IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future

Subject: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: Dani
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 01:02 PM

I won't editorialize now, but want you all to look at this website:

Davesgarden.com

Different subject, similar community, similar forum and database issues. Please check out how Dave has handled the transition issues. Read especially the thread where members have reacted.

I'm not advocating, just want to share this with you all, and to hear your comments.... expecially Max's (in his spare time ; )

Dani

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: John Hardly
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 01:09 PM

Man is that site a MESS to navigate.

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 01:21 PM

What's so hard about nvigating that site, JH?? Easy peasy... a damn good model Dani... nice find...

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: Dani
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 01:24 PM

To make myself clear: the aspect of the site I want you all to consider is the subscription idea, and the WAY they are handling the conversation.

I didn't mean to propose any changes to the website itself. That's a whole other subject. I actually prefer the format of THIS forum more than ANY I've ever used.

Dani

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: Allan C.
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 01:37 PM

Please check out how Dave has handled the transition issues. Read especially the thread where members have reacted.

Dani, the more I looked the less I was able to find either of these things. I have to agree with John.

I like the layout of Nature.net a whole lot better than Dave's. But I have always thought that Nature.net could have been better if it had adopted some of the Mudcat's formats.

I guess we have been spoiled by the simplicity and the freedom of the Mudcat.

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 01:43 PM

You can't read any replies unless you're a "paid subscriber." It hasn't served to tempt me to subscribe - only leave. It probably would have worked the same at Mudcat. I joined because of what I read here. If I'd had to pay first, I wouldn't be here now.

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: IvanB
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 02:10 PM

So far, I haven't joined any web site where I have to pay to get the best use of the site. And I've joined very few which demand personal information from me in order to use the site. I'm with Jeri, the fact that I can read none of the responses on Dave's site is an immediate turnoff. Also, like John and Allan, I was unable to find any discussion of transition on the site.

If a site wants to work on a paid subscription basis, I suspect offering new members a limited 'trial' subscription might be a better way of handling it. Although Dave's covers another subject dear to my heart, I certainly won't be joining soon.

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: marty D
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 02:15 PM

It certainly doesn't look (at first glance) as 'personal' as Mudcat, but I wonder if I'd feel differently if it were a 'guitar oriented' site, or a gathering of therapists discussing things among themselves. The 'membership' aspect doesn't turn me off.

marty

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: Dani
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 03:17 PM

Clinton, what did you find when you got there? I had already been subscribed (not paid, just from before) and I was able to view all the postings to the thread concerning the transition, with everyone's feelings pro and con. It was this discussion that interested me, and I apologize if I sent you there and you can't see it. They mention that in two weeks free access will expire; I assumed that meant for members and nonmembers alike.

I do think that it would be best if you could VIEW the posts, and have posting priviledges as part of your subscriptions. I agree that that's how most of us ended up sticking around here.

Quite aside from all this, the site is worth it's weight in magazines. It's worth more that all the magazines I've ever paid for, and most of the books. And then, there's always that community of like-minded people, tolerant of those who know less, or more, or different things. Gardeners and music lovers have lots in common, the most important being their desire to share their love and propagate. Well, maybe propagate is not the word I'm looking for, but you know what I mean...

Dani

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 03:20 PM

I like the infopop.com type fora since you can edit your posts.

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: John Hardly
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 03:30 PM

I guess I shouldn't have been so abrupt (it's getting to be a habit here). Thankfully you fellas put a finer point to mine.

There is only one forum whose format I like better than this--the Acoustic Guitar's Guitar Talk forum. though there are definite trade-offs.

Here, for better or worse, we can scope ahead who has been participating in a thread before we scroll all the way down. It lends itself to a sort of natural "clichishness" but is very usuful in determining what thread you might find useful.

At Guitar Talk the discussion is already pre-divided into Gear, Players, Playing, and BS. There are posters there who have never "set foot" in the BS forum, and the social-club-only types have their chance to shoot the breeze without being tempted to bespoil the gear talk.

There is no means for PMing there but they do make email an optional link away (in a new window so your navigation progress is uninterrupted).

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: John Hardly
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 03:32 PM

...and since Donuel brings it up...

I'd PAY to be able to edit my posts here!!!!!!

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 04:38 PM

I guess I'm still against people having to pay to either read or post. I think if someone wants to just drop in to ask a question and then drop out again, they should be able to do so. If folks access Mudcat at a library or somewhere else where they shouldn't or can't use a cookie, they should still be able to post.

I wouldn't mind voluntary subscription, and I'd probably go for it. I can afford $10 or so a month, but I'm too forgetful or downright lazy to click on the "Support Mudcat" thingie and go to the secure server to do so every month.

Dani, what we can view is the first post in each thread.

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 05:24 PM

As I recall hearing from Max or Jeff or possibly Joe, the editing feature and the autolink stuff will be available on the update that's coming soon. I'm not sure mind you, but I recall a discussion. Personally, typos and all, I could care less on either count. The html for links is easy and we tend to kid about the typos and dumb stuff so those features aren't high on my priority list.

