Reading threads & not posting?

Subject: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Blowzabella
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 01:41 PM

I'm just curious here - wonder how many people open and read threads but don't actually add anything to them? Is it a lot? Is there any way of telling how many times a thread has been visited or is it just the number of posts that are recorded?

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 01:51 PM

I open a lot of threads, but post only when help is asked for finding a song, a tune, or information themes I am sure I have reliable information. eg. Germany, history, Orient, Islam and son on. Sometimes I am appalled when opening sich treads and read a lot of hate and demeanor. I won't post to such threads (e.g. about Arafat's death) because I know that it is useless to join a discussion with such bloody hateful blokes with boards before their heads (a common proverb in Germany).

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 02:01 PM

and, (he said guiltily), it might be better if more people followed your example, Wilfried. I get 'involved' more than I should.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From:
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 02:02 PM

Blow, I think a lot of people open threads but don't type anything unless they have something concrete to add. There are a few exceptions that we know who just post to add something funny (in their eyes) to the comments.

As far as we can publicly access, only the number of posts is recorded. I'm sure that if necessary, the database information could keep track of how many times a thread is accessed, but WHY?

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Zany Mouse
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 02:04 PM

WELL SAID, WILFRIED.

Rhiannon

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: treewind
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 02:05 PM

I'm sure I read (or at leat skim through) more than I post to.
Mudcat would have no reliable way of knowing how many times a thread was visited, though web server logs give some information about this. (available to Max, not to us)

Anahata

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 02:05 PM

Open many to which I don't contribute. Unless I can add something, I do not post. That doesn't mean that they are ignored- if interesting information or lyrics are posted, I may copy them or make a note of the thread. Sometimes I find, much later, that I can add to the thread and reopen it.
No counter on thread visitors here.

I no longer look at the posts below the line.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 02:21 PM

I open far more threads than I post to. Another reason for posting to a thread is to refresh it, and quite a lot of one liners people put in are probably because a thread looks like it's falling off the page, or has fallen off, and the person posting the one liner wants to keep it in play.

I know you can do that by just clicking the submit button without adding anything, but that seems a bit inelegant.
...............................

"I no longer look at the posts below the line." In which case you miss quite a lot of interesting stuff. It's by no means all arguments about things about which you don't want to read arguments. You even get songs turning up there quite frequently.

And of course this thread is the kind of thread that would normally be below the line, since it's not really about music or technical problems. I would think it is quite likely it will get moved there, if it keeps going on a bit.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Bernard
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 02:22 PM

These days I often don't bother contributing to threads because of the rapidly increasing number of people who react 'aggressively', which spoils my enjoyment. It's one thing to have an opinion, but another thing entirely to force that opinion upon others...

I have to agree that I can't see what good would come of knowing how many 'hits' a thread has had - the thread will remain active whilst people have something to contribute, and the number of postings is an indication of the level of interest.

Members can add a thread to their 'tracer', which means that a thread of interest is still relatively easy to access even when it's dropped of the bottom of the main listing.

After nearly six years as a member, I've never felt the need (or interest) to know how many 'hits' a thread has had... so my question would be 'Why?'

I suppose we could also ask how many members visit regularly (these days I don't) - that may be more meaningful...

Sorry if this sound inflammatory in any way... it's not intended to be... but people round here often seem to take things I say the wrong way... :o(

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Janie
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 02:35 PM

I don't post to most of threads I open. I open and read many, many more music threads than BS threads, but am more likely to post to a BS thread, cuz when it comes to BS, everybody's an expert;^)

Janie

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: *Laura*
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 02:35 PM

I only add if I have something to say. Or ask. I don't much like getting involved in arguments, so I try not to. But it can be hard when people take things you say the wrong way - I agree Bernard.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Sooz
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 02:36 PM

I must read 20 for every one I post to. If I have no valid contribution to make I save my breath. I avoid political threads, but share many a good laugh "below the line"! (Long may it continue to be so)

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 02:40 PM

I do not agree with Bill D. His postings are always considerate, so I think he's being much too hard on himself.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Genie
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 02:42 PM

Gotta respectfully disagree with you on this, Bernard: "I have to agree that I can't see what good would come of knowing how many 'hits' a thread has had - the thread will remain active whilst people have something to contribute, and the number of postings is an indication of the level of interest."

