 sj |
||
|
||
Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel
|
|
|
Subject: Reinventing the Wheel From: GUEST,Russ Date: 02 Jun 06 - 02:20 PM What is wrong with reinventing the wheel? Please note that this is not intended to be rhetorical question. It is pretty common to see posters respond to questions from (presumably) newbies by telling them to consult old threads. Some of the responses read like they are intended to be warm and friendly suggestions and sometimes they read like they are intended to be sharp reprimands. My guess is that no matter what the intention, such responses tend to be off-putting to the original poster. Note that this is pure speculation on my part. One unnamed old timer responded to a question in an unnamed thread by referencing the "links above". Aside from the fact there are no links in a newly created thread, that response finally caused a nickel to drop. I personally don't care how many times a topic has been covered on Mudcat. Thus, my question. What is wrong with starting a new thread to deal with a topic that has already been dealt with? What is wrong with giving contributors to old threads a chance to rethink and restate their responses? What is wrong with giving people who did not or could not contribute to the old threads a chance to input their $0.02? Just curious. Russ (Unrepentant GUEST) PS. Its been a dog's age since I started a thread. This will probably remind me why. |
|
Subject: RE: Reinventing the Wheel From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Jun 06 - 02:43 PM Good point, Russ - although I disagree to some extent. Too often, responses at Mudcat can tend to squelch a discussion, to "nip it in the bud" so people can go back to their idle chit-chat. That's counter to the very purpose for which the Mudcat Forum was founded - we're supposed to discuss songs here, and sometimes people seem to forget that. On the other hand, it seems that most of the time, it's better to build upon existing discussions rather than starting new ones. If it can be done gracefully, I will sometimes move the messages from a new thread over to an existing thread on the same subject. Sometimes, I'll do this as a thread is beginning - and sometimes I'll wait until the basic question has been answered. If it's a chords or tune request, it can be worthwhile to have that a separate discussion until the request is answered, and then to move the whole shebang over to an existing thread, so that thread can serve as a resource for all information on a song or other subject. So, I don't think there's any one solution to the issue, but I do agree that it's important that we don't to things that tend to kill discussion. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Reinventing the Wheel From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Jun 06 - 02:45 PM "I do agree that it's important that we don't to things that tend to kill discussion." Hear, hear! |
|
Subject: RE: Reinventing the Wheel From: catspaw49 Date: 02 Jun 06 - 02:47 PM There isn't Russ.....and as the guy you are referring to, I agree with you. But the other side is never really addressed. Let me explain........I try to make messages like you describe not to be too "offputting." I doubt that's a word but.......In any case, while I see that almost always new threads are started, what is there to suggesting in some manner or another that we have got TONS of info already here......and they are free to continue on, add more, whatever. I just want them to be aware of the grouping when they are added and that there may be some additional info on those threads. IF it puts people off, I'm sorry........But also, I read a thread the other day which had completely BS info on it and if anyone had looked they'd have found that out. But it gets worse....A nice 'Catter posted the real stuff in several long posts. Sadly, ALL he posted was already here........... It really doesn't matter. But remember there are two sides to this coin. I'll refrain again for awhile Russ. Hopefully I can figure out a nicer way to say things. Got any ideas? You're an old-timer too and always have some good ideas......So????? And I will also refrain from posting with a link to an old thread on a thread that was just started today on a question we have answered probably half a dozen times...(:<)) Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Reinventing the Wheel From: wysiwyg Date: 02 Jun 06 - 02:49 PM Russ, A couple of thoughts in response.... 1. I wrote a long and, I think, really understanding response to a similar question about a week ago. I COULD go dig it up-- but I am crazy-busy today and will be for the next week, or more. Plus I am not sure now just where I posted it. You could find it in one of the threads Max ran in the last few weeks; there aren't many of those. Or use the Filter box to find his threads-- his name is in them. Further thoughts-- 2. You might WANT for folks to behave in the way you'd like them to behave, but you know, people are gonna be people and decide for themselves how to respond to a "new" thread. 3. A lot of folks around here seem to see the repository of old threads as a rich storehouse, full of one-of-a-kind treasures. What one person may take as dismissive [or rude, or whatever word you choose] may actually be meant as friendly, good-humored welcoming-- as an invitation to jump into the prior discussion as many of us have done, ourselves, many times, after long research through past threads. 4. A lot of those who respond with "merely" a link to old info may be people with no expertise in the topic of the request, but may ALSO be people who just want to give someone a hand finding what they are seeking... people who would not presume to offer the information from their own experience or from an old thread-- and really, it should not be up to folks to know what a seeker will find the most helpful. 5. Another good reason to check old threads is to gain a sense of which zoo members are solid, knowledgable, and ready to help. Sometimes going back to those old threads yields the seeker a new friend they can PM with detailed questions, or even someone in their own area to get to know and share music with in person. 