From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Amos
Date: 11 Aug 01 - 05:19 PM

Prefab emoticons are like fast-food hamburgers. No matter how cleverly done, they lack something against the genuine article....a hand-keyed emoticon says much more than a little yellow inserted happy face, IMHO!!! lol!

A.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Firecat
Date: 11 Aug 01 - 05:06 PM

Why is everyone slagging off emoticons? I LIKE them! :-)))))))))

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: GUEST,genie
Date: 11 Aug 01 - 02:51 AM

Please use title case, instead of all capitals, in listing songs in the DT. All caps are harder to read than sentence or title case -- especially when in a closely spaced list. The underlining (to make it a hyperlink), I think, makes the all-cap format even harder to read.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Aug 01 - 08:20 AM

Is there a way to provide a links page with entry fields for sending corrections to DT which would streamline and speed up the process?

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Aug 01 - 11:20 PM

"I don't understand what it is some Mudcat regulars are asking Max to change regarding the guest user option? "

my wish is that the 'from' box would require SOME entry....I suppose that a guest could get in with a simple "A" or "-"...but that would help those who simply forget. We often see posts where a person with no cookie posts again to tell us who he was. I have seen several chat rooms where an attempt to post with no name got a message..."please enter your handle/name"...

Now, having said that, I know that Max has indicated that he does NOT intend to do that at this time...so.....*shrug*

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: harpgirl
Date: 09 Aug 01 - 08:56 PM

I would like to see Max post only under his own name from now on, so I can be more clear about what he thinks.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Amos
Date: 09 Aug 01 - 11:47 AM

Max:

I have two programs that can harvest web pages. One of them is Adobe Acrobat 5.0, the other is called WebWhacker. The idea is you point them to a top level page and indicate the depth of reach (levels down along links) and it goes off and captures those pages, so you can read them off line. One of the neat things i was able to do with the Acrobat tool (which does the same thing except makes a PDF file) was to point it to a saved listing of Peter T's Thoughts for the Day, and create a PDF file in which they all were neatly and attractively presented chronologically. He was delighted.

However, when I try to use the same technique on my Sent or Archive lists, it fails because the user access is defined by the Get_Cookie. I know in some web server setups you can acheive access by configuring the URL with http://username:[e-mail]. But with the 'Cat, only the cookie will do, which is probably a good thing generally.

However, my question is could you make any adjustment so that I could capture my own messages back in batch? I know I can save each one separately as a text file. For example woudl it be possible to provide access using the above passsworded URL format to the personal.cfm routine? Or some other method?

Thanks,

Amos

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: pavane
Date: 09 Aug 01 - 11:35 AM

Graham, You can overcome that yourself, by typing it into a text file first, then cutting and pasting into the text box when finished!

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Grab
Date: 09 Aug 01 - 11:27 AM

I may be pushing it with two requests, but...

When you're entering stuff in the text box and you hit "escape" accidentally, it's gone. Forever. Bye-bye text. This is something of a pisser if you've just entered a whole song, or a big long reply. Any chance that "undo" could undo this deletion, please?

Cheers,

Graham.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 01:01 PM

Seems to be a whole lot of mudslinging going on here.

Back on topic...I don't understand what it is some Mudcat regulars are asking Max to change regarding the guest user option?

If someone would clarify that point, perhaps some guest users could offer their perspective?

Or is that Not To Be Allowed here? VBG

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 11:36 AM

yup...127/84, when I take my pills....201/113 when I read posts by those whose logic changes hourly so as to maintain a position no matter what evidence is put forward...My posts did NOT 'beg the question'...YOU failed to understand what a 'worm' can do or not do. So now you 'merely referred'? *giggle*....

.I sure wish we could set down somewhere over a beer. I'd love to just listen for an hour as you explain to me what dangers and travails you'd face by using a consistent name in a folk music forum....(and, yeah, I am beginning to wonder at myself for getting so worked up over it....must be my training in logic & Philosophy welling up when I see faulty excuses and reasoning for a-typical behavior.)