As several people said above, one often finds the contents of a thread interesting and informative without feeling the need to add a post. A thread is not necessarily "inactive" just because no one has recently added another post.

Sometimes when people "refresh" an "old" thread, they get chastised for doing so. The chastisers seem to equate the # of posts with the level of interest or the # of people checking out that thread.

Some websites do track the # of visits -- and, ironically, at those websites there are still folks calling a thread "outdated" even when the # of hits to the thread increases by dozens every day! -- but mudcat.org doesn't. I think it's good to keep that in mind when judging how current a topic is.

I think it's fine to use your own judgment about "refreshing" a topic. If it's something easily accessible by a search forum -- e.g., an obvious key word would turn up the thread -- refreshing may not be needed.   But if it's a topic that's still relevant and interesting, but the thread title might make it hard to search for, why not refresh it occasionally? (It might even help prevent duplicate threads from popping up.)

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 02:51 PM

When people take what we say the wrong way, it's often an indication that we didn't quite say it the best way, and that's quite a useful thing to learn for the next time.

Arguments? I think people miss the point when they get into trying to win arguments. A discussion in which we try to explain our point of view, and get to understand the other person's differing point of view, I think that is far more interesting, and there is no reason in the world why it should ever get ill-tempered. It's a shame it so often does do that, but there's never any need to get dragged into losing our rag ourselves, even in that situation.

But if everyone posted every time they opened a thread, I'm sure this place would very rapidly become completely uninhabitable. The only reason for having some kind of a hit-count on threads would be to reassure people that it was normal practice to read without posting - and I don't think that really needs to be done. And a hit-count would introduce a potentially harmful competitive element.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 03:07 PM

I read more threads than I post to.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 03:09 PM

I think MOST people READ more than they post , and unfortunately a lot DONT read properly before they post !! I know I only post when I feel I have something costructive or (in MY opinion) witty to add .

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 03:24 PM

I open lots of threads but only post to a few. My reasons for not posting include:

1)   I have nothing to add;
2)   I have something to add but someone else has beaten me to it;
3)   I don't want to get involved in acrimonious discussions/arguments;
4)   When I do post, most of my contributions get ignored anyway.


Doug C

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Deckman
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 03:31 PM

My MC habits have changed quite a bit over the last few months. Because of the amount of anger, baiting and general rabble rousing that is now such a large part of the threads "below the line," I rarely even skim them. And when I do glance at them, there are certain mudcatters I look for. Some names I recognise as frequant posters that usually have something of value to say, and then I read them. Other names I also recognize as people who have NOTHING of value for me, and then I quit the thread. It's rare that I will engage in a thread that has been posted to by a "guest."

On the music threads, I read these frequantly and often post when I feel I have something of value to contribute. Bob(deckman)Neson

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Sorcha
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 03:43 PM

I don't post much any more and I don't read any of the political stuff. I do try to answer requests.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: C-flat
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 04:11 PM

I seen other sites that display the number of times a thread has been opened, a feature I find quite interesting and, depending on the thread content, often doesn't relate to the number of replies.
I usually only reply to something to which I can add to, which hasn't been much of late, but I read the majority.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 04:14 PM

There are many threads I open for my sake because I think I can learn something. I do not post to them because others with more knowledge have already posted. I post to perhaps one in ten threads I do open.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: GUEST,celtaddict at work
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 04:25 PM

I think the ability to read a thread, new or old, whether one has anything to contribute or not, is not only highly educational but also one of the most entertaining features of this site. It is really not all that difficult to bow out, without comments that may inflame and surely perpetuate, from a thread that has degenerated to namecalling and such. I probably open ten for each one I read thoroughly, and read ten for each one I post to. The search feature makes old threads so accessible; without it, there would be far more redundancy of threads. It is especially useful for finding lyrics or song information of those that have not been included in the DT. I like to see an old thread reactivated, though, when the topic reappears; it is then like a new conversation on a familiar topic.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 04:27 PM

There are many threads I open for my sake because I think I can learn something. I do not post to them because others with more knowledge have already posted. I post to perhaps one in ten threads I do open.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: SeanM
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 04:50 PM

Active-to-lurker transitionee here.