6. One could summarize all of the above (and probably all the rest of the repsonses you'll get here) as, "it's the dynamic of Mudcat." It doesn't have perpetrators and victims-- it's just human bean soup. Whether someone thinks a thing is right or wrong doesn't really change what YOU ought to do-- you should (IMVHO) do what works for YOU, with emphasis on "WORKS" given the dynamic and realities you encounter here. We all have to work within how it actually is. It changes, of course-- but slowly, and by participation MUCH more than by "stated agreement." 7. There is no static membership as an entity here. The soup is whoever is present online in a given period of time, posting or reading-not-posting (AKA lurking). What occurs as you describe can occur in a thousand different ways on a thousand different occasions. That doesn't mean that you can't phrase an opening post to let people know what kinds of responses you will find most useful. (That's a cool feature of the "you-control-you" thing.) 8. ??? I dunno! I'm BUSY! :~) Hope you stick around, though-- ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Reinventing the Wheel From: GUEST,Jon Date: 02 Jun 06 - 02:53 PM The fewer threads to search through to find information on a topic, the easier to read everything said. I think older threads often have more good informed contributions than newer ones. At worst, I've, on more than one occasion seen opening replies in new threads start off with myths that have been debunked in the past and someone ends up having to come in to sst the record straight for the nth time. Reopening an old thread does not prevent any past contributer (if still around) from revising thier thoughts. In fact to see thread with the text there should make it easier. One thread should also make any changes of idea clearer than having different ideas posted in several. |
|
Subject: RE: Reinventing the Wheel From: catspaw49 Date: 02 Jun 06 - 02:57 PM Thanks Jon.......Well said. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: Morticia Date: 02 Jun 06 - 03:27 PM If I refer someone to an old thread it's because I assume they want ALL the information that can be dug up, not because I am being snotty or oldbie about it. |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: Bernard Date: 02 Jun 06 - 03:29 PM Perhaps we should... then again... erm... maybe not!! ;0) |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: GUEST,mg Date: 02 Jun 06 - 04:44 PM I am for new threads with links to old threads by whoever cares enough to go to the trouble to make the links. I hate reading huge long things from 2001 with only 5 new items on it. I don't mind discussing American Pie again and again and if I tire I can not open the thread. Stuff that is rehashed is stale in my opinion. I don't want a transcript of a conversation I had with you five years ago and I don't want a cassette you made...I want the totally new conversation and I am getting old enough to forget we ever had it in the first place. mg |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: M.Ted Date: 02 Jun 06 - 05:03 PM People who are new to the forum aren't going to have any idea that there is a mammoth archive of discussions on their question, and, even if they knew it, they aren't going to figure out how to access it right away, anyway. On top of that, truth be told, often, the old threads aren't as coherent a discussion as people remember--so a new thread sometimes becomes a tighter, clearer, compendium than what was said before. It would be nice if there was a mudcat folkwiki where entries could be created that were distilled from the threads that are not BS, but what a lot of work it would be-- |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Jun 06 - 05:34 PM Might be an interesting idea, though, Ted.... |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: Azizi Date: 02 Jun 06 - 08:23 PM "It would be nice if there was a mudcat folkwiki where entries could be created that were distilled from the threads that are not BS, but what a lot of work it would be--" -M Ted I also think a mudcat folkwiki is an interesting idea. Having thread categories for folks to seach through would facilite reseach and be helpful for those persons [now and in the future] who want to accesss a thread or threads on a specific subject. And once an archived or current thread is accessed, if readers want to also add to it, as far as I'm concerned that would be fine. And if a person perfers to start a new thread on a subject rather than posting to an already existing thread, as far as I'm concerned, that would be fine. You say "toe-may-toe" and I say "toe-mah-to". Both are fine with me. [Well, it sings better than it looks] :0) **** M Ted, why not start a new thread about the desirability and the feisibility of a Mudcat folkwiki? I wonder what other folks think of this possibility, and which categories they would suggest. |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: catspaw49 Date: 02 Jun 06 - 11:29 PM Just to defend myself a bit here.............. "People who are new to the forum aren't going to have any idea that there is a mammoth archive of discussions on their question, and, even if they knew it, they aren't going to figure out how to access it right away, anyway." Quite true but I also sent a PM with the thread linked asking that they return and give us some additional info which we needed as well as telling them about the Group Links posted on the thread. "On top of that, truth be told, often, the old threads aren't as coherent a discussion as people remember" Actually they are but the crash jumbled the order of posts so I agree it IS confusing sometimes to me let alone a newbie. In most cases when I link back to a specific thread as opposed to a Grouping, I link directly to the post with the info. "--so a new thread sometimes becomes a tighter, clearer, compendium than what was said before. Perhaps or perhaps not......and when the next crash hits??????? I NEVER expect a Guest or a Newbie to go back and find an old thread on their own....I'm all for starting new ones! What bothers me are the 'Catters who should know where and how to locate the info requested and not bothering