BS: Who does it better than Mudcat?

Subject: Who does it better than Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 10:10 AM

The thread title is not a rhetorical question. I am not trying to start another "Mudcat is fine just the way it is" thread.

What I am asking is what internet "thingies" (forums, mailing lists, newsgroups, chatrooms, whatever) have you found that are closer to your ideal than Mudcat AS FAR AS FORMAT IS CONCERNED.

I'm not looking for things that duplicate Mudcat's content or focus. I'm looking for things that, in your opinion, are better than Mudcat in format or structure.

I would also be interested in knowing why you think it is better.

Subject: RE: BS: Who does it better than Mudcat?
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 10:20 AM

One thing I think Mudcat does extremely well is signal whether there is new mail since you read a thread, by including the number of posts in the URL (this is hidden; but if you've read the last post it shows up in your "been there" color (usually magenta) and if there are new posts since you've read the thread, it shows up in your "never been there" color (usually blue)).

I've never seen another conversation system on the 'web that does this; it works really nicely.

One feature that I wish Mudcat had, is making multiple pages of a thread that goes over a certain number of posts. (Example at blicky). This way when things get too long it doesn't take "too long" to load.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Who does it better than Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 10:29 AM

Alex, thanks for getting the thread off to a good start.

I'll give an example of my own.

Maestronet

Pros: It is prettier than Mudcat. The multiple forum idea seems to work. It is easy for me to avoid the forum called "The Soapbox" so I can focus on the mostly music threads in "The Fingerboard." The users seem to do a good job putting threads in the appropriate forum.

Cons: The prettier format makes browsing a little less convenient than Mudcat. I find it easier to scroll down a list that to click on a "next page" icon. I am not happy about having to register to contribute to the forum. The fact that it has a commercial affiliation makes me a little suspicious.

Subject: RE: BS: Who does it better than Mudcat?
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 10:34 AM

mercy sakes, Alex!...great place!...let's export some of the more contentious Mudcat discussions there!...Gives new meaning to the phrase "Go to Hell

Subject: RE: BS: Who does it better than Mudcat?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 12:34 PM

combine www.guitarnotes.com with www.acousticguitar.com go to discussion. They make you sign in and the categories are defined. ie the bs is kept away from the music also volentary profiles of the members can be useful. You can search guitarnotes which is better, Acousticguitar has more posts per page which is better.

Subject: RE: BS: Who does it better than Mudcat?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 01:04 PM

Russ, in terms of answering trying to solve the problem of sticking with this type of viewing list but allowing users to select what they wish to view or ingnore, I would have to say The Annexe caters for that particular element far better than anything I have seen (or it does for members).

I also prefer the more common designs (mine was merely an adaption of one) that at least allow the flexibility to split/lump on a stronger method than filtering. This does not really apply to the other music forums I frequent as they are purely musical and (perhaps conatary to the belief of some) I prefer a the mix that is possible here.

In terms of search capabilities, I can think of none better than Mudcat, the format is exceptionally clear and easy to use, the trace facility is superb, the personal message system works well, etc. Overall, I can't think of a system I prefer.

The one extremely limiting factor (which I believe is at database level) was one of the reasons I didn't try to use that format for the Annexe (it simply could not have been used to meet my aims of separate areas each with a person in charge) and I suspect is probably a big reason why I never see any copy cat designs - most people would look for the flexibility to create extra forums even if they didn't use them.

Shame really. If Max, Jeff and crew included that feature in the design, I rekon Mudcat would then be a world beater.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Who does it better than Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Ironmule
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 01:29 PM

I like the format and people at the Woodenboat Boat Forum, http://media5.hypernet.com/cgi-bin/UBB/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro I think the aspect of their style I like best, is that even a thoughtlessly rude reply to a question rarely results in flaming, but rather begins a thoughtful discourse on the subject, with strongly but well thought out positions, and occasionally a changed mind!

They post a lot of photo's of boats, and construction problems. JWSmith

Subject: RE: BS: Who does it better than Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Ironmule
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 01:46 PM

There, I reset my cookies, so I'm not a guest any more.