Spaw

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 05:39 PM

Dani: I looked at the site, and I couldn't even get far enough to figure out what you mean by "transition issues." It looks like you have to be a paid subscriber to view more than the first message in every thread.

I put "transition" into the "Search DG" box, and several threads came up, but none of them mentioned "transition" in their thread title. I looked at a few threads that didn't seem to be about gardening, but none of the ones I looked at had the word "transition" in the first message.

Since I'm not THAT interested in gardening, I won't subscribe to Dave's Garden. But I would gladly pay $15 a year to subscribe to Mudcat. If a subscription system were started here, I think it should still be possible to VIEW anything free. But I would accept the restriction that non-members couldn't post.

So what was the transition all about?

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: Dani
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 06:29 PM

OK, you can sign in on my temporary ID (temporary because I haven't decided what to do yet when the 2 week trial is up)

username: danni password: bgikou

Dani

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: AliUK
Date: 13 Oct 01 - 06:46 PM

PAY for a forum. Goes against every principle of the internet. I hate pay forums as they tend to get extremely elitist, thankfully something the 'cat has managed to avoid. The thought of Max, Joe et al doing all that work for us to spout of either inanely or profoundly and all stations in between, is what makes the 'cat so precious. People who have a principle and stick to it. Another forum that I'm a member of "hatrackriver.com" is run along similar lines, though you have to be a member to get ibnto the forums, it's not paid, and there are a lot of people that use it.

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: Dani
Date: 15 Oct 01 - 08:16 PM

10/17 is the end of my free subscription if anyone wants to check this out. Search the forums for 'subscription' if you want to follow where this discussion goes. I imagine it would be similar to what might happen on the Mudcat. I think I'll subscribe if only to study what happens when you have to pay to belong to a community.

I guess one way of looking at this is the example of paying dues for a group. If a group charges dues, you could come once, twice, more as a guest, but eventually people would give you the hairy eyeball and hope you got the hint to do SOMETHING to help support the effort.

I don't know.

Dani

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: Dani
Date: 29 Oct 01 - 01:33 PM

Knowing of my interest in the subject, Dave at Dave's Garden was kind enough to archive the two biggest threads about this transition in a place you can access as a guest (you don't need to be logged in to view these two threads). The URLs are:

Part I: http://davesgarden.com/st.php?pid=109812

Part II: http://davesgarden.com/st.php?pid=114643

Please read these, folks.

Dani

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Oct 01 - 02:29 PM

"PAY for a forum. Goes against every principle of the internet."

I donno what internet yer surfing, but the one I'm on was buily by $$ for the exchange of $$... like it or not!

It's also been my experience that paying to access a MB keeps most of the wankers out!

THAT alone is worth it's weight in gold if ya ask me...

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: GUEST,Rumor Monger
Date: 29 Oct 01 - 02:30 PM

A lot of people would like to be able to edit Donuel's posts. Could we edit the links to that phony art of his, too?

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: Bert
Date: 29 Oct 01 - 03:34 PM

The engine that runs Mudcat is available at a very reasonable price. If you see a site that needs a forum such as this, please email them with a link to this site and the Onstage phone number.

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 29 Oct 01 - 05:19 PM

Clinton Hammond - I agree - Steve

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 29 Oct 01 - 07:09 PM

Clinton, that is not the way I understand it. The internet while obviously needing money was built through academic research and development and a desire to share information. The commercialism came in at a later date when companies saw a means of making money out of it.

I believe that with the commercialism came the flood of the masses (which includes me) to using the services and although things won't change and I believe that in some ways, it is for the better this change has in itself brought a need for sites to find bigger finance.

Consider this one: I can run a small site with a forum for £50 per year which could be used for a small number of people seriouly dedicated to an area of interest - I could even fund that myself. I believe Mudcat costs something in the region of $400 US per month to finance - why? The biggest reason in IMO is one of popularity and hits and bandwidth and capacity become major issues, in that sense, one could argue that BS here (although I believe it has great advantages) carries a huge price tag as does making that information open to just anyone to read.

I support the ideas of information for the masses and I support the open policy Mudcat has and I don't know what the answers are. The financial problem I would have is I don't just read Mudcat - within music I read umf, umc, rmc, alt.banjo and the bbc's new site as well as Mudcat and at the suggested $15 a site the cost on music alone would go well beyond anything I could consider.

There is an overlap of people in all these places but charges could mean that people are likely to have to make choices and in the world of folk music, I suspect that move would involve more people who have serious interests making better uses of other free resources (MC is the best I know of but it isn't God, even in terms of "experts" and this place would suffer as a result - even with the dt.

My feeling is that while it is still possible and Max is willing (and believe me I appreciate him on this even though I am critical about some things) is that the volountary donation system remains the best.

Jon

Subject: RE: IMPRTNT! model for mudcat future
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 29 Oct 01 - 09:50 PM

Oh and.. the ultimate IMO for MC would be some sort of recognition as a valuable resource and some form of external funding. Maybe one day...

Jon