 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: GUEST Date: 26 Jun 13 - 07:47 AM Hello there! I am a member at FolkForums.com/ after getting frustrated with Mudcats', although excellent community, its difficulty of use. Folk Forums is a relevantly new Forum with a new community and the top and tale is, I want to try and persuade anyone else who feels frustrated with the usability and 'outdatedness' here, to take a look at the new forum and perhaps stay awhile? Many Thanks, FluffyDwarf. FolkForums.com/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: GUEST Date: 26 Jun 13 - 07:48 AM Also, forgot to mention, another reason to take a look, the forum has been totally spam free for a year now! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: IanC Date: 26 Jun 13 - 08:59 AM Well, guest If it's been around for over a year now, there's very little activity and there also appear to be very few people contributing not very much. I wish the forum well, but I don't particularly like the format and there is no feel of community about it. What makes any forum is the people who visit and contribute. :-) Ian |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: Nigel Parsons Date: 26 Jun 13 - 09:40 AM I am a member at FolkForums.com/ after getting frustrated with Mudcats', although excellent community, its difficulty of use. No wonder the new forum looks simpler to use than Mudcat. A total of 81 posts in one (spam free) year. Hardly a hive of activity! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: greg stephens Date: 26 Jun 13 - 09:46 AM Does it get troubled by anonymous guests at all? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Jun 13 - 08:38 PM Good luck to it, and I hope it picks up. But I doubt it. Let a hundred flowers bloom. Mudcat hard to use? The Mudcat is the only online community on any topic that I have been able to get my head round. The others leave me completely lost. Maybe it's that Mudcat regulars don't think the same way as ordinary people. That would explain quite a lot of things... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: GUEST Date: 26 Jun 13 - 09:13 PM "The Mudcat is the only online community on any topic that I have been able to get my head round." I am posting this because even Kevin is getting sucked into the Yank way of doing things. He should have meant to say The Mudcat is the only online community on any topic that I have been able to get my head 'round. :-) (I seldom catch him screwing up in thought, logic or intent. When I find something in punctuation, I go for it.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: Will Fly Date: 27 Jun 13 - 03:42 AM Thank you, GUEST pedant for that enlightening last post - very relevant to the topic in question. I hope all the 'Yanks' here enjoyed it as much as I did. To return to our muttons... Having sampled various online forums, it's the very simplicity of Mudcat pages, plus the vast store of knowledge and experience seething away in the Mudcat community that makes many other folk forums a no-no for me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Jun 13 - 04:32 AM My brother says Mudcat is "antiquated" and "unattractive and not very user friendly." He suggested a couple of forums he likes: I dunno. I suppose if you're looking for forums that look like other current forums, then FolkForums.com/ and the forums my brother suggests are just wonderful. But to me, they're not much different - they have an original post, and then they have responses. What is it about Mudcat that's "difficult to use"? I ask that, because I'm really not in a position to know - my perspective is limited by my longtime use of Mudcat. I've been using Mudcat since 1997, so it's hard for me to see what's wrong with it. It would be helpful for us oldtimers to be able to understand what's lacking here. Can somebody explain? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 27 Jun 13 - 04:59 AM How about a plug for us on FF. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: Pete Jennings Date: 27 Jun 13 - 06:47 AM There's nothing about Mudcat that is difficult to use and there's nothing wrong with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 27 Jun 13 - 09:17 AM The only thing that might make OP's forum "easier to use" is that it's built on the same prepackaged software as thousands of other forums, so most users are already familiar with the format. The learning curve is small, but only because most of the learning has already taken place at other sites using similar software. Mudcat is not difficult, just different. If the content is of value to you, spending a little time learning to navigate the site is no big deal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Jun 13 - 03:20 PM I had a look at those two sites Joe linked do, and both reinforce my comment. I couldn't see how they work, and I didn't like the look. Maybe old-fashioned is my fashion in websites, as in musical instruments. As for "round", that's how I'd say it, so that's how I spell it... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 27 Jun 13 - 03:35 PM I am the most dim-witted user of the Internet that ever lived, yet I find the Mudcat simplicity itself to use. And the people here are lovely, all types from fierce and argumentative to kindly, funny, informative and good-hearted. I really enjoy Mudcat and certainly don't want to 'defect' to another forum. Fancy trying to entice us away, what a blooming cheek! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: GUEST,Jack Sprocket Date: 27 Jun 13 - 03:52 PM There IS something wrong with Mudcat, but it's not the format: those other forums are simple clones, all using out-of-the-box software so they all look the same (give or take the decoration), and with the same categories etc. etc. as a consequence. Mudcat's problem is that of folk music in general (talking from a UK perspective). We failed to pass it on, and we're getting VERY old now. There are young musicians and singers and dancers, but wherever they do talk about it, it ain't here (odd shining exceptions of course). I was at a folk festival a couple of weeks ago- looked round at the crowd, and thought, half of you won't be here in 5 years time, three quarters in ten years, and not one in twenty in 2030. The under 30s who weren't there under duress could have been counted on the fingers of one stereotypical Fenlander. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Jun 13 - 04:28 PM To respond to Joe's question the only thing that strikes me, trying to put myself in the place of somene coming to the Mudcat for the first time, is that a great long list of undifferentated threads might be a bit intimidating. A bit like walking into a crowded room with all these strangers talking to each other. Some forum websites avoid this by having a set of different sections. I'd be sorry to see the Mudcat going down that road. I like the way that a discussion can spread between different topics, so an inquiry about the words of a song can turn into an exploration of the history and context of the song, and about recordings of it. For me the BS/music split is enough. Perhaps a bit more use of clearer prefixes signposting the threads in a way that was clearer might make the thread list less intimidating. But basically I'm a believer in "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and "striving to better oft we mar what,s well". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: Will Fly Date: 27 Jun 13 - 04:56 PM I was at a folk festival a couple of weeks ago- looked round at the crowd, and thought, half of you won't be here in 5 years time, three quarters in ten years, and not one in twenty in 2030. Interesting observation. Our ceilidh band was playing at a public ceilidh in Lewes (East Sussex) a few weeks ago. It was packed out, most of the dancers were in the 20-40 bracket and - which we hadn't expected - it appeared to be a venue for groups of guys to "pull"! Needless to say, it was a great evening - everyone danced their socks off and we played our hearts out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jun 13 - 04:59 PM I've been messing around here since 1999, and I've never found Mudcat difficult to use, even when I was brand new to the internet. Far easier than most web sites, particularly other forums. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: Richard Bridge Date: 27 Jun 13 - 05:01 PM I do use a number of petrolhead fora and I have (blush) used some nookiehunter fora and frankly the 'cat is the easiest and simplest to use and clearest forum I have ever tried. A few things grate - for example the lack of an edit capability - but many things are WAY better than modern shizzle - for example the ability to trace a user's posts. Oh, and by the way how many fingers ARE normal in Norfolk? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Jun 13 - 06:29 PM The thing is, people get older and their choices change. You always get the same kinds of stuff about how say Radio Four must be in trouble because young people don't listen to it. But the truth seems to be that as they get older the same people who didn't listen to it when they were younger start to tune in. There are plenty of young people who are into folk music. The settings in which they listen and play and get together in the real world and the virtual world tend to be different for the time being. I always get amused by infants in their forties and fifties lamenting the ways of young people, as if there was something new about that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: GUEST,Fluffy Dwarf Date: 28 Jun 13 - 07:37 AM Hi, some interesting points here, and I very much understand those of you who say that you find Mudcat very easy to use (fair enough). I would echo those of you who mentioned the age gap in folk. In my opinion this website is yet another echo of this, those of you who are used to it don't have a problem with it, it works fine but if you're trying to find a younger group of people Mudcat is old and it lacks the flair of other websites on the internet these days that the younger generations are used to. As a rather crude analogy, Fax machines still work, and are still used but email is the medium new people go to (if not instant messaging e.g. facebook). Please don't take this as offensive as it's really not meant to be. Many Thanks, Fluffy Dwarf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: Steve Shaw Date: 28 Jun 13 - 07:52 AM I can't be the only person around here who is perennially frustrated by the slow loading of threads here (and, frequently, of the whole forum), even when you hit that little d. That doesn't make the board difficult to use exactly, admittedly. TheSession is another very active forum. Over there, almost invariably, if you click on even the longest thread it opens straight away and there is next to no delay in getting right to the end of it from the beginning. Jeremy can be an annoying bugger, and we've had our moments he and I, but he's flippin' good at setting up a forum that works dead fast! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: GUEST,Fluffy Dwarf Date: 28 Jun 13 - 08:02 AM For you Keith A, FolkForums.com/Thread-Mudcat-Thread Many Thanks, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 28 Jun 13 - 08:23 AM Good one Fluff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: IanC Date: 28 Jun 13 - 09:30 AM Hi Well, I've just had another look at this forum. There have been a total of another 3 posts to the forum in the last 2 days, one of which was about Mudcat. There are altogether 42 mambers and, as far as I can see, you can't post unless you are a member (it certainly told me to log in to reach a reply page). If that's so, it's hardly surprising it's Spam-Free. Unfortunately, it's also pretty much content-free. As I said before, what makes any forum is the people who visit and contribute. Unfortunately, there's nothing here I might want to read. I'm happy to take a look at most things, and I'm a passive member of a number of other fora, but so far this one appears to have no raison d'etre. Sorry Ian |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: Stilly River Sage Date: 28 Jun 13 - 10:29 AM All things considered, Mudcat is open to all* and owned by a private individual. It doesn't need to look like other discussion sites. Give a thought to this: an apparent disgruntled ex user has now started a new thread at Mudcat as a guest in order to promote another online forum . . . SRS *Tacky users and posts aren't prohibited, though we try to keep trolls confined to the shadows of their own bridges. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: Richard Bridge Date: 28 Jun 13 - 02:06 PM Does Mudcat take that long to load? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Jun 13 - 02:32 PM ...but Fluffy Dwarf, you still haven't said what it is about Mudcat that makes it difficult to use - other than the fact that it doesn't look like other forumses ("fora" sounds too pretentious, to my taste...). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 28 Jun 13 - 04:17 PM I don't find Mudcat takes long to load, and we have a tiny little Broadband speed here in the depths of Norfolk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: GUEST,Musket sans blood of the Messiah Date: 28 Jun 13 - 04:31 PM Aye and how many more folk forums contain the Genesis of tomorrow's world religion? Senior citizen discounts available. Bingo every Wednesday. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: GUEST,Jack Sprocket Date: 28 Jun 13 - 06:37 PM Mudcat was designed in the days of 14400 Baud* modems, and does NOT load slowly (though some of the advert links are a pest). It's less difficult to use than a vibrator, and more open than Kinder Scout after the trespass. That has partly been its downfall- Gresham's law has kicked in. Bad posters drive out good. I'll leave it to the community to decide whether I'm gold or lead. *"Baud" was originally rate of transmission of INFORMATION, not the bit rate. 14400 should have been 11520 (maximum), or less, because of start bits, stop bits, and parity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: GUEST Date: 28 Jun 13 - 06:50 PM The speed at which a website loadd is as much to do with the servers and the server location as the website itself in my experience. (Provided the website is not heavy in multimedia e.g. youtube). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 29 Jun 13 - 05:25 PM "...less difficult to use than a vibrator..." Had much experience with those then, Jack? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: GUEST Date: 30 Jun 13 - 02:07 PM Well, this has gotten slightly off topic! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: Mrrzy Date: 30 Jun 13 - 06:23 PM Should this not be above the line? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 30 Jun 13 - 06:30 PM When Jack Sprocket mentioned Fenlanders, Richard, he couldn't have been thinking about Norfolk, because the Fens are in Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: Richard Bridge Date: 01 Jul 13 - 10:01 AM "Norfolk is considered to have the best representation of fen types in England, particularly valley head and floodplain fens." http://www.norfolkwildlifetrust.org.uk/Wildlife-in-Norfolk/Habitat-explorer/Fens.aspx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 01 Jul 13 - 02:50 PM ""But basically I'm a believer in "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and "striving to better oft we mar what,s well". "" And it most definitely ain't broke, IMNSHO! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 01 Jul 13 - 03:01 PM Yes, I know, Norfolk HAS fens, but we aren't The Fens. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 01 Jul 13 - 03:05 PM ""but if you're trying to find a younger group of people Mudcat is old and it lacks the flair of other websites on the internet these days that the younger generations are used to."" Style over substance, eh? Mudcat does what it was designed to do superbly well, and the more bells and whistles you add, the more it will slow down and the closer you get to the limits private servers can be expected to handle. On the subject of speed, I have 30 Mbs broadband and the Cat loads like lightning, so I don't think it is intrinsically slow. The speed is more affected by the download speeds of the IPS and the degree of fragmentation of hard drives. Occasionally five or six of us post to a thread at the same time, and maybe a couple get really slow and another couple are kicked out. This may well be the main reason for lost posts. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: GUEST,Dave Date: 01 Jul 13 - 03:08 PM Surly the idea 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' is a hypocritical statement for one to type while they are sat in their chair, typing on their computers? If every human had thought that way, then you would still be sat on a rock, painting on cave walls... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: Amos Date: 01 Jul 13 - 03:09 PM The two fora espoused by Joe's brother were off-putting at once because they were primarily focused on (a)electric guitars and (b)new cars when I visited them. They are flashy, but it strikes me that one reason some of us were drawn into folk music in the first place was to seek out human and meaningful substance in preference to flash and amplification of chaotic drivel. Chacun å son mauvais gout, I suppose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: Mr Red Date: 02 Jul 13 - 09:31 AM outdatedness is de riguer on a Folk forum. all this rush for newfangledness is an illusion. defining a "good" forum is like trying to define what is "Folk". Everyone has an opinion. All too often people approach computers and such with a mindset and if it doesn't fit that mindset it is all to difficult. Anyway there are a lot of 'Catters who would prefer the familiar, rather than the whistles and bells of a newness. It is the people not the technology that makes a forum what it is. I was on a Photo forum and found they were talking serious anorak and my suggestions that photographs were communication documents (ie contents count, quality is quite subsidiary), were met with stony silence. zero content has zero quality, get all the Catters you can to join you but I suspect thefriends they have made here are a bigger draw. Another important factor I submit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Jul 13 - 11:17 AM If there's a better way to do something, by all means do it that way. But just the fact that a way of doing things has been around for a while is no reason in itself to abandon it. Electric guitars and kindles have some very useful features - but anyone who thinks that their availability means that acoustic guitars and books have outlived their utility is pretty foolish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative Online Folk Forum From: Elmore Date: 02 Jul 13 - 08:35 PM The tech aspect is not as important to me as the content. Took a look at the alternative forum, and found it useless. |
