 sj |
||
|
||
BS: I like the BS/non-music division!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: CarolC Date: 06 Mar 03 - 08:58 PM Well how about that! Talk about service. Both times I've posted to a BS thread this evening, I've found myself back at the top of the BS part and not at the top of the forum home page after posting. Great job! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: Ed. Date: 06 Mar 03 - 01:57 PM My apologies. I misread and misunderstood the suggestion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: CarolC Date: 06 Mar 03 - 01:49 PM Not for me, Ed. After I post to a BS thread, I'm automatically sent to the top of the music threads. I don't have a problem clicking on the thingie that gets me to the bottom though. A small thing considering the benefits of having the BS at the bottom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: Ed. Date: 06 Mar 03 - 01:32 PM When a post is put on a BS thread, the return should go to the BS top rather than the top of the top of the thread site. ??? It does... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: EBarnacle1 Date: 06 Mar 03 - 01:28 PM Two further refinements might be in order. 1) When a post is put on a BS thread, the return should go to the BS top rather than the top of the top of the thread site. 2) Unfortunately, obits are relatively frequent. It might be worthwhile to have a a subhead just for these. Otherwise, looks pretty good so far. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: RWilhelm Date: 05 Mar 03 - 06:23 PM This is Great! And long overdue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: GUEST Date: 05 Mar 03 - 06:06 PM Excellent! Katlaughing and McGrath may be secretly moaning, but a music site has become a music site again! Superb! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: Bill D Date: 05 Mar 03 - 05:21 PM interesting---I find myself reading MORE music threads now that my attention is not grabbed by the provocative BS threads as I scroll....I 'can' go directly to the non-music, but I usually wait. If there are others with the same experience, then this is a rousing success. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: Ed. Date: 05 Mar 03 - 03:25 PM Nearly two days in, I have to say that this is GREAT! Thank you Joe |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: GUEST,Jon Date: 05 Mar 03 - 12:41 PM I'd meant to reply yesterday but McGrath, I do take your point and suspect you are right with your feelings. I'm not sure I'd agree with your analogy though. I could argue the way you see the books in the bookshop is a view. You don't know for example in a shelf of fictional books whether the organiser knows the difference between romance and crime novels or not if they are all mixed together. It could be that they do know and have decided to mix them up or that they have no idea. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: Mr Happy Date: 05 Mar 03 - 12:33 PM for sure, the split's a better way to view the threads, but i still don't like the designation 'BS'. after all, a lot of the threads labelled 'BS' aren't Bullshit at all, but quite serious discussion topics. 'Non- Music' is a better way to label these. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: GUEST,Martin Ryan Date: 05 Mar 03 - 10:18 AM Good move - its doing wonders for my eyesight... Regards |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: UB Ed Date: 04 Mar 03 - 10:00 PM PERFECT! Ed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: Genie Date: 04 Mar 03 - 06:16 PM Great idea, Joe and Jeff! Very helpful in wading through the morass of thread titles. (I'm with Kat, though, in not wanting things furthrer separated.) Question: Is a thread on the subject of "Cat Farts" kept with the music* threads, as long as the prefix "BS" isn't used? (Inquiring minds want to know.) Genie *Yeah, yeah, I realize that it's theoretical to produce a melody with farts of different pictches, but it's hard to coordinate cats' behavior in any fashion, much less produce a 'choir.' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: open mike Date: 04 Mar 03 - 04:26 PM good job-now someone has to decide if free beer is really music related--and if music festival announcements are belonign up in the top portion.. this will save so much time of scrolling thru BS and hopefully encourage those who were tiring of this to stay in the forum. i still think the free beer thread needs a new title Well, it's certainly a music thread - but we don't allow misleading thread titles. In cases like that, I usually add something to the thread title for clarification. Our libertarians may call it "censorship." I call it "necessary." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: GUEST Date: 04 Mar 03 - 01:12 PM I agree Dani. eFolkMusic.com has discussion forums. They have the opposite (organizationally speaking) of what Mudcat has. They have a main forum page, then it splits to separate pages for general/misc, a page for song questions, pages by music genre, ie a page for bluegrass, a page for Celtic, etc. I think that this forum isn't big enough for that level of organization at this time. But I wouldn't have a problem with the BS being put on a separate page, and a breakdown into sections by type of thread, according to the prefix system we currently have now. I don't believe there is ever "one right way" of doing a forum layout myself. Every discussion forum is unique in it's own way, and I think the tech fixes and solutions should follow the way the forum grows organically. Clearly, the time had come for some sort of split between music and BS. I had thought the BS filter worked fine. But apparently it wasn't enough for some. I think this current change would have been a better solution from the gitgo to the music folk wanting to be separated from the BS folk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: CarolC Date: 04 Mar 03 - 01:07 PM Hey Dan! Great idea! And, again, thanks Jeff, for doing the hard work to make it happen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: Dani Date: 04 Mar 03 - 12:41 PM I think the change was necessary under the circumstances, and I WELCOME it. It means I can come more often without getting frustrated. I hear what Frank is saying, but the place is just getting too big and busy for me to sort it out myself. To take the bookshop analogy one up, I'd say that at a certain point I'd stop going to a bookstore that kept growing without organizing SOMETHING. Thanks for all you do, guys. Dani |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: GUEST, herc Date: 04 Mar 03 - 12:40 PM It's perfect. I'm glad someone finally implemented exactly what I suggested in approx. November, 2001. Dan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: DougR Date: 04 Mar 03 - 12:38 PM It was a great idea, Joe, and I'm glad you kept bugging Jeff to "get her done." There certainly should be less griping now about BS threads from the music purists. DougR Hi, Doug - most of the ideas for technical advancements come from Jeff. I think I might have come up with this one, but I don't recall for sure. We talk about them, and then he puts them into effect. I tried to talk him into putting this one into effect right away, but he waited a few days and tested it. He wants to be sure people will like the innovations, and that they will work well and cause no unexpected problems. This guy always does quality work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: CarolC Date: 04 Mar 03 - 11:51 AM GUEST, 04 Mar 03 - 02:42 AM: Don't put your political threads in the music section. People who want to read them will be looking for them in the BS section. (Unless you were just joking, in which case, never mind ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: GUEST Date: 04 Mar 03 - 11:10 AM The Shambles, I don't think the issue of thread consolidation is completely solved at this point, because there seems to be no real definition of what the problem is. In the "Tech: As Above So Below" thread, in the music section, I did ask some specific questions about whether changes being made were to resolve technical issues. The answer is no, the current changes aren't being made for technical reasons. The current changes, as I understand it, are being made to cut down on the BS in the forum by certain posters that Joe considers to be "too verbose" and to cut down on the number of threads started, which seems to be another pet peeve of Joe's. Here are the questions I asked, and Joe's responses: About the long list of related threads, I asked: "...rather than having a long list of related threads to scroll through before one gets to the actual thread, couldn't a clickable link be put at the top of a thread to click on, to get to the index of related threads at the bottom instead?" Joe's response: "We're toying with ideas for making the crosslinks more concise. Trouble is, we find that unless people have things right in front of their nose, they're likely to start a new thread on an existing topic, rather than looking around for it. So, if a topic has lots of threads, maybe the long list will help Keep the list from getting even longer. Maybe not." I asked: "Is the problem with thread proliferation a memory problem?" Joe replied: "No, actually, the main problem with thread proliferation is that it makes it hard to find information, and it makes it so the same information is repeated over and over again." I followed up with: "A search engine issue, then?" Joe answered: "Logical and literary concerns more than search engines, I think. If we have an ongoing discussion on the effects of peace marches, it's easier to have a discussion that people will follow if it's all in one thread." Now for me, I don't understand the logic of this. I can't see how there can be "difficulty" having a discussion that people follow, when tons of people are responding to every single thread started on a subject. So it seems to me that Joe is trying to herd the cats come hell or high water. Knowing that many forum admins have attempted this sort of effort before him, I think it may well result in the sort of bitterness and rancor we have seen here in the past two weeks. Which is wholly unnecessary. The BS is now at the bottom of the page, and won't be a nuisance to anyone except perpetual whiners, and Joe and the clones if they choose to make it an issue. My position is, leave the BS threads alone--seriously alone--for 3 months and see how things go. If there are still problems that both forum users and forum maintainers AGREE IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM, then begin to work on solutions. But right now, I say, let this tech fix run for a few months, and see what happens. It is clear that members weren't universally thrilled by the heavy handed tactics of the past couple weeks, so that should definitely be given a rest, a hopefully an early grave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: katlaughing Date: 04 Mar 03 - 10:25 AM I agree, McGrath. This seems a good change, but I wouldn't like to see it go any further. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 04 Mar 03 - 10:19 AM I really like the split. I know we always had the capability to filter out BS, but somehow I just never bothered to make a few extra clicks. I see an analogy to the radio in my car. It takes effort to change the station, and often what I first hear when I get in the car is something I would not choose to hear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Mar 03 - 10:15 AM What I mean is, Jon, I don't like having threads too preselected. The same way in libraries I don't like the fashion for having separate shelves for different genres of fiction, even if it is conveniant. I like the kind of secondhand booksshops where you get surprises, and end up buying something you'd never have looked for. Having the music and non-music threads arranged the new way makes sense, in the circumstances, as a response to problems that have arisen, and I hope it works out all right - but if it moved on to having the two knds of threads on different pages, or if we started having sorting out of technical or instrumental stuff from songs and so forth I think it would risk upsetting the delicate balance that makes the Mudcat special. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: Sam L Date: 04 Mar 03 - 10:05 AM I think it's the perfect division. I've seen forums with many categories of music discussion, and it results in an ongoing b.s. discussion on nearly all the threads of whether this is here or there, and people multi-posting across all the boards, for more responses, and after awhile the whole discussion of the rules of discussion is too boring for words. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: The Shambles Date: 04 Mar 03 - 09:59 AM I trust we are we now safe from any more 'consolidation'? Jeff, perhaps you could now turn your talents to sorting out the long list of related threads that appear above every PEL thread? Perhaps just one link to a thread where all of the related links can be found, or something like that? Or is this a difficult practical problem? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: Alice Date: 04 Mar 03 - 09:46 AM Awhile back I had asked Jeff if he could make a link to the forum in Quick Links or somewhere that filtered the BS. This is a good solution. Alice |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: Roger the Skiffler Date: 04 Mar 03 - 09:27 AM Yeah, well done Joe 'n' Jeff. RtS (still full of BS) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: GUEST,Jon Date: 04 Mar 03 - 09:20 AM McGrath, depends on what you mean by forums. Just trying to explain some things to you here and not argue. In these type of systems, you have 2 separate things: The underlying database and the view(s) the user sees. The structure Mudcat has historically used is a single forum design that has adapted to separating data based on filtering text in the title box. It is unusual in that way. You need to know at least this little bit about relational databases before I continue... They are designed to organise data in way so that logical units can be defined. Imagine a sales order with 3 items as an example. The only one table solution go along the lines of: Order#1, Item#1, Jon Freeman, Address, SparkPlug Order#1, Item#2, Jon Freeman, Address, Plug Spanner Order#1, Item#3, Jon Freeman, Address, Feeler gauges... A lot of repetition there!!!! A 2 table approach could go ORDER TABLE Order#1, Jon Freeman, Address. ITEM TABLE Order#1, Item#1, SparkPlug Order#1, Item#2, Plug Spanner... A relational database can combine the 2 tables together easily. Also, if my name was mistyped in this solution, only one correction would be needed rather than 3 in the first example. That is the very reason they exist! Mudcat makes a lot of use of this type of thing and will have thread table, post table, member table etc. OK, so why do most favour a design that includes a forum rather than filtering? Imagine needs grow. Lets say we decided we wanted to control Guest threads and have a moderator for each type of thread. It could be done on the single forum approach: BS:I love dogs, Mod#1, NoGuest, etc. Tech:I hate macs, Mod#2, YesGuest, etc. There are of course other options avoiding my single table approach above storing moderator and Guest. You could for example code logic like if thread="BS:" mod=Mod#1 and Guest=NoGuest at run time but as time goes on and needs grow, it becomes more and more difficult to do. So there hopefully you have some understanding of that side... Now, imagine views. In this sense, these are what you present to the user. As long as the data is there, you can display it how you like. To attempt to illustrate my point, I have just created this. Compare it to this. You will find what shows as "BS: " on the 1st shows as "forum: community discussion" on the second and "MS: " goes to "forum: misc topics"... It is the same data, there are no cheats increas the #days for a better view. I'm only showing you this in the hope of aiding your understanding. And is no way an a go at Mudcat. I'm quite impressed with this split format so far and in all honesty had never considerd such a simple approach. Congratulations! Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: catspaw49 Date: 04 Mar 03 - 08:49 AM You can T-Bone......Simply use the link below as your bookmarked page. http://www.mudcat.org/threads.cfm?mixbs=yes Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: GUEST,T-boy Date: 04 Mar 03 - 08:21 AM It would be even better if we could choose to either display them separately or all together. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: Nigel Parsons Date: 04 Mar 03 - 06:33 AM Excellant move men! Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Mar 03 - 06:24 AM When a new music thread turns musical, or the other way round, will they get reclassified? Probably, or maybe possibly, or maybe yes. Probably not no. OK, Kevin? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Mar 03 - 05:47 AM At any rate it brings out the truth that there are pretty well always a lot more music threads than non-music threads. It just happens that threads where there is a discussion going on or an argument naturally tend to get refreshed more often, so they crowded up to the top. When a new music thread turns musical, or the other way round, will they get reclassified? It'll be interesting to see how it affects the way the Mudcat develops. I wouldn't like to see this progress further towards having separate forums for different types of thread, but I think that idea has been rejected. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: Hrothgar Date: 04 Mar 03 - 04:49 AM I like it. Now, if we could just separate the BS from music in real life ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: Mudlark Date: 04 Mar 03 - 03:16 AM Great idea....I was just beginning to think the whole politicalspeak was quieting down...no BS threads...when I finally came to the BS section. Thanks for the work of creating this simple, effective and much appreciated change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: GUEST Date: 04 Mar 03 - 02:42 AM So...I can put something like 'GWBush: Murderer of 9-11' on a music thread if I tell people to read it to the tune of 'Old MacDonald'? Terrorist Captured Terrorist Sought |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: Gareth Date: 04 Mar 03 - 02:03 AM Suits me !!! Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: Rustic Rebel Date: 04 Mar 03 - 02:00 AM I like it too, but...I notice the threads disappear a lot faster. Imagine that, more music threads then BS! Peace. Rustic |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: katlaughing Date: 04 Mar 03 - 01:02 AM I said in one of the other threads, a most elegant solution! Wonderful. Thanks! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: EBarnacle1 Date: 04 Mar 03 - 12:45 AM Not bad. Now if we could only get the people who create BS threads but don't bother to classify them to join the grouping. Hmmm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: Deckman Date: 04 Mar 03 - 12:41 AM I like this VERY much. Thank you for your careful thoughts. I can't imagine how anyone could get their nose bent out of joint! PERFECT. CHEERS, Bob(deckman)Nelson |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: hesperis Date: 04 Mar 03 - 12:36 AM It took me a bit to get used to, but I'm beginning to like it. And I do like that when new people come here, they see music discussions first. Cool. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: catspaw49 Date: 04 Mar 03 - 12:31 AM In other words Bruce, you have no opinion........ Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: michaelr Date: 03 Mar 03 - 10:44 PM It seems so obvious now... why didn't anyone think of it before? Good job, Joe. Cheers, Michael I think it was my idea, but maybe it was Jeff's. Jeff (Pene Azul) did the programming. I just bugged him until he did it. He wanted to make sure it was the right thing to do, and that it wouldn't cause any unexpected problems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: Night Owl Date: 03 Mar 03 - 10:27 PM ditto here...and the "programming" makes it VERY easy to click back and forth if we want. Awesome job!!!!! THANK YOU |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 03 Mar 03 - 10:24 PM Me too. That is, "I like it". Not I'm "jus' funnin'". O forget it. I just confused myself. Bruce |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: Bobert Date: 03 Mar 03 - 09:53 PM The only thing I'd like better was to have the BS threads come up first and have to click to the music threads... Jus' funnin' Bobert |
|
Subject: BS: I like the BS/non-music division! From: bbc Date: 03 Mar 03 - 09:26 PM Thank you to whoever came up w/ the new format! I really like knowing whether I'm going to be seeing BS or music threads! As it happens, I will probably look at both--at least sometimes--but I think it is great! bbc |
