, no matter how unpleasant change may be. </soapbox>

And it's not the fights you dreamed of
But those you really fought
It's not what you've been given
It's what you do with what you've got
--Si Kahn

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From: Kelida
Date: 21 May 00 - 10:05 AM

In spite of occasional flames, I havce thoroughly enjoyed the Mudcat since I started comeing here. Almost everyone has been friendly and helpful, and I too am happy that Max doesn't "moderate" things here. The first discussion group (which, incidently, used that "tree" format) I was ever involved with was a fantasy role-playing forum, and it was highly controlled by the guy who ran the place. Controversial posts were simply deleted on sight. It was very frustrating. Everyone sort of had to pent up their anger, and a lot of people simply just quit coming to the site. Unfortunately, the site has pretty much died now.

I see a lot of parallels between that site and the Mudcat. I think the Mudcat will make it, though. Sure, there are fights here, there are even a few people who leave, which is very sad. But most of the people here are able to work things out. And we have the chance to do so, which is most important of all.

Peace--Keli

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 21 May 00 - 10:30 AM

Interesting the thoughts on moderation. Max does moderate things but only to a very small degree and as far as I understand it, he will delete a post in extreme cases such as a viscious personal attack. Also, the knowledge that there is one person who is ultimately in control of everything here must provide some degree of moderation in itself.

What makes people choose Mudcat in preference to other music forums?

I subscribe to uk.music.folk, rec.music.folk, rec.music.celtic and alt.banjo and I notice that there are a few people like myself that participate in some of these newsgroups as well as Mudcat but it appears that the majority of people do one or other - why?

What makes a person decide where to ask a question? In many cases, I would feel confident in getting a good answer in more than one forum so it is not a question of knowledge but I would be more likely to ask here than in the alternatives because I prefer the "feel" of Mudcat - waht about other people?

PeterT commented on the Mudcat format helping the nature of this place. I have had another think on this subject and am beginning to think that the newsgroup format with the quoting and threading probably encourages more terse replies than this system does and that will effect the feel of a group. Does anybody have any thoughts on this?

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From: Peter T.
Date: 21 May 00 - 10:46 AM

Back again, after thinking, rather than before thinking, which is more usual. I think that the folk music community is perhaps traditional enough, and literate, so that this odd combination of being able to fire off short bursts almost like speech intersects healthily with the advantages of "letter writing" with short delivery time. So people can go on at length -- musicians and writers (at least a strong minority here) are very patient with other people's stories. The storytelling rhythm and the exchange of jokes and tips among musicians also fits in so well with this format. As I have said elsewhere, you have to have a community before you come onto the Net if you are going to make one on the Net that will last: the Net can help that community if the site is designed well, but if it is a lousy community to begin with, nothing will help. A number of the other groups I connect with -- chess players, environmental groups, etc. -- have dysfunctional relationships to begin with. It is a nice accident that the folk community fits this technology well -- casual access, good stories, real information to hand -- and not an accident that Max does it so well.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From: Kelida
Date: 21 May 00 - 10:52 AM

I think that the format here is more conducive to learning than the other format, which allows people not to read certain posts. With the Mudcat format, you see everything that people have written, and though there is some amount of thread creep, there is also a lot of good info in the posts. When participating in forums with the other format, I have noticed that sometimes it is easy to miss a post, especially if it is a very long thread. That problem doesn't exist here.

The only advantage I can see to the other format is that you can post in response to each specific post. One bad thing about the Mudcat format is that if you don't notice a cool thread until it's 50 or 60 posts long, it's very difficult to reply to earlier posts.

Peace--Keli

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 May 00 - 11:49 AM

This quote was put in the 'Just do it' thread, by McGrath of Harlow on 19th May 2000. It seemed to sum up the Mudcat.

"I am inclined to think that a hunt for folk songs is better than a hunt for heroes". Beethoven.

I have not seen any direct contributions to the forum from this Beethoven person, but he/she does appear to know what they are talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 May 00 - 12:44 PM

Kelida says - "One bad thing about the Mudcat format is that if you don't notice a cool thread until it's 50 or 60 posts long, it's very difficult to reply to earlier posts."

One way round that is to do what I just did - copy a quote from the post you want to reply to into your own post.

Or, if the thread has drifted a long way from where it was, you could start up a new thread, and put a link in the old thread telling people you'd done it, maybe with a quote from the original post.