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 08:38 AM

Bill D,

Max used the word "worm" in his post. I was merely referring to his usage.

BTW, had your blood pressure checked lately?

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Aug 01 - 12:03 AM

worm????..If ASCAP used a "worm", all it did was locate a set of lyrics in the database!!!!!...They don't want certain lyrics posted without permission, so they have an automated program that looks for them...NOT in this forum...in the static database!!!!..

You try telling a programmer of 'worms' that he needs to monitor all the chat rooms and forums of the WWW for names and IP numbers and watch him roll his eyes.

It just don't work that way...educate yourself!!!!!!

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: wysiwyg
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 10:22 PM

Guest, a friendly and neutral heads-up is not an effort to silence anything. Just like someone describing HOW a thing can be done is not an opinion that it SHOULD be done.

Hey, tho, whatever! I appreciate your vast personal knowledge of my motives, intent, and mindset! I dunno WHAT I was thinking, I guess!

~S~

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 06:51 PM

We have a very regular Guest.....goes by the handle "Russ"......Now someone might steal his Guest ID, but he prefers to remain as a Guest for other reasons, whatever they are........Fine with me. Because he does this, I frankly consider him a member. I can't for the life of me see the problem in maintaining a standard ID unless your desire is to flame or troll. Strikes me as an easy thing to do and unless you're a paranoid of the first order, what could the big deal possibly be?

The longer you go here Turnip the more sold I get on the idea of posting scrambled ISP's. And doing a web search returns fewer than 1500 hits on catspaw49 and I have over 12,000 posts here....that was on Google, I didn't try the myriad others. What is the big deal about maintaining an ID here Turnip?

Spaw

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 06:50 PM

Jeri,

Trollville? I think that is an over-reaction. Because I view two of your positions posted here to be contradictory and said so, doesn't make me a troll.

Susan,

I appreciate you have vast personal knowledge about the history of Mudcat debates. I don't. But bravo for trying to silence my contribution to the thread.

I'll leave it to Max to delete what is superfluous to the thread, just as he said he would.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 06:31 PM

What problem exactly is it that some of you are asking Max to fix here?

Are some of you so obsessed and paranoid, that now you want Max to make yet *another* technical change, so anonymous users' won't be allowed to post in the forum?

Max already technically cured the member identity theft problem. This latest "suggestion" smacks of witch hunting to me.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Jeri
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 06:21 PM

Folks, I know I wrote it, but I find it so difficult to understand how this post of mine could be so badly misunderstood that I think we're now in trollville.

As for me, I won't mind if Max deletes anything of mine that constitutes "debate" rather than "suggestion."

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 06:14 PM

BillD,

Which begs the question, how did that pesky worm Max refers to above in a message about MP3s, find Max/DigiTrad?

Because you don't believe Mudcat is being monitored doesn't mean it isn't.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 06:08 PM

One small difference that might help -- not trivial to create -- would be assigning "GUEST" logins a 3 digit number, which would be the same any time a GUEST login from the same IP# occurred. That way as long as a G was uswing the same machine, which i assume most do, he'd be the G xxx, and at least have a consistent presence by that number, willynilly.

A

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 06:07 PM

*ONE MORE TIME*....using a name..with or without a cookie set does NOT compromise your 'real' identity!...there are LOTS of folks with 'memberships' here that I could not find if I wanted to!...some I have no idea what continent they are on!...When Max's computer 'reads' a cookie, it is NOT identifying where you are...just that you have a regular name....and this forum is NOT spidered by search engines.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 06:05 PM

Jeri,

While I appreciated what you said about not revealing private information against user's wishes, I also note that you seem involved in the conversation about how to block guest users from posting without first using an identifier like an email account, or linking an email account with a unique Mudcat identifying number (ie a password).

It seems to me your two positions are contradictory (no flame intended here).

On the one hand, it seems to me one of your stated overriding concerns is to protect member identities by forcing non-members to identify themselves in some way (ie email or password, instead of by cookies).