Used to post a lot more, and more socially.

Lately, too busy with the band and with our own message boards. Plus, the 'cat has drifted from the kinds of folk I'm interested in. No interest + no expertise + limited time = occasional lurking.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 05:07 PM

So many people who only to post when they have something to say or who are no longer posting as much as they used to.

A quick count of posting records since the beginning of the month, for those claiming the above, gives an average of around 56 posts. That's 4 posts a day each.

Clearly, our ideas of how we act don't match the facts.


Doug C

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: GUEST,Pat Cooksey.
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 05:31 PM

I read evevery few days what is going on here, i find some times a gem, which I respond to, the rest I Ignore. I feel Mudcat is not as international as it used to be, but still the odd time interresting.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: GUEST,celtaddict at work, using the term loosely
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 05:46 PM

I expect many do as I do, and will have stretches of not signing on (or posting), stretches of reading particularly when looking for something in particular, then stretches of increased activity.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 06:05 PM

I'll post when I think there's some point to a debate, or if I think I can be amusing. Too often in the last 18 months or so there seems little point. Not least because the rate at which posters seem to hide behind the Guest label seems to have risen, & I can no longer be bothered to debate with users who are cowards, trolls, or both.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 07:15 PM

Perhaps 1 in 10 or 15.

The rancor of the past few months will tone down, I think. The past election was, this time especially, more of a religious war and a clash of cultures. It's not over but the urgency is gone.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 07:22 PM

Silver threads and sometimes needles . . .

Some folks post polemics, others one-liners. Some post love, others hate. Some are understood for what they meant to say and others aren't. So it goes.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 07:32 PM

However, there is a thread I posted to wherein I said nothing. I thought it was clever (not great wit, but clever for all that, because it really is what I expect to be doing at Christmas. Here's the post:

Subject: RE: BS: What are you doing at Christmas
From: brucie - PM
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 03:00 PM





Post - Top - Forum Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

I had considered writing that I wasn't going to be doing anything, but that didn't feel right. Then I considered not posting. Then, I pushed the button and that's that.

Some people will consider it to be a waste of bandwidth, some will figure it's a waste of space, and yet other's will tell me I'm an ass for doing that. One or two might 'get it'. If it offends anyone because of anything at all, ask for it to be removed. I won't object.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 07:39 PM

Brucie I 'got it' and just hoped you weren't sad. x

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 07:49 PM

Thank you, GUEST.

Truth is that if this Christmas is like the past four, I will either be at a motor vehicle collision or a fire. I hope it is different.

Sad? No. But thank you very sincerely.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 08:06 PM

One particular class of threads that I usually read but seldom post to is obit threads. I really suck at coming up with something meaningful to say unless the person who died was very special to me. I would rather pay my respects in silence.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: freightdawg
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 08:25 PM

I read a lot more posts than I post to. Reason is I love the educayshun you can get here on the 'cat.

I've learned a lot about the folk music scene. I've had several questions answered (some I've posted, some due to the good posting of others).

I've read a lot that I wish I hadn't.

And I've run into some really cool folks who I never would have met without the Mudcat.

And one other thing I have'nt seen mentioned in this thread...the Mudchat. I don't go there often, but when I do it is always an enjoyable visit. Several folks who do not post very much go there to do their visitin'. It is usually one huge multi-colored thread that takes place in (sort of) real time. Except, of course, when everyone gets booted out because of a techno-glitch.

(just wondering how many people are reading this post without posting...)

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 08:45 PM

Just out of MudChat two hours after coming home from a session !! I log in Every Day and glance through , and actually look at the threads I have posted to , and any new ones . Like a lot of people I tend to ignore the Flamers and Trolls, but try to answer any proper questions , if I can .

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: GUEST,reggie miles
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 09:14 PM

Freightdawg, I was going to do just that, (read and not post). I echo what many here have said regarding posting habits. There are many threads that I have bookmarked and have not yet had the chance to revisit. Where does the time go?