I didn't mention the editing of your own posts to fix errors like the above, and the URL's are automatically recognized and turned into links. Here I forgot to use the ubb or html on the link above. To see their system, if cut and paste of my link doesn't work, just go to woodenboat.com and click the on-line forum. It's as nice a place in it's way, as this is. JWSmith

Subject: RE: BS: Who does it better than Mudcat?
From: Ironmule
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 01:57 PM

There, if I could edit my mistakes, In wouldn't look so dumb. JWSmith

Subject: RE: BS: Who does it better than Mudcat?
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 02:21 PM

I went to all of the above websites to see for myself the differences. Each has their own pluses and minuses. I didn't care for acousticguitar's initial presentation. It was too comercial for me - but the forum splitting had its advantages and disadvantages. Yes I could pick my space, but man it takes a while to load the pages. I didn't like that part. And I also found myself in a place that wasn't what I thought. That is my problem as I believe frequenting the place would probably assist in eliminating that problem. And it was pretty business like. I didn't care for that. But it did have tablature, which for us non music readers could be good, although at this late stage of my fun picking I don't know that a midi isn't easier as I can align myself with the basic melody and play by ear (how I do it anyway:-)).

Guitarnotes was OK also. But it certainly didn't have a cozy feel to it. Neither did acoustic guitar.

In conclusion - for me? I like the Mudcat. I'm not a large crowd person and the intimacy of getting to know the people here has been great. I think I lurked for quite a while before I joined. I also like the pick and choose nature of it. If I'm hot about something I can bail in and get my piece of what is going on or I can stick to the music end of things. If I have a question on something there is a plethora of individuals here that are only too willing to assist. And it seems, assist me in the venue I am seeking.

Mudcat is like going to a friends house for a session - Let's play some music, solve the world's problems, and make sure that we are all OK. So for me this space is great! I've bookmarked the other two as I think I can find some things there to help me out - but Mudcat is my favorite space.

If I would have a change it would be to have the up front menu disclose all of the wonderful spaces in here. I think the problem for many is the forum comes open and there is nothing else highly visible. And there is a lot more - only I had to learn to search for it - as well as how to search for it.

Peace - Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Who does it better than Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 02:25 PM

I prefer the bulletin board approach to the chat room approach, you can think more and go away and come back to the answer, less heat-of-the-moment, I think - although maybe not enough, judging from lately. I also really like the way you can get to other stuff (than the Forum) easily. This is my only internet club, though, but it was its format that drew me in in the first place, even if I DID lose my cookie recently.

Subject: RE: BS: Who does it better than Mudcat?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 03:57 PM

I've looked at a couple of the forums mentioned here and taken a note of the text. The guitar one I looked at, Maestronet and Woodenboat are all UBBs forums. OK the colours etc may look different, they may have different features enabled/diabled but they are basically the same design.

Infopup, the makers of that forum also make another solution called Open Topic which can look similar but unlike UBBS which is based on a flat file and cgi is quite a powerhouse and uses Oracle (I think) as the database. If I remember correctly, Ebay uses an adaption of this system for their auction and certainly several large companies use it.

I think the forum (ASP-Dev.Com) I used for the Annexe was a UBBS clone written in ASP - even the Access database it uses is called UBB.mdb. It also used a very similar looking opening page and had the UBB codes. It still is pretty much as I got it except that rather than give the split to choose a forum, because of the comments of someone in the forum, I decided to give it a more "Mudcat" like page listing all the threads but at the same time opted to take advantage of the feautres that were already there.

Steve, I'm not sure which forum you went to and found forum splitting takes a long time to download. There are plenty of other factors far more likely to affect download times than forum splitting which at worst adds a little bit of processing overhead. Let's think of some: your connection to that site (could be very different to your connection speed you see on your computer), a lot of graphics or fancy stuff on the site to download, the acutal capacity of and load of that site, how well that site was performing at the time you visited it (as you are probably aware, sometimes sites need a kick up the ass)...

Another design I can think of is the ikonboard one which again follows similar lines to the UBB. Probably the clumsiest I have seen in recent times is the the BBC system.

Russ, the member only bit is an interesting one. Although I have opted to go member only for the Annexe, I very much like the open system in Mudcat and feel it was the best choice for its purpose. Some forums like the one I opted to use are member only by design. Other forum designs allow systems whereby the administrator can get priviliges for guests, members, even higher status members... It's rather like the choice of colors, etc in UBBS. I would not judge the forum itself on one admin's choice in selecting options provided by the package.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Who does it better than Mudcat?
From: SINSULL
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 04:15 PM

Jon - I tried your link to the Annexe and arrived at a plain page stating "Hello. This is the new site for Jonbanjo." Help.

Subject: RE: BS: Who does it better than Mudcat?
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 04:24 PM

Jon - My computer is state of the art and tends to load things rather quickly - so it could have been a stage-age issue with that site. And it isn't a large thing.