I read that to mean you believe those who choose to remain anonymous shouldn't be allowed to post without identifying themselves in some way which discloses their identity to Mudcat.

But then you say no one should have to divulge private information if they don't want to.

Requiring an anonymous user to identify themselves before posting does force them to divulge private information they don't want to provide.

Because you have suggested anonymous users be forced to use some identifier to sign in, I considered your statment about not forcing people to divulge private information against their wishes, to be in contradiction of some of your previous statements.

I am aware that IP data is captured for each poster, BTW. The problem for me is making it easier to match IPs to log-in features, to content through keyword searches, as I've stated. It is the combination of those identifiers which make it easy to trace people on the Internet.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: wysiwyg
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 05:54 PM

Guest, with all due respect, this is an idea catch-all, not a soapbox thread. People are asked here just to share what they might like to see, and why, or how it would work-- Max decides. IMO, new debates will not be part of the currently-planned solution-- this is more a set of solutions addressing past debates, and a list of reminders on things we might like Max to keep thinking about. If you have stated an idea and/or a position, just trust him to see it and think about it.

It's like a brain-storming session at a workshop-- ideas are dumped into the hopper without too much critical evaluation, and if we stop to argue the merits of any one idea it inhibits the creative process. The arguments do and will occur-- most already have, IMO. *G* And will again. But not in this thread. See?

~Susan

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Jeri
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 05:31 PM

Guest, try reading my message again. Especially the sentence where I wrote "I'm also against making information a person wishes to keep private public."

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 05:15 PM

Jeri and others who wish to be able to forcibly identify anonymous users against their wishes:

I think this whole "identity snatching" is an unhealthy obsession among a very few Mudcat members.

As I said before, I really do empathize with the people it happened to, and know how appalled they must have been. But it was also easily correctible without making a mountain out of a molehill. I mean, how many times did identity theft of members happen, out of all the messages that have ever been posted on Mudcat?

And why the technical change to address the problem? All that needed to happen was for Max or someone with the ability to do it on Mudcat's behalf, deal directly with the offender's Internet provider, for Max et al to delete the offending messages, block offenders IP address (or all messages from offender's provider if they are one of the troll/flame/spam providers), and to post a message explaining what had happened.

But by using the "technical solution" to protect member identities, I think a Mudcat monster has been created--ie,the cure has been worse than the original disease. Because the cure has institutionalized hostility between anonymous guest users and the membership, and raised the paranoia level among some member users to ridiculous levels. It has also led to what I view as a very unhealthy obsession with forcing anonymous guests to adopt an identity, just to satisfy this paranoid obsession among a handful of members. Now, I don't believe that was anyone's intention when members began demanding a solution to the problem of assuming a member's identity. But it is what seems to have happened.

As I said over in the GUEST thread earlier today, the security/privacy issue does matter to many people. One of the most common ways of tracking people on the Internet is by doing keyword searches for log-in names, passwords, IPs, and email accounts. If someone wishes to protect themselves against that sort of monitoring, they will not use a consistent name, whether fictional or real, to log on.

Just because some Mudcat members are more concerned with protecting their own identity than they are with protecting all users' identities, doesn't mean they should be allowed to forcibly expose the identity of anonymous users.

These privacy/security issues may not matter to a lot of Mudcat members and guests, but I assure you, being Internet savvy about these privacy and security issues isn't a load of crap. It does matter to a lot of people.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Jeri
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 03:27 PM

Guest, if there were a way to prevent identity snatching, I'd be all for dropping the "guest" prefix. (If something could be done to check the database for a name before allowing an un-cookied poster to use it.) It bothers this member when flame wars continuously erupt because of the associations both members and guests have with the prefix.

I'm also against making information a person wishes to keep private public. Scrambled IP numbers wouldn't do that, unless they were easy to un-scramble. I just don't feel they'd work that well. There are some fairly big ISPs out there (AOL and worldnet in the US and abroad, demon, freenet in the UK) and all the scrambled IP numbers would probably look very similar.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 03:20 PM

Members already have the option to keep their email addy private. Mine has never been listed on the resources page. There is a box to tick when one signs up.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 03:09 PM

And as a long time Internet user, I think the idea that members ought to be able to find out private information about other users by technological means (ie that Max use the technology to provide long time Mudcat users information about newcomers, whether guests or members) to be incredibly Big Brother oriented.