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: JennyO
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 09:38 PM

Hey Freightdawg, I read your thread without posting - oops, I posted :-)

Now that I'm here - I do a lot more lurking than posting it seems. Almost every day, I skim through all the titles and open (and trace) all the ones that interest me, which is about 1 in 5 of the music threads and a larger proportion of the BS threads - I generally avoid the political ones though.

I usually only post to a music thread if I have some information to add, but I like to play around with the BS ones and add something if I have time. How much I post usually depends on how much time I have. Lately I don't seem to have had much time to add long posts, so there have been a fair few one-liners. There have been some which I would have liked to reply to at length, but never got around to because of lack of time.

I like to drop into the chat sometimes too, but not so much lately - I only do that if there is time - there was one memorable one where a bunch of us were "singing" doo wop songs - I wouldn't mind doing that again!

In the two years I have been here I have posted on average 2-3 times a day, and that includes periods when I have been away too. Some days it might be not at all, and others it might be 7 or 8.

It's easy to forget that if you don't post at all, nobody knows you have been here. I may have been laughing my head off at all sorts of funny things, or enjoying threads like "Divided we fall", but nobody knows.

In fact, I think this has been my longest post for some time, I suspect. Gotta go, my garden is calling.........

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 02:52 AM

Like most have said above, I read way more threads than I post to – and for many of the same reasons.

Reasons I don't post:

I'm not knowledgable enough to add anything useful, or somebody else has already "said" what I would say.

Lack of time: For me at least, trying to compose a coherent, thoughtful post takes a significant amount of time & effort, and I don't always have the time and/or the energy for it.

Not "knowing" the person involved: This is in the case of threads where someone is in the hospital/ill/condolences, etc. I sometimes think maybe I should post, whether I "know" them/they "know" me or not, because even good wishes from someone you've never heard of can be encouraging, I suppose – but to me it feels inappropriate to post unless the person in question doesn't feel like a "stranger" to me.

And lastly (and most disturbingly) – fear (every now and then...): I am sometimes tempted to criticise a thoughtless, nasty post (especially when it's by someone who seems to delight in such things on a regular basis), but refrain... partly because I suspect that it won't help & will even make things worse/help derail the thread (I tend to figure the best way to deal with such posts is to ignore them); but partly – I'm ashamed to admit – because it seems quite possible to me that if I criticise these people, they may well decide to make me a preferred target. I suppose that makes me a coward. I like to think that I'd be willing to stand up to them if it would actually help someone else, but that may just be a sop to my conscience – I suppose I won't really know until/unless it happens...

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 03:07 AM

I prefer things my way round. I post but don't read. oh.... I'll get my coat!

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: A Wandering Minstrel
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:21 AM

read many, post to few
always try to respond to lyric requests if I know the words(depends on the state of my ailing memory)

I post a lot less than I used to as I try and avoid the politics

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Mrs_Annie
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:54 AM

I feel compelled to post on this one! I come in and browse most days, but only post when I think I have something relevant to say. (or want to ask a q myself) It's always nice when that gets acknowledged.

Anne

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Nick
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 09:06 AM

ALL forums are the same.

I used to have a yahoo club with 1000 members of which perhaps 30 or 40 would post at all and of those perhaps 4 or 5 would post regularly.

A friend posts to a songwriting site where a handful of the visitors post.

Another friend has a forum with 350 registered users (only registered users can contribute) where he does record the views - some typical threads will have 70 replies on almost 3900 views. In another thread there are 762 replies with 42262 views. Amongst his 350 registered users 3 post very regularly (!!), with perhaps another 10 posting now and again.

Is a lot of it to do with ego? I know a lot of people who read in various places but would not dream of posting.

About the only positive I could see for having a note of the number of viewers of a thread would be if noone replies - if 00's or 000's of people have looked and not given an answer it might be pointless to keep trying, if noone has it might be worth re-phrasing the question and trying again to get the answer.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Pete Jennings
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 09:19 AM

I'm always wary about posting to threads cos they tend to sink without trace shortly thereafter...