to do so along with posting their own NEW ideas. It seems for me to be a similar thing to not bothering to read a thread before posting as if their idea is exceedingly original and most important whereas the same things had already been posted on the thread 32 times previously. My apologies if I have offended someone and if I truly have, well, here's some Vaseline.....Now go screw yourself!!! (;<)) Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: Amos Date: 02 Jun 06 - 11:38 PM One of the things that has always helped define the ineffable Spirit of the Mudcat for me has been the remarkable degree to which people are willing to do a little leg work for each other (Oh, Spaw, just drop it!! ;>)). Seriously, it is often the case that a complete stranger who happens to know where to find something will spend half an hour assembling some links, just to be helpful. This is genuine, unselfish help, done out of voluntary good will. There ain't no way to mandate and even it there were, it wouldn't be the same. As a newcomer to the Cat this kindness took me by surprise, and gradually I learned how to do my own legwork. I think helping people and trying to answer their questions is a good motto, up to a point; and makes the forum a better place. And helping them by showing them how to use the DT/Forum search is extra good. I just realized I am saying things that are obvious, and speaking in platitudes. Tough. A |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: catspaw49 Date: 02 Jun 06 - 11:48 PM "I just realized I am saying things that are obvious, and speaking in platitudes." And this would differ how exactly from the rest of your posts? Spaw (:<)) |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: katlaughing Date: 03 Jun 06 - 12:03 AM Well-done, Spawdarlin'...not even any litter for me to clean up! Ted, funny you should say that. For several years, now, I have given a couple of folks a sort of Daily/Weekly "Reader's Digest" of the Mudcat, over the phone, mostly because they've lost access or time in which to read so much. I don't do it as much now, but one of them used to urge me to do it for anyone and everyone by posting a thread. I think Mudcat has grown too large for that kind of thing, anymore, and, of course, some of the players have changed, plus I don't have the time, but I still think it is an interesting idea. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: GUEST,Jon Date: 03 Jun 06 - 04:22 AM Re coherency: The jumbled up business aside, I don't think one can expect "perfection" where there are a larger number of posts. I was thinking more in terms of individual contributions and I think Mudcat (and perhaps other places) has weakend/become more diluted in that respect over time - I don't think posters like say Rick F and Bruce O have been "replaced" for example. I'd agree with MTed over the Wiki ideas. It's one I've been toying with on and off for folkinfo for some time now but have never get got round to doing further research. As a tech note, the printer version does display the posts in order. The reason for this must be one is sorted by date and the other messageid (just the difference of a single word in the query). Whatever, until the matter is resolved, it is perhaps better to give links to the printer version for older threads. Re the off putting bit: I'll admit that I tend to be terse when reeplying to these requests (and I don't think I've ever been a great "Hi Welcome to ..." type person) but that's just me and I don't intend to be rude or see it as rudeness just giving a link. I suppose some of it might come down to what other forums one has used. I rarely use them but in some tech forums for example, it's not unkown for a user (even a newbie) to be expected to have read the user manual, any "readmes", FAQs, "known issues", etc. before giving a clear detailed report of the problem and could well find themselves on the receiving end of some serious stick if they didn't. |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: Declan Date: 03 Jun 06 - 04:51 AM It depends a lot on how you do it. Answering the question briefly and pointing the person politely to an earlier thread is helpful. It starts to get very off putting if you accompany it with a long tirade about how you wish people would use the search before adding meaningless posts on the same topic and the poster may not stick around to endure further abuse. |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: GUEST,Jon Date: 03 Jun 06 - 04:51 AM Amos, I would see the effort involved in searching more of a "define the ineffable Spirit of the Internet" than of any individual website. There may be (as I indicated in my previous post) different expectations of efforts made by an individual in thier own attempts to find an answer/solution but I think the willingness to spend time is common. On the grand scale of things I would expect say diagnosing an obscure bug in some open source software typically takes more free man hours than finding song links but in my experience it is done equally willingly. |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: GUEST,Jon Date: 03 Jun 06 - 04:54 AM Agreed Declan, I'm not in to the long tirades. I suspect the reason that some of the tech sites can be harsher and have higher expectations in terms of research is simply due to the time it might take following up "red herrings". |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Jun 06 - 04:58 AM "the printer version does display the posts in order." I was very excited to discover this, but discovered rapidly that no links (urls) survive the process... sometimes the links can actually HAVE much of the information... |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: GUEST,Jon Date: 03 Jun 06 - 05:10 AM Hmm, FT, I'd not thought of that... |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: JohnInKansas Date: 03 Jun 06 - 06:09 AM There doesn't seem to be a good compromise on the notion that posting links to the printer friendly version will show the posts in proper order but will not show working links (or even that there are links) in the posts. Obviously if a particular post is what's of interest, linking directly to