And another PS: I ignore the thread prefixes entirely. Not only does it seem like a useless bit of pedantry, it also lean heavily towards "enforcer" sort of environment. One of those "I want other people to behave the way *I* think they should." There is already way too much of that here.

Also, even if I sign on as a member using a verifiable email account, I don't want that information being available to members or the public, unless I choose to (make it optional). While Mudcat doesn't spam, it is much too easy for spammers to capture that data from Mudcat (membership has it's advantages for spammers too).

As to the hostility between members/guests over identity, I think the situation was created when Max decided to deal with trolls assuming the identity of members by creating a two tier system of posting. While the impersonation was appalling to some, particularly the victims of said trollers prank, I think dividing the forum into an "us members vs. them guests" technically was a big mistake. I always thought of it as an over-reaction, which would have been better handled by dealing with said offenders Internet provider, and ignoring it. The solution was overkill which built in cliqueishness and elitism institutionally, IMO. Which continues to plague the forum. It doesn't bother the members, of course. But seeing that as a newcomer, for some (and maybe many who never bother posting because of it who just go away) it smacks of an inbred elitism.

I'm purty sure Max won't go back to one size fits all posters, though. Which is too bad. Mudcat seemed much more democratic and egalitarian in the pre-member/guest split days.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: wysiwyg
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 02:36 PM

On a related note, I have been thinking how helpful it would be for people who post here a lot to know one basic fact about others-- are they a longtime usenet habitue, or new to the Web, or somewhere in between? Because it seems to me that new-to-the-Web folks get evaluated by old usenet assumptions, and these assumptions contain everything from soup to nuts-- including long-held feelings about old flamathons suffered. Mudcat seems to run by usenet principles-- but it isn't usenet. It's a hybrid, or a mutation, and sometimes I think the resentments and fears com from the gaps between those frames of reference.

And oh yeah, NO FRAMES!

~S~

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 02:29 PM

P.S.

I am only in favor of maintaining the guest user option as long as it can be done without the site users getting my IP or my email.

It might be helpful to explain briefly on the "how to" pages (the privacy issues page perhaps?) just what the technical differences are between posting on a publicly accessible website discussion forum, a Usenet discussion forum, or a private mailing list.

It seems to me that an awful lot of Mudcat users don't know or understand (and therefore can't appreciate) the differences regarding identity affixed to an email account, identity affixed to a log-in name, identity affixed to an IP, etc.

It might go some towards ending animosity between member users and guest users.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 02:15 PM

As a long-time user (early 90s) of other forums and mailing lists, I have come to expect certain items and features being organized technically for my convenience as a reader, and some for my convenience as a poster.

As a reader:

1. Sort descending is a great convenience. When one has already read the entire contents of the thread, its a bit of a pain to have to scroll down to the most recent messages. I like the idea of it as a click on option.

2. As an occassional reader, I would like scroll pages by date. When one only occassionally visits (and by this I mean several times weekly or less) it would be nice to have some sort of option to only view the days/weeks/month thing. Irish traditional music list archive site has this feature as an option by month, but that is much too cumbersome for the volume. So by day seems much more accessible to me.

As to posting:

1. Though I choose not to be a member, if I did, I would expect notification of my membership in the mailbox of the address use when registering. The information should be simple and straightforward, and absolutely NOT a long message (ie FAQ included).

2. Following on from above: I expect to have my membership registration info (password, etc) remailed to me upon request, as well as included in my welcome email. As WYSIWYG has mentioned, for those of us who use the Internet a lot, we can lose the data we store at sites with alarming regularity (which is one reason why I've quit signing up as a member at websites--A Good Change in My Behavior I think).