And you could supplement this with a personal message to the person whose point you wanted to follow up, drawing their attention to the new thread.

The beauty of Max's architecture is that you can use it in such flexible and creative ways. I think there are still lots of ways of making use of this flexibility that we haven't yet worked out. And meantime Max is sticking in clever little facilities that help us in making links and in drawing on existing resources in the forum and elsewhere.

The thing is,there are a lot more people around then there was at one time, and that makes it harder to find each other in the crowd some times. I think we will find ways of coping, and even turning the problems into plusses.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From:
Date: 21 May 00 - 03:15 PM

Interesting points brought up.

1 I will have to give this thread to some of the "folklorists" I know, and see if they know anyone doing research on the Internet Social Interactivity Aspects. I think it would make an absolutely fascinating subject. How in depth they could go is likely to be a major subject of debate. (Endless, I would guess)

Newgroups, Well, I've been on the internet for about 20 years. I've used newsgroups for a blessed good lot of that time. With the older programs, (I've never used the newsgroups on Netscape/Explorer/etc), you could set the newsreader to show you
a - only NEW messages
b - Sorted by Date or Topic or person
c - NOT show you messages from specific people (Look up KILLFILES)
d - Keep showing SPECIFIC messages, whether you've read them or not.
e - Change Topic

Plus many other criteria, the above shows just a few of the common ones. With the newsgroup system, I can send ONE specific message to my e-mail for further followup, directly with that person.

Among the disadvantages of the newsgroup system are that the original messages get lost after a period of time, and with thread creep, no one changes the subject topic to the new topic of interest. It's hard to keep track of who originated and what the original message(s) were in fact about.

There are disadvantages to the Mudcat system too. When there IS Thread Creep, you can't change the subject heading to match the new direction, you have to Start a new thread. You cannot send JUST a single message to a specific person. You can send the whole thing, and then edit out the section you need. There are some other disadvantages.

The important thing is that we DO interact, and talk to each other.

We've all witnessed what happens when organizations/nations do NOT discuss, and bring out openess. This place DOES have a large number of advantages, but the most important is the major resource in the people who frequent the spot.

Max, Susan, Dick, Joe, and the others behind(or maybe not so behind) the scenes who talk to us each day are all important to the "feel" and atmosphere.

In Halifax, I go to a few of the open mic/sessions in town, and see the difference that a host makes. It IS considerable. The people are important, but they DON'T have to come. Everyone is welcomed and taken in, as part of the family that has developed over the number of years. I asked yesterday, and for the life of me, I can't remember when I first started coming here.

For some time I was just using the DT, which is what I was familiar with from the original location, as Xerox's Parc site.

I joined, but did not participate in the message forums, until Dale Rose sent me an e-mail on something in the forum. Since then they haven't been able to shut me up!

I do enjoy the site, the people and the openness. The only thing that I had wished for, but now don't need, was a separate message forum for the BS threads. With the SuperSearch, I can locate items in the body of a message in a quick and timely fashion. I had been thinking the BS threads were growing so fast, and thought that was what had made searches so unbearably long. I should have known that the "site maintainers" had something up their collective sleeves. I, for one, applaud, laud all of those contributors, both regular and irregular.

Mudcat IS one of a kind as a community. There are sites which do similar work, but the upshot is that Mudcat is UNIQUE, but that is because of the personality it has based on the people who come here!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 May 00 - 06:12 AM

"You cannot send JUST a single message to a specific person."(George Seto)

But surely the Personal Message facility means you can do just that, and you can put in a heading indicating what thread you are referring to if need be. (Unless they've come in as a GUEST, but I imagine that would stump any system.)

One thing that would help I think is if people used the prefix system more consistently, and maybe if there were a few more choices - BS doesn't fit as a label for many discussions, like this one.

What would also help would be if there were some way of ensuring that when a new thread is started that arises out of an old one, that this is indicated at the start of the new thread, with a link to the old one etc. That would make it easier for an interesting line of discussion or investigation to be carried forward.

Maybe some kind of gizmo that will make this easier is on its way - but even without it the existing facilities make it perfectly possible to do this kind of thing, it's up to us to make it easier and more enjoyable for each other. It's like driving - the difference being is that on the Mudcat the occasional terrible driver doesn't kill people. Maybe sets off a spasm of road rage, but that's not such a big deal when you aren't driving a lethal vehicle.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat: One of a Kind?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 May 00 - 02:22 PM