that one post is appropriate. Perhaps the boilerplate (thread header?) could be changed generally to insert a note that "individual posts will appear in proper order in the printer friendly view" on each thread, to assist the new users? An additional gremlin that shows up occasionally is the thread that has grown to extreme size. There is a risk in posting a link from one's own records that the thread that was 40 or 50 posts when the thread was placed in notes has now become 340 or 750 posts, so a link to the thread can stagger the puny computers and/or slow connections some of us have. It doesn't happen too often, but making the link to the "first 50" would be a fine idea when appropriate. Just imagine the feelings of a newby who clicked a link to MOABS. John |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: GUEST,Jon Date: 03 Jun 06 - 06:44 AM Agreed John, except for: "Perhaps the boilerplate (thread header?) could be changed generally to insert a note that "individual posts will appear in proper order in the printer friendly view" on each thread, to assist the new users?" If you are talking about an automatic thread header and programming work, I think it would be simpler (at least temporaly) just to change the sort order. As far as I can see it should only involve changing one word something like (I don't know the actual field names off hand) "messageID" to read "messagedate". SQL does all the working out how to do the ordering. |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: Snuffy Date: 03 Jun 06 - 06:48 AM It does too preserve the links - but only in the main body of the posting. Post - Top - Forum Home - Printer Friendly - Translate are not preserved, nor is From: Snuffy - PM, nor the list of postings at the top. For example go to this thread I want to get deeper into Folk Music and you should find quite a few clickable links both to other Mudcat threads and to external sites |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: GUEST,Jon Date: 03 Jun 06 - 06:56 AM Wow, snuffy. I'd not noticed that! |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: catspaw49 Date: 03 Jun 06 - 07:43 AM I have missed this entirely and thanks to Jon and John and Snuff and FT and all of you bright guys.....A HUGE help on there and my thanks again...for whatever its worth! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Jun 06 - 08:08 AM Hmm, I'd not noticed it either - perhaps hadn't looked as closely as I thought -- but the 'related threads' section vanishes too, though... thread_pf.cfm?threadid=91928 (the newest dulcimer thread) the DT links do too, as well thread_pf.cfm?threadid=162 (Origins: Senor Don Gato) ... |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: Snuffy Date: 03 Jun 06 - 08:53 AM But those links are always available in the thread before and after you make it printer friendly. Printer friendly only gives you the actual postings, without any of the associated "furniture". |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: JohnInKansas Date: 03 Jun 06 - 10:29 AM It appears that links entered within a post, by the person posting, remain live in the printer friendly version, but all other links disappear. Apparently the threads I looked at didn't have as many links as I expected, so it looked like they'd all disappeared. I'd have some concern about whether a new user here following a link to a printer friendly version of a thread would find it obvious how to get to the "normal" thread, since I had to look a bit for the link. It's obvious once you've found it the first time, but doesn't necessarily pop up at you on a first exposure to the pf versions. (i.e. "to thread" might not have a crystal clear meaning if you didn't get there from "the thread.") And I note, Snuffy, that your link here went to the normal thread, not to I want to get deeper into Folk Music:Printer Friendly, which is what an innocent soul would see if the link is directly to the pf version. Just the fact that it "looks different" to someone unfamiliar with our usage could cause some minor confusion - (and a fair number of newbies appear to be minors (?)). John |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: GUEST,Jon Date: 03 Jun 06 - 11:55 AM It appears that links entered within a post, by the person posting, remain live in the printer friendly version, but all other links disappear. It figures now I think about it... Other links would probably involve making them and the html for a post will already be there. Just had a look at my "save" link on the Annexe/folkinfo - that's what I do/don't do there apparenty - I'd forgotten... |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: Snuffy Date: 03 Jun 06 - 01:15 PM We all learn a bit each day - I never realised till now that you could link direct to the printer friendly version. |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: Amos Date: 03 Jun 06 - 01:36 PM The only difference in the URLs, in case someone needs to know, is the form of the .cfm call: http://www.mudcat.org/thread_pf.cfm?threadid=91884 versus http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=91884 for the printer-friendly and ordinary versions of thread 91884, Deeper Into Folk Music. Note that the PF version has a clicky at the top to the regular version. A |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: wysiwyg Date: 03 Jun 06 - 03:12 PM LOL-- this is about the 9th time this shocking printer-friendly "news" has been brought to light in recent months. And I think I started it. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Jun 06 - 03:30 PM Personally, I think it's kind of rude to respond to a request with a lecture on searching or a wordy invitation to join Mudcat. If a person requests information, I think we should respond with a link to the information if the information is posted at Mudcat, or with the information itself if it's elsewhere. One reason we instituted the crosslinks, is to eliminated the reason for Mudcatters to post those annoying lectures. We still get those lectures posted once in a while, but not as often as onceuponatime, when some Mudcatters even had prepared lectures to copy-paste as responses. If a person requests lyrics we already have, I can't see blowing a simple lyrics request into a discussion of stuff we've already discussed before. I think maybe it's best to respond with a polite link, and maybe a summary of what has already been discussed - without a lecture, and without being curt or pedantic. It's a matter of balance - how can we invite discussion without reinventing the wheel? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: katlaughing Date: 03 Jun 06 - 03:49 PM I think you did, too, Susan.:-) |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: catspaw49 Date: 03 Jun 06 - 05:36 PM That's because you're a real stick in the mud Joe. LOL.....And don't give us that crap about not going into annoying lectures or I'll get Roger to copy and paste your ass all to hell and begone!!!!.............LMAO................... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: CarolC Date: 03 Jun 06 - 06:48 PM One of the first threads I ever started here in the Mudcat, about accordions, inspired someone to refresh several older threads about accordions, as if I should have stuck my accordion discussion onto the tail end of someone else's accordion discussion. I was aware of the previous threads about accordions, but my thread, although it shared the same basic subject, had an entirely different thrust. I chose to start the new thread because it was my own questions that I wanted to discuss. And in retrospect, I know I made the right decision. I know from several years of observation of how threads progress here, that had I stuck my discussion on the tail end of one of the other discussions, many people would not have responded to my questions, but rather they would have responded to the questions posed by the person who originally started the thread. And that is what the discussion would have been about... not my questions, but the other person's questions. I was very happy with my thread and the responses that I got from people in that thread. I would not change anything about the way I did it. I don't think other people are necessarily in a position to know what the originator of a thread is trying to accomplish when they start their thread. |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Jun 06 - 07:26 PM The success of a thread depends on a number of factors - but many of those factors depend on the thread title and the first message. I think the most important rule is Be Specific. The thread title should be different from the titles of other threads on the same topic, so that people know right off why it's different from what has been said before - if we have six threads all titled "Accordions," that's a problem. The first message should both give and request information, so people know what you already know, and what you need to know. If it is indeed a new aspect of a discussion topic, then it certainly is justifiable to start a new thread. If it's a continuation of an existing discussion, or particularly if it is an answer to something said in an existing thread, it usually makes no sense to start a new thread. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Jun 06 - 07:53 PM "some Mudcatters even had prepared lectures to copy-paste as responses" Should I delete mine then? :) So why should you have accordions on the brain Joe now... :P :-) |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: CarolC Date: 03 Jun 06 - 08:05 PM My thread title expressed exactly what I wanted to talk about... Accordions. There isn't room in the title box to be specific enough about what I wanted to discuss for anyone to be able to use the title as an indication. My thread was very successful. I accomplished exactly what I wanted to accomplish, the thread refresher's ideas about it notwithstanding. I was very clear in my opening post about what I wanted to accomplish, and the accordion players who responded to my thread understood what I wanted to accomplish as well. It was (and is) a very good thread. |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Jun 06 - 09:01 PM CarolC I was just pulling Joe's leg... we have been corresponding for some time, on and off, about a certain Accordion Permathread, and whether the title is sufficiently informative ... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Jun 06 - 09:06 PM Now, I don't want you accordion people to think I'm picking on you. In all fairness, I have to say that it appears that all or almost all of the accordion threads have very specific, descriptive titles. If you use the filter and look at the accordion thread titles, I think you'll see that those titles are excellent examples of the best way to title a Mudcat thread. There are too many accordion threads to fit into one crosslink group, so I'm looking for suggestions on how to categorize and separate the accordion threads. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: CarolC Date: 03 Jun 06 - 09:08 PM I actually wasn't responding to your post, Foolestroupe. I couldn't understand it. I have to say, also, that I didn't understand the title of your accordion thread right away either, but I think that's because of linguistic differences between our two countries. (I had to infer what was meant by "muso", and especially, what was meant by "recycled" in the context of accordions and "musos".) ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: JohnInKansas Date: 03 Jun 06 - 09:28 PM Now, I don't want you accordion people to think I'm picking on you. Translation: Joe hopes you won't notice how much fun he's having pickin' on you. (?) (?) (?). Joe. How about a (Perma?)thread titled "Index to Accordion Threads." Of course someone would have to keep them all sorted, add new ones, cull the duplicates, and keep track of merges, closures, deletes, and such. But once you've got it all in order one link to the thread would show everything ... ... Of course, people who know that a particular thread is needed could still link to any individual one. I'd suggest that we need a thread type called "Index" for when people want to post their own lists of interesting threads on a subject; but I'm not sure that's a sufficiently studied concept to be ready for publication so I'll not say anything about it here. John |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Jun 06 - 09:37 PM Which has been exactly my concern and the very subject of recent discussion with Joe regarding its entry in the 'list of Permathreads' in the FAQ. "Recycled Musos" is a fairly recent Aussie invention, as far as I know: I can't claim it, but I did 'borrow' it... :-) You try to fit the idea that the Piano Accordion is a very easy instrument for any musician (who currently plays any instrument) to take up as a new instrument in just those few characters in the title... :-) Joe "There are too many accordion threads to fit into one crosslink group, so I'm looking for suggestions on how to categorize and separate the accordion threads." A quickie response... How about a 'Master Index Link' which will bring up a separate page in which all the threads being referred to can be listed? This page can be generated in exactly the same (code) way the current 'insert' is done, and need only be done on request, thus easing the load on the Mudcat. Perhaps a similar thing could be done for any reference list that gets too big, even the DT links - only if more than a certain number, it wouldn't be worth the hassle of setting it up for a page with just the one or two links. Ok, it will take a little programming... Any other solution will need more 'indexing categories' - subcategories, etc... this may actually take MORE programming hacking, on the internals of the database... Actually the subcategories thing IS a good idea, but, is it as easily and rapidly achievable as the 'external page' thing? Which can also be rapidly applied to other things than just 'Accordions'... ? "too many accordion threads to fit into one crosslink group" I take this COULD also mean, other than that the returned list is _just getting too big_ for convenience, that there may be a _finite limit_ on the number of reference threads can be returned in that call to the database that you currently insert in the page code? That might still happen with the 'separate page' idea I mention (cause you just move that call to there), so can you clarify please? One would then still probably need to provide a solution based on some form of sub categorising the accordion (or any other reference term) references. Damn spellchecker! - "Permathreads" is not a misspelled "Parathyroids" !!! |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Jun 06 - 09:39 PM Gee whiz, JiK, Great Minds Think Alike! or is that 'Fools Never Differ' {;P |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: CarolC Date: 03 Jun 06 - 10:42 PM I honestly don't know how my thread should be categorized. As far as I know, it's the only one of its kind. Whereas the other accordion threads I've seen have been fairly technical in nature, what I wanted was for people to give me something of a more emotional response, about their experiences with accordions and their preferences for kinds of accordions and kinds of music to play on accordions. Here is my opening post to that thead... "I'm discovering that there are more accordion people around here than I previously suspected. I've just started learning to play (about four months), and there are no people I know of in my area who also play the piano accordion. I could really use some input from people who have more experience/knowledge than me. What kind do you play? What do you like about it? What differences have you noticed between different makes? Can you play sexy music with a Hohner? What kind of music do you play? (Etc, etc, etc.)" From this thread... http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=24721 |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Jun 06 - 10:48 PM Foolestroupe and John - There is already a provision for categories and subcategories for threads. Trouble is, some of my subcategories have gotten too big, and need to be promoted to "category" status. This requires time, and a good Internet connection, neither of which I currently have. But I'll get to it. Max has suggested that the crosslinks be in a dropdown menu, so the top of a thread doesn't get filled with crosslinks. What I'd like is a way of prioritizing crosslinks, so the five most interesting threads in a group could be flagged to appear in the crosslinks, with the rest in a dropdown menu. Jeff and I are conferring on this. Mudcatters are welcome to submit lists of thread numbers to me for crosslinking - the list should be thread numbers only, separated by commas. In accord with John's idea, I've often thought it might be nice to have a utility that would allow a Mudcatter to post a list of threads/links within a message - like if there were an easy way to post lists like what I've done in the Malvina indexing. I'd like ot do the same with our other songbook indexes. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Jun 06 - 10:53 PM "the five most interesting threads" You be playing with fire with that suggestion Joe!!! :-) ROFL... a short life but an 'interesting' one!!!!! :-)
-Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Jun 06 - 10:58 PM CarolC You may think that thread is just 'emotional', but it really IS 'Technical' or perhaps even "'Technique' related" in nature... Joe... then of course, there is the 'Homer & Jethro' list of threads... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: CarolC Date: 03 Jun 06 - 11:54 PM There's some technical stuff in there, Foolestroupe, and I'm glad it's there, but that isn't what I was after. I was looking for people's feelings about stuff. And there's lots of that in there. Even from people who don't play the accordion. I think maybe it could be classified as "an interesting conversation about accordions", because that's exactly what it is. |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: GUEST,michaelr Date: 04 Jun 06 - 12:40 AM I'm noticing that a certain Malcolm Douglas is suspiciously absent from this thread... |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: The Shambles Date: 04 Jun 06 - 03:08 AM The key is as always in recognising that this is a discussion forum and not some member's private club or a library. Most of the problems come from the fact that the realities of the format tend to be ignored. The limitations of