|
Post by king2b on Nov 15, 2017 22:55:19 GMT
FS not sure if you meant my forum and sub forums on the front page. I have been cleaning things up lately. I can always do with points of view!
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Nov 16, 2017 0:58:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Nov 16, 2017 5:50:34 GMT
Yes, Bob is right, I was referring to composers.boards.net.
I haven't actually used SoS enough to form a strong opinion about its layout. One of these days I really should participate more in SoS. Though I'm not actually a Sibelius user. But there are just so many forums... if only there could be a unified interface to all of them at once...
|
|
|
Post by king2b on Nov 18, 2017 9:10:11 GMT
I see what you mean about the busy home page!
No requirements as to what you use to compose FS
|
|
|
Post by Julie Harris on Nov 19, 2017 15:03:07 GMT
Hi guys-
First of all, to set the record straight, Bob M is not involved in the administration of the Ning Composers Forum. He's just a member like everyone else. As we announced in a message to all CF members, Gav Brown and I bought CF from the former owner. We really hope to make it a place where composers feel comfortable, get good feedback and are not inundated with garbage.
It's a tough challenge to try to keep any forum free from ridiculous ravings. Many of the other sites I own and run do not even allow any public talking, because of that challenge. But I found that when CF went down, I missed it, even with all its craziness, so I approached Gav about trying to reopen it and keep it clean. I may be too much of a dreamer, but I do have a dream that good and deserving composers could be heard, performed, appreciated and have a good place to talk. Hats off to Dave for creating this site which has provided a great new platform.
You guys here are all knowledgeable, experienced and have strong opinions about what you'd like. I think to have this site working well AND to have CF working well would be to everyone's advantage. What do you think? Gav and I are totally open to suggestions, and in fact have added the "Suggestion" feature to the main menu. Ning 2 can look anyway you want it to. I run another Ning 2 site that doesn't even have the forums on the main page. That's not the right approach for CF, but I'd love to hear detailed examples of what you think the right approach might be.
Gav is investigating many other formatting options right now and I'm sure he would appreciate suggestions that are well thought out and would lead to a happier outcome for all of us.
Thanks for all your input and ideas in advance, and thanks for making this new forum a good place to be!
Julie
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Nov 19, 2017 16:37:43 GMT
My only gripe on SoS is the alternating left/right justification of user profile info in posts - it consistently fools the eye. FS not sure if you meant my forum and sub forums on the front page. I have been cleaning things up lately. I can always do with points of view!
|
|
|
Post by king2b on Nov 19, 2017 16:47:36 GMT
I think I can change that Dave!
Done!
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Nov 21, 2017 17:27:28 GMT
Julie Harris: Thanks for the clarification! And kudos for taking up (part of) the financial burden of bringing the Ning forum back from the dead. As far as possible improvements go, here are some of my thoughts, for what they're worth. I think the current layout where all topics from all sub-forums are mixed together on the front page is not a good approach. As I've already mentioned, that leads to the problem of tangential discussions drowning out on-topic music discussion. Back before the demise and takeover, I remember quite distinctly that many posts of new music would go unanswered for long periods of time, and quickly scroll off the front page before they have a chance of getting sufficient attention. At the same time, the discussions that push to the top of the list are all too often tangential discussions only marginally related to music, or are originally topics about music, new or otherwise, that got derailed into side discussions, or are personal spats that, more often than not, blown completely out of proportions. There are of course many ways to tackle these problems, but I think one of the easier ways is to use a different layout for the main page. Perhaps have distinct sections, one dedicated for new music where composers are seeking feedback, and another dedicated for hot topics (i.e., high traffic) that, while certainly drawing lots of attention, aren't necessarily directly on-topic. At the minimum, splitting up these two categories would help a great deal. Of course, you can probably think of more sections that could be included as well. Perhaps a finer categorization might be: (1) new music seeking feedback, (2) music-related discussions, (3) tangential discussions. The main idea is to keep things on the main page that ought to be kept on the main page, without letting unrelated discussions drown them out. Another thought I have, which I don't know whether Ning2 supports (probably it does, but might require some