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Maryrrf
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 10:58 AM

I rarely post even when I think I might be able to contribute something because I never know how things will be taken and I don't want to start arguments, receive chiding, acrimonious or patronizing replies, etc. I know this is only virtual reality but to to tell the truth although I like some Mudcatters and I really value the information that can be found here, I don't find Mudcat a very friendly place much of the time. There are nice folks, yes, but there are some very impatient, sarcastic and not very nice people too and I often will type out a post, consider it from all angles to try to MAKE SURE that it couldn't possible generate any animosity, only to then think "Screw it, why bother" and delete it without sending. If we could somehow get people to be more courteous I think we'd get more posters and possibly even more interesting information.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 12:47 PM

Counting the number of times a thread is opened isn't necessarily a good measure. I open multiple threads to save having to wait for a new one to load up. Sometimes I manage to read them all, other times I have to break off for other jobs before I get to the ones at the bottom of the pile.
If a thread is a new one, I don't know if I am interested in it until AFTER I have opened it. Some I close as soon as I have scanned the first posting (or the name of the first poster). Others I read in full.
Long threads sometimes need several visits to actually wade through before I reach the point where I can decide if I wish to post.
In general I open threads which have intriguing titles. Some are worth reading - otheres deserve to be ignored.
I post when I think I can be of help, or if I can make an entertaining comment. Otherwise I mainly just read.
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: SINSULL
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 12:58 PM

Interesting thread, Blowz. I have two thoughts. One of the people who admit they haven't read through previous posts and then proceed to agree or disagree what they think probably has been posted. ??????

Then of my absolute favorite thread - Walt Robertson. I read it every day first and last and didn't post until it looked as if it might drop off the bottom. My post was to beg for more. I had nothing to offer. Don Firth PM'd me that day with some words of wisdom I have treasured ever since. I watch for our own Walts at every gathering now and keep close tabs on the memories. The latest - Elizabeth LaPrelle and Jeri as songwriter.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 01:07 PM

Like everyone, I read more than I post (believe it or not).

Confession: I spend more time on Mudcat at work than I do at home. The number -- and even moreso, the length -- of my posts is somewhat determined by how busy I am, whether the boss is over my shoulder, etc.

There are some threads that I read but to which I never post -- those on topics about which I know *nothing,* but which intrigue me by their very infamiliarity-- for example, Morris dancing.

Sometimes I'll be reading with no intention of making a contribution until I find myself reacting to some detail or "subtopic" introduced by another member. That's when thread creep sometimes sets in.

There's no way I could have let *this* thread, on *this* topic, go by without adding something. That probably tells you all you need to know.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 01:37 PM

Some threads rapidly devolve into personal exchanges. I tend to avoid them.

Some threads become too bitter. Unless it's a subject I have strong feelings about, I avoid them, too.

Some threads are too silly. Unless it's just the right level of silliness. I eschew them utterly.

Most of the music threads are beyond my reach because of my ignorance.

I suspect I'm quite average.

Then there are the "who are you and what do you do" threads. I fail to see the interest but often post anyway. I have too much free time.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Dead Horse
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 06:45 AM

I am not posting to this thread because I've got nothing interesting to add, can't think of anything witty, and because it has a boring title.
All the above are by my own standards of course, as I don't have to submit this via an editor.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: freda underhill
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 06:53 AM

I'd also be interested to be able to see how many people went to a thread. Why? dont know, but i would. i read a lot more than i post, but i know i post too much. mudcat is like reading the news, sometimes the news is boring, sometimes its fascinating.

there are some people i'm continually impressed by - i'm glad i have the opportunity to read their jokes, learn from them, etc.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 07:10 AM

Max posted a while ago that about 98% of the people that use Mudcat never post anything.
There are a few other folk music websites that I regulary read, but never post to, [www.thesession.org etc].