this format - once accepted - are a strength rather than a weakness. Aspects which can form valuable content to the Mudcat Cafe website - are being squeezed into the forum and this expanded and its purpose ( which is discussion) distorted in the process. There is no clear idea of informing contributors when refreshing an old thread or starting a new one is the right thing - as both can and are now judged (by 'we') to be wrong. Something that only confuses and inhibits posting - which is the only 'wrong' thing. Discussion is what needs to be encouraged (even if this means Catspaw having to see 200 threads containing the horse quote or about 'The Sick Note). The current idea that our forum is for some posters to pass judgement upon their fellow posters is what needs to be discouraged. |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 04 Jun 06 - 07:14 AM "What I'd like is a way of prioritizing crosslinks" Having a 'secret' priority rating of 1-5 or 1-10..... oh no!!!, what a can of worms will THAT be? :-) And who will start passing judgemnts then? :-) "I was thinking the five longest threads might be safer...." Hah! now I know how to get MY favourite 5 threads on top of that dropdown box... ;-) "crosslinks be in a dropdown menu" A dropdown box is a good idea, but there is one drawback... I like to keep the original page open when I go to the cross links - if that dropdown box means that the current page is overwritten with the new page, then I would need to have 2 copies of the page open, one to get the new page and one for keeping the current page in sight... this may increase the load on the Cat server! If however the selection of the item in the dropdown box opened a new page, that would make me happier, but doubtless others may then not be happy.... |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: GUEST,Jon Date: 04 Jun 06 - 08:11 AM I suppose given that you have categories and sub categories in this "cross reference system", another alternative could be to simply provide a single "cross references" link in the thread to a view of that system. It may be another click to get to related threads and songs but it could be better than trying to cram everything in some how or other and possibly would be easier to work with if indexing/cross referencing ever was to be expanded on. |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: JohnInKansas Date: 04 Jun 06 - 10:26 AM One of the reasons that I "didn't mention" the notion of index threads is that an index thread about threads about accordions is just another thread about accordions, which will be found in a search for threads about accordions along with all the other threads about accordions, some of which may be in the index thread about threads about accordions and some of which may not be in the index thread. And there's the additional question: "Should the Index Thread: Accordions be listed in the Index thread, since it's about accordions?" This is such a fuzzy concept, one may easily see why I didn't mention it. The idea of a search, or of a cross-linking index, that only returns selected results is somewhat like what Google does. Only the first few results, based on "most frequently accessed" and/or "most frequently linked to" are returned in the list of results. Google brags that 289,763,429 results were found, but will only show you the first hundred or so (it varies); and there is NO WAY that you can use Google in any effective way to get to any of the rest of them. The Google method is fine for "surf-searchers" but is NOT ACCEPTABLE for any "academic search." It may be useful to find a few bits of "cream-amid-scum-off-the-top" for starting a 1real search, but it's a bit "too yuppie" if you really need anything other than "pop" comments. For some uses at Mudcat, a limited return list might be helpful; but I would suggest that due consideration be given to the need of some users to be able to find all of the items. The Googlish implementation prevents doing that. 1 There are no generally accessible search engines for doing "real searches," that I've found, that aren't limited to extremely narrow interests, and/or that require "subscription" (with fees) to some database organization. Genealogy.com is one, and there are several "legal databases," with very high fees. Academic databases typically require you to be a registered student, and may have some areas limited to faculty. Getting a MIL-SPEC is nearly impossible unless you have a contract with the government. IEEE, SAE, AMA etc Documents and Standards are inaccessible unless you're a member, and even then may require substantial fees to see individual items. I will agree with Max, subject to further consideration, that the long lists of "related articles" that appear on some threads are more intrusive than helpful. Putting them in a drop-down list, or simply inserting a "Click Here to find previous threads on XXX" might also work. If a link to a search (a Click Here) is used, it probably should be coded to open in a new window, so that newbies can return easily to the original page. If a simple link can access the list of associated threads, most here will know that they can right-click and choose whether to open in a new window, but persons handling "newness of the site" may not think to. (Does anyone not use a mouse when browsing?) Drop-down boxes can be configured in several ways. With some that I encounter frequently, when you click on an item in the drop-down list, the selected link executes automatically. If this mode is chosen, the target should open in a new window (for this application). A disadvantage of this mode is that a "mis-click" takes you somewhere other than where you want. The drop-down form most used here lets you make a selection, confirm that the right selection is in the window, and you click a "Go" button to execute the link. The Go button does not usually allow the option to "open in new window." In most cases where the link is to "additional information," if no choice is permitted, it would be my preference to open a new window. There are several places on the 'cat where "new window" would be inappropriate, since the choice is to a "destination," so some analysis