confused and worried Re: Latest Questions

[Cindy C.]

Amy:

>I thought that sounded like As
> in Pressing Moral Issues, so I created a new category,
> "Evil (characters who are Ever So)."  

No, Evil is fine.

<OT posts, missing posts, and pointless drivel

> Cindy:
> 
> > I would paint them black.
 
Amy:

> I thought we just skipped them.  Why are we painting
> them black again?

Uh.

I only painted them black because that's what Dicey did.  I wasn't, 
like, thinking for myself or anything.  ;-) 

Deleting the post number and its corresponding row works as well.  
Dicey, can we do that instead?  Or is there a benefit to blacking 
things out?

Amy:

> Oh, and another question.  What do we do with posts
> that have more than three topics--e.g. that "Courage,
> Ron, Hermione, Harry" one I mentioned?  I just made a
> second entry to hold the fourth, but I guess I don't
> get the technology so I'm not sure if that was right.

On that, you could do one row with "Courage + Ron + Hermione" and a 
second row with "Courage + Harry."  But see my remarks in response 
to Debbie on another way to do it.

Um, should we be using "Trio" for anything, and if so, what?

Debbie:

>That raises a good question.  I had a post with seven relevant 
>categories, but the entire post was about Harry.  I used 3 lines 
>for the 7 categories and then began to wonder if the categories in 
>the second and third lines could be searched by searching 
>under "Harry" and, for example "Rule-Breaking" which was not in the 
>first line.  I  wasn't sure how the search function would work 
>there but on the assumption that each line will be treated as 
>though it was a separate and distinct post, and since I had two 
>extra spaces anyway, I put "Harry" in each line.  Is this the 
>correct way to do it?

Hmmm.  Let's say the post actually has substantive discussion about 
each of the seven things (not just passing references), and the 
seven Harry categories are: Rulebreaking, Eyes, Fear, Dursleys, 
Wand, Cedric, Maze.  There are two ways to code that, but one is 
slightly more efficient than the other, which I'll explain below:

Option 1:

Harry Rulebreaking Eyes
Harry Fear Dursleys
Harry Wand Cedric
Harry Maze

Option 2:

Harry Rulebreaking Eyes
Fear Dursleys Wand
Cedric Maze

I think Option Two is preferable, but either option will work.  

Remember, each line entry will have the correct message number, 
right?  (Right?  Everyone's doing that, right?) 

So under Option Two, let's assume someone is writing up a bit on 
Harry's days as an orphan with the Dursleys.  Searching for Harry 
will pull up the message number, as will searching for Dursleys.  If 
the editor is doing Harry in the Third Task, a search for Maze will 
pull up the message number, even though Harry isn't a keyword for 
that line.  And if the editor is updating the Wand FAQ, searching 
for Wand will still pull up this message number.  

The only difficulty I see with Option 2 is that the person who just 
searches for Harry won't know that the post discusses Fear, 
Dursleys, Wand, Cedric and Maze unless they read it, perhaps.

I think my assumption is that the purpose of the key word is to give 
an editor a reasonable shot at *finding* the post.  The editor will 
still have to read the comments section to get a handle on what the 
post discusses, and the editor will have to read the subset of posts 
that appear relevant based on what is said in the comments section.  
I'm also thinking that the comments section should be pretty 
comprehensive, and I'd probably use the same comprehensive comments 
section for each line of a post with multiple subjects:  "Discusses 
Harry's wand, the Third Task, the Dursleys, his eyes, and his 
fears."  Note that Excel will copy that long description for you 
once you type the first few letters of "Discusses."

Does that work?  Am I way off?

Cindy -- knowing that the chances she got all that right hover 
around 0