programming effort?), is the ability for moderators to split discussions / move comments between different topics or sub-forums. While the categorization I listed above would work as long as discussions stay on-topic, in my experience that's an unrealistic assumption. One might even say it's just the natural course of discussions that eventually would lead to some side-topic taking over the main discourse. Consider the scenario where composer A posts some new music M, seeking feedback. This would appear in the section on music seeking feedback. As people begin to respond, however, the discussion eventually veers away into something else, perhaps a discussion about the merits of, I don't know, tenor trombone vs. bass trombone. Or worse, a discussion about the political views of Beethoven. But since the original post was put in the music for feedback section, the ensuing discussion would continue to push the topic to the top of that section, even though the comments have already veered away into something else. At this point, it would make more sense for the moderators to split the discussion into two topics, one pertaining to the original music M, and the other whatever other topic is under active discussion. This latter new topic can then be moved to the appropriate section, perhaps leaving a hyperlink in the original topic indicating where some of the comments have moved to, and a hyperlink in the new topic indicating the original topic it came from. Of course, there's also the worst-case scenario when the discussion has degenerated into a name-calling spat between two (or more) combatants, then the time may come to pull the plug by closing the discussion. But AFAIK, the old forum already had this capability. What was lacking was active moderators. Things were all too often left to fester until it developed into all-out war, when earlier intervention might have nipped it in the bud. Which leads to a very sticky issue that probably everyone will disagree with each other on, that is, how (or even whether) to carry out moderation. Part of the problem is that different moderators may have different views about how or when to intervene. To prevent such disgreements from bringing things to an impasse, I think it would be best for the site owners, that is, you and Gav, to set down the rules from the get-go, a kind of "constitution" or "acceptable use policy", set in writing. The moderators are then expected to implemented this policy. This way, when there's a dispute, the finger of blame can be redirected to the policy rather than the person of the moderator (which is often where things turn ugly and interpersonal conflicts begin). If there's a dispute about the policy, then that can be referred to the site owners, who reserves the right to change (or not change) the policy accordingly. This also prevents (well, at least lessen the likelihood of) moderators from abusing their power, or accusations of them doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Nov 22, 2017 16:36:24 GMT
I agree. Everything being posted on the Ning home page forces things off too quickly, some times. Although, years ago there were many subdivisions for posting different kinds of music, and having different kinds of discussions. Many of them were dropped because of lack of use. I general, I think most folks there are more interested in posting their own music than listening to that of others and offering comments. Probably the case everywhere. My music would get maybe two or three comments. OK, so maybe that's all it's worth. But the threads that got the most hits were the off tangent ones, by far. That's not a defense of off tangent, just the way it is. I think most will say that the lack of moderation was disturbing. I also think that having been a part of many of those disturbing threads, no one lamented when I closed my account and deleted all my content. Safe to say I'm becoming a grumpy old man. Bob M and I had a long exchange on the other, other site. He and Ray both had accounts here and closed them. Ray at least drops in and comments once in a while. I'm sure Bob M visits.
So I ask myself: What is the point? There are those that almost never post any of their own music, yet are happy to comment on other's. There are those who only post music, but never comment on other's. I would think that, on a forum for composers, everyone would post their music, and everyone would comment. Sure some don't feel qualified, but that's why we are all here. We learn from, and share knowledge with, each other. There are no stupid questions. No one person has all the answers. We all need each other.
|
|
|
Post by driscollmusick on Nov 22, 2017 20:17:32 GMT
Sorry, couldn't resist...
OLD LADY
I have always been wily and clever
At deceiving and swindling and such,
And I feel just as clever as ever,
But I seem to be losing my touch.
Yes, I'm clever, but where does it get me?
My employer gets all of my take;
All I get is my daily spaghetti,
While he gorges on truffles and cake.
What's the use? What's the use?
There's no profit in cheating,
It's all so defeating
And wrong, oh, so wrong,
That I just have to pass it along!