of the use intended is needed when the function is set up. It is my "understanding" (I may exaggerate by using the word) that one of the things that has delayed the appearance of new items in the DT is that the DT requires someone to "tag" items to have them appear in search results or to make Index Lists. The reference to "cross-links" for associating related threads indicates a similar Indexing rather than a simple text-search of the database. There are advantages and disadvantages to either method, and I don't have sufficient knowledge of the structures used by Mudcat and the DT to suggest changes; but it might be appropriate for some functions to "recreate" lists from text-search (like the Refresh with Filter?) rather than requiring someone to guess what needs to be "findable" and to create indexes/cross-links in advance. John |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 04 Jun 06 - 06:33 PM " If a simple link can access the list of associated threads, most here will know that they can right-click and choose whether to open in a new window, but persons handling "newness of the site" may not think to. (Does anyone not use a mouse when browsing?)" etc... Well, please let's not forget those who are visually impaired and using various aids - I have spent many hours chatting to at least one here who readily identified herself as such (she used to joke she was blind in one eye and couldn't see out of the other!)... let's not not make it too confusing for them either... |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: JohnInKansas Date: 04 Jun 06 - 11:33 PM Robin - The parenthetical question - "Does anyone not use a mouse?" - was actually a serious query, because I am aware of at least a few of our regulars who use one or another kind of "accessibility" devices. Even for the few that I'm pretty sure are using aids, I'm not sure just which devices and/or altered modes of operation are being used. A public survey would likely be undesirably invasive, so I'm certainly not advocating anything of that sort; but "compatibility" with altered modes of operation should definitely be kept in mind when proposing or installing anything very radical. Just as an example of good ideas gone dormant, whatever happened with the Mystery HomePermanentThread. It got out in the rain and went all frizzy? b. Jun-17-1997, d. Jan-15-2005, R.I.P.? Well, it sounded like a good idea at the time... Too bad nobody new where to stop in to hear it's wonderful stories. John |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 05 Jun 06 - 06:57 AM John, My response was intended to be a serious response to what I considered a serious comment from you. But... I'm unable to make any useful comment regarding the existence of, or number of Mudcatters using any visual aid interface and whether or not they involve a mouse. That statement is in itself serious, and does have some utility.... :) I was informed that my web pages were built in such a way, that (except for a few bits of eye candy deliberately inserted that might not pass the tests) my website is highly acceptable for the visually impaired, whether that be a medical thing, or due to the fact that some readers were still using recently PC XT originals with an early Lynx text only web browser. |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: GUEST,Russ Date: 05 Jun 06 - 12:21 PM Spaw, "There isn't Russ....." Sometimes your replies are more opaque than usual. I'm still trying to parse this one. Anyway, Let the record show that I made a sincere effort to be as vague as possible in my example, and I didn't have any problems with the tone of your reply to the other poster. Anyway, The responses were exactly what I was looking for. Calm, rational, informative. ... for a while Many years ago I started a thread called "Hijacking a Thread". I think a link at the top of this thread would be appropriate. |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: Jim Dixon Date: 30 Jun 06 - 04:17 PM I came to this thread late. Maybe interest has already dissipated. I'd like to respond to the idea of a "folk wiki." I like the idea—sort of. But don't try to do it here. In fact, don't try to do it anywhere but at Wikipedia. That would really be reinventing the wheel! Wikipedia already has the right software, the right protocol, the right format, the right style, the right attitude, the right principles, the right structure, the right precedents, etc. I can't think of a way to improve it. (But if I did, I'd bet they already have a procedure in place for proposing and considering changes to their style, format, etc.) All they lack is your information. Go for it! If you have the knowledge, the resources, the writing skill, and the time, combined with a passion for accuracy and fact checking, become an editor/contributor to Wikipedia. Only problem is, if you have those qualities, I'd hate to lose your contributions to Mudcat, but such is life. Make them to Wikipedia instead, and you'll probably reach a wider audience. Wikipedia already has some good information about folk music (or whatever you call the kinds of music we often discuss here). For good examples, check out the articles "Blue Tail Fly" "Streets of Laredo" "List of blackface minstrel songs" "La Cucaracha" "Music hall" "Morris dance." Wikipedia is so easy to use, I don't even have to make links to the articles. By the way, have you noticed that many articles at Wikipedia link back to Mudcat? There is some discussion at BS: Wikipediaists? and in Wow! Read This About Wikipedia. |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: GUEST,Jon Date: 30 Jun 06 - 05:01 PM In fact, don't try to do it anywhere but at Wikipedia. That would really be reinventing the wheel![...] Not really, Jim. A wikipedia is just one Wiki. |
|
Subject: RE: Starting New Threads: Reinventing the Wheel From: The Shambles Date: 01 Jul 06 - 02:22 AM Over the years I have had a lot of wood chisels. These do the jobs they were intended and are best suited for - very well. After my good wife uses them for any other purpose - like opening paint tins and as a screwdriver - the wood chisel's day as being effective for its intended purpose are over. |
| Share Thread: |