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Dipsodeb
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:09 AM

I log on every day to get my mudcat fix, it's an essential part of the morning, like reading the paper. I rarely post unless it's to ask or answer a question that I feel very confident about. I suppose for very similar reasons to those exspressed above. I find it a great source of knowledge and have learnt bundles from going through all the posts BS as well as knowledge. I have alot of respect for some the catters and their views and will always pick out their posts and read them.
I often feel quite intimidated by the sheer amount of knowledge and don't feel that my pennyworths gong to make any great difference.
~Debs~

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: The Beast of Farlington
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:18 AM

Mudcat uses a very simple (and early?) form of bulletin board technology. It suits the virtually-unmoderated style of the forum.

There are more recent bulletin board packages such as YABB and PHB which can show which threads have been viewed and how many times, how many times each poster has posted etc etc which I am sure many have seen elsewhere. Sites such as musesmuse.com and songstuff.com use this type of technology.

But you would have to canvas the management to get them to change the look of mudcat and I sense that a lot of people here like it just as it is.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 12:56 PM

I definitely vote for keeping the format as-is: KISS ("Keep It Simple, Stupid!").

It is definitely easier to scan through Mudcat, quickly read a lot of stuff, decide what deserves a closer look, etc., than it is to deal with most other (newer format) online forums I see.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Blowzabella
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 02:25 PM

Thanks to everybody who has taken the time to post to this thread - especially those who don't post to many, as a rule!

I was never seeking to change anything, by the way, it was just a question out of curiosity. I seem to be much like everyone else - I read a lot more than I post to, and my reasons for not posting, when I don't are the same as many of those here - sometimes I'm not witty, or knowledgeable enough, sometimes I don't want to enter into something which looks heated, sometimes I haven't got time.

At least now I know...it's not just me! I am normal (well, sort of... *G*)
      
Blowz

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: GUEST,David Ingerson from a different computer
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 08:28 PM

I read through the thread titles two to four times a week, read almost all the threads about traditional Irish songs plus another one or two that attract my attention--in all maybe four to eight threads at a session. I mostly lurk, posting maybe once a month or less.

The press of time is the biggest reason for not posting more often. I have a list of threads that I think I can make a significant contribution to just waiting for when I have enough time. I'll get to them at one point or another.

Of course, that's bullshit. The time is always there. When god made time, she made plenty of it. It's just my priorities on how I want to use it. Being a writer as well as a serious folk musician (and a bit of a perfectionist) has me taking a long time to create a post to send out to the whole world with my name on it that I'm satisfied with. Normally, I would spend the time to recast that last, horribly constructed sentence. But this time I'm just lettin' 'er rip.

My thanks to all the many contributors I've learned so much from. This is an amazingly potent site for folk music information. The humor and friendly cyber-connections between posters are added value.

Thanks, everyone, for making this a good place to come.

David Ingerson

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Deckman
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 10:01 PM

To Guest David ... You just hit the magic phrase for me ... FRIENDLY!!! When the postings get ascorbic, I'm outta there. Thanks for the perfect word. CHEERS, Bob

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Hollowfox
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 06:44 PM

Yep, I'm another one who reads more than she posts. Everybody who's written before me has pretty much said my reasons, too.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Cluin
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 06:48 PM

I only post to threads where I can use the word fuck in my post.

Couldn't figure a way to do that in this thread though...

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: semi-submersible
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 10:22 PM

Grandma told Mom, "Don't speak unless you can improve the silence." I tell my son, "You can learn more with your eyes and ears than your mouth." (But none of us stopped talking long enough to listen.)

Lurking is golden? Posting takes me lots of time and brain-sweat.

A hit counter would only measure the appeal of the thread title, not the quality of the thread.

Now that I have gotten around to posting, I expect this thread to disappear soon.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: GUEST,Sargent Schultz (off Hogans Heroes)
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 11:01 PM

Mmmmm very interesting.

I notice that u know who hasnt posted.
I hope nothin has happenned to him. :<)

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 11:03 PM

If - Max/Joe/Pene elect to make them available to the general populus

The daily/hourly records of the Mudcat are a statistician's dream.
* Browsers
\ Systems
^ URLS
# referals
& threads read
@ threads posted
! peak hours and lows (hits)
+ time within thread

Most net-icians would be bored to tears - but to any sysop - they are the applause of an appreciative audience.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Records even include which clone eliminates another drunkern sod's postings - (thank you joe - they needed it - as usual)

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Blackcatter
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 11:25 PM

Just prior to the hurricanes I stopped posting below the bar. Pretty much, I've stuck to that - only contributing to the hurricane threads (I live in Orlando, FL) and the Secret Santa threads, since I'm involved there.