RAGOTSKI
That old hag is no use in this gyp joint,
Not a sou have I made on her yet,
And the one thing that pays in this clip joint
Is my fraudulent game of roulette.
But I have to pay so much protection
To the chief of police and his men,
That each day when he makes his collection
I'm a poor man all over again.
RAGOTSKI, OLD LADY
What's the use? What's the use
Of dishonest endeavor and being so clever?
It's wrong, oh, so wrong,
If you just have to pass it along!
MAXIMILIAN
It's a very fine thing to be prefect
Shaking down all the gamblers in town.
My position has only one defect:
That there's someone who's shaking me down.
For this fellow unhappily knows me;
And he's on to the game that I play,
And he threatens to shame and expose me
If I do not incessantly pay.
MAXIMILIAN, RAGOTSKI, OLD LADY
What's the use? What's the use
Of this sneaky conniving and slimy contriving?
It's wrong, oh, so wrong,
If you just have to pass it along!
CROOK
I could live very well by extortion,
But I simply can't keep what I earn,
For I haven't a sense of proportion,
And roulette is my only concern.
I've a system that's fiendishly clever,
Which I learned from a croupier friend,
And I should go on winning forever
But I do seem to lose in the end.
MAXIMILIAN, RAGOTSKI, CROOK
What's the use? What's the use?
OLD LADY
What's the use? What's the use
Of this cheating and plotting,
You end up with notting.
OLD LADY, MAXIMILIAN, RAGOTSKI,
CROOK
It's wrong, oh, so wrong
If you just have to pass it along!
CHORUS
Pass it along, oh, pass it along.
ALL
Oh, what's the use? What's the use?
There's no use in cheating,
It's all so defeating
And wrong, oh, so wrong,
If you just have to pass it along!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Nov 23, 2017 0:46:20 GMT
It's heartening that Gav deleted OO within a few hours. That would have (and did) take months in the Alpiar days.
|
|
|
Post by Julie Harris on Nov 28, 2017 16:00:03 GMT
Hi guys-
Sorry it's taken me so long to reply to the very helpful suggestions made to improve the Ning forum. I've been down with a cold. I have, however, read all your suggestions very carefully. To me the hardest thing on any forum is finding something that interested me but is now hidden in the depths. I'm still not sure how best to achieve that ability. I've saved all your comments so that Gav and I can review them. We are committed to making changes that will help everyone, so your input is very valuable. I can't promise that we can achieve all of your goals, but this conversation is a great start!
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Nov 28, 2017 19:54:34 GMT
It's heartening that Gav deleted OO within a few hours. That would have (and did) take months in the Alpiar days. OO showed up again?!
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Nov 28, 2017 20:05:00 GMT
[...] To me the hardest thing on any forum is finding something that interested me but is now hidden in the depths. I'm still not sure how best to achieve that ability. [...] Is there any possibility for Ning to hook in to an embedded Google search function? That would help immensely in finding stuff that's buried deep in the immense archive of historial discussions. In my experience, most forum software (and other websites too) tend to suffer from NIH syndrome (Not Invented Here syndrome), i.e., everyone wants to roll their own search function. Unsurprisingly, most such search functions suck. The Google search engine is embeddable, and they've been proven to really know how to search for stuff (after all, they've become a household word now!). It's their business to know how to find needles in the huge haystack called the internet (and other things too, like your website). So why reinvent the wheel, and poorly at that? Let Google do what they do best. (Now I understand that some may take issue with licensing issues or ideological issues with letting Google "invade" everything... but still, if your homebrew search function can't hold a candle to Google's search engine, it's a great disservice to your customers (and yourself too).) Disclaimer: I do not work for, nor am I affiliated with Google. I'm just frustrated to see that superior technology is there, readily available, only to be ignored by egotistical programmers who rather invent their own search function, and that very poorly.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Jan 24, 2018 20:25:32 GMT
Gav pulled a thread on Ning because of a fight? How bad was it?
|
|