3. Keep "How to" pages current and separate from the FAQ. Refer all new members to it in their welcome emails, and if possible do a pop up box when creating a new thread that directs guest users to the "how to" page. My opinion is that "How to" tech stuff should not be included in the FAQ. I expect FAQ to deal with content.

It seems that the changes being considered will really enhance the site--keep up the good work!

BTW--what IS the process for nominating for Webbies? ;-)

I personally love the idea of providing only surly, cryptic emoticons. C'mon people--emoticons can be very cool.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Jeri
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 12:19 PM

Brían, you can log into Mudcat from any number of computers. Just go to "Membership" and click on "Reset Cookie." If it's a shared computer, you might want to log back out when your done.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Brían
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 09:43 AM

Sorry, Joe if this is a redundant request, but I would like to be able to log on to mudcat from another PC to be able to have my screen name come up and to check PM's when I am not at home. Also is it possible to have some type of spell check?

Brían.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Jeri
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 08:58 AM

I always assume if I'm going to type an e-mail address in, someone may check it. There is a fear of spam, but no one's ever been spammed by Mudcat. Folks have to type a valid e-mail into places like PalTalk to join (and I HAVE been spammed by them). I'd guess other message boards require it, but I have no firsthand knowledge.

One note - I was wrong that this is an alternative to Justa Picker's IP number idea. The IP numbers will show up regardless of whether someone is a member. The e-mail confirmation will only prevent some of the abuse of membership.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: pavane
Date: 07 Aug 01 - 08:40 AM

Wouldn't that deter people from joining? Is that a good idea?

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Aug 01 - 11:04 AM

I agree, Jeri, that would be a good solution, too. In the case of the bogus one that was started this week with my name, the email addy was also bogus. with what you are proposing they wouldn't have been able to activate it.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Jeri
Date: 06 Aug 01 - 07:31 AM

An alternative to the IP number thing: require e-mail confirmation when someone joins. They sign up, Mudcat sends them a code number to type in to activate the membership as a one-time deal.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: pavane
Date: 06 Aug 01 - 07:01 AM

Just woken up - SEARCH WITHIN RESULTS would be really useful for the forum searches

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: SeanM
Date: 04 Aug 01 - 11:33 PM

I'm with Hesperis on this. I'm on dialup, dynamic IP conny. Every time I log in, I've got a (although only slightly) different IP.

As to the 'lock' on overlong threads....

Is that something that might be doable for the Legion of JoeClones? While I wouldn't want even remotely for EVERY member to have the ability to lock threads, and while I can see the bickering starting from a mile away for threads being locked that AREN'T because of a 'part II', it might be valid to have a "This thread has been locked due to length, please refer to XXXX II for further discussion".

I don't think it's THAT critical, though. Most of us all are pretty good about switching, and the part IIs usually steamroller the part Is off the board pretty quickly.

I still want my slap button though.

:^)

SeanM, member, emoticon defense league for folks who dont like punctuation or capitalization

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: hesperis
Date: 04 Aug 01 - 11:20 PM

Um... dynamic IPs. Not static ones. I'd look like a different person every time I posted. I'm not the only one?

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Justa Picker
Date: 03 Aug 01 - 07:57 PM

I think I know the "method" you're referring to Bill, but even with that method, the IP or encoded IP will still be consistent.

Anyway, eventhough I don't think it stands a snowball's chance in hell of being implemented here on Mudcat, I wanted it to be included in this thread for posterity.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Aug 01 - 07:54 PM

IP scrambling would 'probably' not help much, as there are ways to easily subvert that....(no, I'm NOT gonna tell those who don't already know)....

my CONTINUED wish is for a requirement that something be typed in the From: box...that would not solve it all, but would help...Yeah, it is also easy to set 3-4 cookies and have multiple 'memberships', so we'll never be able to control those with a penchant for mischief....vigilance is the only way

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Justa Picker
Date: 03 Aug 01 - 07:49 PM

You can't prevent it entirely Mousethief, if someone is hellbent on stirring up trouble BUT you can drastically reduce it.