It's a shame that so many new people post questions that wind up getting flippant or downright insulting responses. At this point, I've almost stopped checking out threads I think might be by newbies simply because the stupid attitudes of certain people around here.

I hope things get better around here, but Mudcat has turned into somewhat of an embarrassment in my mind. And I used to be one of the people who defended the Mudcat to members who said that.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 08:23 AM

I agree with blackcatter, especially the last two sentences. (Almost)all the people I respect have left, quietly.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 11:39 AM

"Now that I have gotten around to posting, I expect this thread to disappear soon."

I know what you mean -- I don't know how many times I've posted a comment only to see the thread descend to the bottomof the page, never to return. My wife likes to scold me for always wanting to have the "last word," but making the last post to thread leaves me feeling a bit uneasy.

I sure hope *this* does not mark the end of this thread!

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 11:45 AM

There you go Pop, I've saved you.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: GUEST,Blackcatter
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 04:12 PM

We've all had that experience Poppa. It is a weird feeling, certainly.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Justa Picker
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 04:22 PM

I open threads that interest me (not many these days.)

There are a number of posters here that I consider nothing more than "resident windbags" and I ignore and skip over their posts.

Most of the time there isn't anything that compels me to write a post.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 06:11 PM

JP -- didja mean to say "windbags," or would "blowhards" be a better word?

I like to think that, by allowing myself to be completely full of shit here at Mudcat, I'm able to be just a little bit more modest and self-effacing in real life. Well, I hope so anyway.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 14 May 07 - 01:12 AM

As to whether anyone knows the statistics of how many reader hits there are vs how many posts:

1. At the bottom of the page there are Google ads.
2. Google does not bother with places that do not have measurable traffic.
3. You may safely conclude that:

          GOOGLE KNOWS.

And it's safe to assume that Max knows.

My usual intention is to read much more than I post. I do however make a quick scan for threads where I might contribute something, and often the first thread I click on may require several hours, or in some cases days, of pondering, searching, and considering.

(I will NOT admit that at times I do excessive research in hopes that someone else will come up with an answer before I get back, and your suspicions should be kept to yourselves.)

I would much prefer to read more often than I post, and when there isn't an irresistible problem to be confangled, I sometimes manage to make it work that way.

I will say that I always attempt to read the entire thread before posting, unless it's a very active one in which I've been involved and I've been following the stream on at least a daily basis. This is sometimes, perhaps, not the best idea; because often by the time I get to the end of reading the subject has changed and I end up not really inclined to participate in the direction it's going.

But above all, when I do post, I TRY TO BE BRIEF.

[Send your bets on who laughs first, and I promise I'll return at least 10% of the pot to the winner.]

John

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 14 May 07 - 12:12 PM

And then there are those who post to threads without reading them.

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Rog Peek
Date: 14 May 07 - 12:28 PM

Yes Dick, you're probably talking about me on occasions, although if it's a very long thread and I haven't had time to read, I do tend to offer apologies if.............

If it's a useful or interesting piece of information,(and before anyone comments,I'm not necessarily talking about my own posts), surely it's better to have it repeated trhan not posted atall.

Time to read threads thoroughly, may very well be linked to cronological age. I, being semi-retired, may have more time than someone who works full time, whereas someone completely retired may have more time than me. Mmmmmmmm, I bet someone out there will find that a trifle contraversial!

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 14 May 07 - 07:21 PM

I thought the guys (and gals) who work full time mostly have an office coffee pot always on so they never have to get up and make a pot, someone to clean up the office so they don't have to take out the trash, and probably someone to keep the files of their posting records neat so they can always sound intelligent, plus mostly high speed connections so they don't waste time waiting for downloads.

While those of us who have to do it all for ourselves are at such an extreme disadvantage that it doesn't matter much how many hours we put into being clever here.