I'm just in need of patience - and I want it NOW!! :-) My guess, knowing me, is that the Mudcat is where I started, I'm real familiar with its quirkiness, and comfortable enough to have some patience with it. I also only got a "Hello" at your website -

I'm glad there are a lot of differrent sites out there. It's like eating a hamburger - I never eat at Wendys or other fast food places. I search out the Mom and Pop outfits even at risk of not getting that great a burger. I like the style and the company. Now Chinese food? They are all Mom and Pops.

Each in their own way - same as music to me *G*

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Who does it better than Mudcat?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 04:36 PM

Sinsull, at least I know no-one did go and follow my link as I gave the wrong URL! The correct URL is http://www.jonbanjo.com/forum.

A couple of coments.

Only registered members who are logged on can use the filter. It is a preference stored in the membership table.

A problem was reported yesterday about using the Create New Forum/List forums link which you need to access before you can set user preferences. The problem ("parameter is incorrect") is one that does not show up on my versions of IE6, Netscape 4.73 and Opera 4.02 but is an error on my part all the same. I think I have corrected the code but I can't be sure as I've had no further messages and I can't confirm it's gone as none of my browsers complained about it! So I'm just hoping it is OK for other users.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Who does it better than Mudcat?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 04:48 PM

Steve, I am another "I want it now" type person and I have a very slow (33K at best) internet connection. If I am viewing a site which has content that I know will interest me, I wait even if things are slow but there are an awful lot of sites I just leave, never to re-visit...

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Who does it better than Mudcat?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 07:10 PM

Just reading again and noted Alex's comment about the clikies. It is something I adopted in the Annexe by looking here, again by trying to act on comments.

The UBB type boards try to have some means of calculating what is new since you last visited it. In the case of the forum I opted to start with, it used what is called a "Session Cookie" in ASP speak to try and track last visited but it didn't work too well - at least for me - it's "new" marking is unreliable.

The Mudcat system (which I nicked - just by observation here - as I liked it and cures the problem). It is in someways a cheat. A parameter that is not used (well I don't use it anyway and it seems to make no difference ommiting that part when giving a link to a thread here) is something like &messages=xxxx which is easily obtained by looking up the number of posts from from the database. The way it works is that the URL with the parameter that reflects the post number changes as new posts are added so your browser views it as a different link. It falls down on the odd ocassion a post is deleted but overall I like it.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Who does it better than Mudcat?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 08:49 PM

Just remembered something else I wished to comment on earlier.

Russ, I quite like paging but I perhaps view it differently to you. I view it as a means of getting a page to download in a reasonable time rather than an alternative to scrolling down. It is in fact another feature I would like to see added at Mudcat as I would prefer to page rather than wait to see a thread reach 100 posts, slow down (particularly for those of us with slow connections) and then see part II and more created which to me is disjointed and relies on the co-operation (and observation) of others.

My own feeling is that the setting of an appropriate page size would be the real key. A page size of say 75 would probably work fine here and most threads would be unaffected by it.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Who does it better than Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 02:30 PM

Jon,
The Annexe looks good.

Paging versus scrolling isn't a showstopper for me and my preference is a mild one. Without getting too "touchy feely" a thread that one pages through "feels" different from one that one scrolls through. The posts in the former "feel" a little less connected than those in the latter.

"members only" posting is also not a showstopper but my preference for the open system of Mudcat is much stronger. However, I participate in both types.

The BBC site is a good example of the downside of forum splitting. Where there are too many categories and they have not been created in any systematic or consistent way it can be very difficult to find what you are interested in. I think I prefer a few "big" categories rather than a bunch of small ones, e.g., "Music" and "Not Music" for Mudcat.

Ironmule,
I too like the idea of being able to edit posted posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Who does it better than Mudcat?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 08:15 PM

I'm a bit torn here Russ... probably is you were a member here I would PM you but I can't do that and don't want to be rude.

Thanks, but there is a lot wrong with the Annexe...

I know that you are a regular here who uses the guest handle and genuine but I get the feeling is that everyone else wants this thread to drop off the list, or alternatively we would end up just talking to one another...

I may even start a thread in the Annexe on the subject of forum design; Not to do a "this place is better than that" but because the subject does interest me and I feel I could learn a lot by listening to views of others;

There must be lots of factors like what makes a forum easy to use, what are the relative merits of design decsions such as paging, guest policies, allowing splits, linear vs threaded formats, pros and cons of having moderators, of allowing users to create their own threads, the pros/cons of allowing users to edit their own threads, whether these descisions can contribute to the atmosphere in a forum, etc.

I think the subject is potentially fascinating but I feel that this environment is the wrong one... Jon