Most people will either log on from the same computer at home, and the same one from work, if they're checking the forum at work. So for the most part you have 1 - 2 consistent IP originations per user here.

Of course if one has say cable internet on 1 home computer and a dial-up ISP connected to a 2nd home computer, (not very likely or common) or they want to invest the time to go to a friend or relatives to logon from their computer not much can be done.

No one's privacy is being violated with this encoded IP method. Your actual IP is never visable to anyone on the Forum, but your scrambled/encoded IP address is. Big deal. No one but Max and other designated administrators would have the ability to descramble and reveal it, and besides your actual IP is automatically logged whenever you visit here I would imagine. It simply applies a consistent set of numbers and symbols after the poster's name which correspond only to that IP address, so you can (with a little detective work) determine if a "guest-troll-flamer's" encoded IP matches that of say an existing member's encoded IP. Bingo, game over, and relative anonymity out the window for that member choosing to post as a guest. And also, being able to distinguish between numerous "Guests" in a thread.

Yes, there are a few flaws with this method, but having it, I think is far better and offers a little more security to the community as a whole than not having it, and witnessing the things we've been seeing around here lately what with Kat and Mousethief's member names getting hijacked, and other flaming bullshit stuff done anonymously.

I guess though that if you wanted to post something highly personal and use a "Name Withheld By Request" beside guest, you'll have to drive over to your Aunt Judy's or something.
I think the minor inconvenience is worth it.

I'm still thinking about this one. Noted. - Max

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Grab
Date: 03 Aug 01 - 01:42 PM

Probably missed the boat now, but...

If you're in a discussion with ppl and you want to take it to PM, you have to use copy-and-paste to get their name into a PM. Clicking on a person's name above their post gives a list of all recent posts by that person; could that page have a little addition at the top to do a PM and fill in the person's details automatically?

The process for PMing would then be: click on name, click on 'PM this person', enter message. As opposed to: select name with mouse, copy name, click Personal pages, select 'send message', paste name in box, click 'go', select the single name that comes up, enter message. It'd just be that bit slicker...

This is Done. - Max

Great job anyway, and many thanks for doing all this!

Graham.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 03 Aug 01 - 11:48 AM

The "Age" filter on the Threads page currently only goes up to 3 years, but the threads database is apparently nearly 5 years old. I suggest you add options for 4 years, 5 years, and "no limit."

This is Done. - Max

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Aug 01 - 02:59 AM

Sorry to return to the subject of overlong threads but, is there any way new posts to original threads can be prevented, once Part Two has been started?

For this can get a little confusing at times.....

I don't think this is technically possible, that is, I don't think it can be programmed. We have to count on users actually reading the thread. - Max

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 01 Aug 01 - 10:19 PM

I think letting people send PMs to every member at once could be asking for truoble, I am not too botherd, but I think some people would not like to get PMs from people they dont know.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Aug 01 - 09:23 PM

I'm with Bill D on that One of the joys of PMs is that they are all individual messages, not even friendly spam. (And anyone whose been reading some of the threads recently will be aware of problems that can arise with multiple mailings, however well intentioned.)

If anyone wants to send the same message to a bunch if people, it's easy enough to do it, one by one - just takes a little longer.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Aug 01 - 09:02 PM

"multiple copies of the same PM to different members? Like in e mail cc?"....ummmm...that's a dangerous one. I already struggle gently with mass emails...cutting & pasting would only take a little longer.

Subject: RE: From Max: Last Chance for Mudcat Changes
From: Mr Red
Date: 01 Aug 01 - 07:14 PM

cookie driven personalities
have responses that slag-off the members that like to slag-off others and give gentle sycophantic ones for the sensitive shy modest souls like me.
Yes I know Douglas Adams got here first in the HHGTTG but he wasn't far wrong on such things, and he wasn't completely flippant neither.
Don't go away - it can help beginners with more verbiage, maybe a halfway house for the halfwits and cut right down on it for the Spaw class Catscratchers.
User selectable. (eg as profiles)