Or maybe I've just forgotten what being a real person was like...

John

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: JohnB
Date: 15 May 07 - 09:38 AM

Then there are the threads which go on a several year hiatus and then suddenly re-appear and continue as if it was just yesterday.
JohnB, who reads a lot more than he posts to and seldom strays "below the line"
JohnB

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Scoville
Date: 15 May 07 - 09:44 AM

I read without posting. Sometimes somebody has already said what I was thinking. Sometimes I don't know enough about what's going on to add anything. Sometimes I miss the boat and the conversation has already drifted too far away from what I was going to add for my contribution to fit in (like right now).

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: RTim
Date: 15 May 07 - 01:07 PM

I ONLY read posts that I "think" I might be interested in - and then only write when I "think" I have something to say.
So I may be missing a lot that I don't even look at - But I bet I am not often wrong?

Tim Radford

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:00 PM

I don't post nearly as often as I did before. I do read as many. Mainly I won't post if I am reiterating something for the umpteenth time. "Best Guitar for Fingerpicking" stuff like that.

I will help out with Lyric and chords as soon as I can. And I am not critical when someone asks for such.

Don

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:46 PM

I'll write copiously if and when I'm in the mood ~ often when at work when I really shouldn't. Subject matter and/or my own expertise or lack thereof doesn't always matter as much as my whims.

There are many threads I never open, but the ones I do peruse are not necessarily limited to subjects about which I have expertise. Sometimes I get curious about areas that are completely foreign to me and start reading about them at every opportunity. Example: Morris dancing ~ never heard of it outside Mudcat, still have never witnessed it, but find great amusement in how it is regarded by various members and will occasionally interject a wisecrack as though I knew what I was talking about, which I don't

My last couple of posts on 18 Nov 04 (above) may be characteristic. In one, I fret about killing threads, being the final participant to mouth off before the discussion disappears; then, just a couple of messages later, I succeed in putting this one to death, or at least into a two-and-a-half-year coma.

That temporarily-final post, by the way ~ the last one before JohnInKansas resurrected this ~ was not half-bad if I say so myself..

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 16 May 07 - 01:42 AM

Curiously, when I posted after PoppaGator's "final post" (18 Nov 04 - 06:11 PM) I had watched, and read, this thread a couple of times before deciding to add to it. It seemed to have "moved up" at least once, but there now are no posts that would have brought it up or that would have moved it up (and turned it blue again) after it first appeared.

Maybe I need to check my meds, but I'm quite sure it was up in the current day's postings when I opened it for that post.

I will not contradict PoppaG's self-evaluation in his post at that point. ...

John

---

The thread has been targeted for Spam, John. It got hit by 6 Spam messages yesterday alone.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 16 May 07 - 03:34 AM

Joe - That's sort of what I figured when I started figurin'. I don't seem to lose my login cookie, but sometimes the cookie that keeps track of which threads I've seen seems to get dropped and the thread turns back to "unread" in the listings. That's probably what made it look like someone had posted when I noticed it again.

John

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: bet
Date: 16 May 07 - 03:23 PM

I open a lot of threads and read them. I do not add to them unless I know something that will add to knowledge of others about the subject. I learn a lot! bet

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 May 07 - 04:11 PM

Been here for hours, nuttin' to say. Last hour, Workin' on some Total Recorder ZZ Top stuff for aquajogging, counting out the beat, fingers too busy to post.

~S~

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: astro
Date: 16 May 07 - 05:21 PM

I''m new here at Mudcat and am still fishing about to see what bites
and what doesn't....so I read much and not posting yet...

Subject: RE: Reading threads & not posting?
From: Rowan
Date: 21 May 07 - 03:17 AM

Joe's message about the thread being targetted for spamming (at the bottom of JiK's post of 16 May) was spot on. About an hour or so before this message I counted 31 spam URLs in the one message. That post will soon be deleted by Mudelfs but it seems a lot of the older threads get resurrected this way. If you just happened on the thread and saw a long gap with no obvious reason for the resurrection, this would be why.

But mostly I just read.

Cheers, Rowan