Fwd: [HP4GU-FAQ] New and Improved Guidelines for Cataloguing Posts

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

I sent this earlier, but it got eaten by Yahoomort.

> I'm shuffling my deckchairs again, fearful of the ship sinking at any 
> moment.
> 
> >> 6.    For SHIP, TBAY and FF, please use the prefix and other 
>> keywords depending on canon point.  Please do not include separate 
>> keywords for acronyms; we have over 200 different acronyms in use on 
>> the list.  Instead, use appropriate keywords to describe the canon 
>> point of the post, using the comments field for the acronym.  
>> Remember, garden variety acronym posts are not TBAY and so do not 
>> require the prefix.
> 
> I take the general point and obviously in the case of things like LOLLIPOPS 
> and FLIRTIAC, they are quite superfluous in that they are *defined* by the 
> keywords, 
> 
> SHIP  Lily  Snape
> 
> or whatever.
> 
> But I'm stuck. How do I find a keyword for SYCOPHANTS (a discussion of the 
> diversity and characteristics thereof) without using the word, um, 
> sychophants? Which in the context, is always capitalised?
> 
> And what about posts inventing acronyms for non-canonical, TBAYish things?
> For instance, I have Tabouli's post where Hedwig, Errol and Pigwidgeon 
> sacrifice themselves to create the FEATHERBOAS which certain people round 
> here sport.
> Is this heroic and memorable act OT?
> 

> And is this what you want?
> 
> I'm changing, 
> 
> Black  Snape  CUPIDSBLUDGER
> (The post considers the relative merits of whether Snape or Sirius is the 
> one caught with the other one's girl)
> 
> for,
> 
> SHIP  Black  Florence
> SHIP  Snape Florence
> Black  Snape
> 
> Although Florence doesn't really figure much, except as a pile of ashes in 
> an urn next to Snape's bed. (Isn't it funny how it's always the same 
> people's posts that give you headaches?)
> 
> I'd been working along the priciple that some of these acronyms are not so 
> much acronyms as the names of full blown theories, discussed at length on 
> list, and quite likely to be searched for in themselves. 
> Isn't this what 'Fourth Man' is? Is George acceptable? GEORGE'S SISTER 
> DIANA,  presumably wouldn't be.
> 
> >> 
>> 7.    You might encounter SHIP posts and TBAY posts in which the 
>> prefix was used improperly, either because the poster neglected to 
>> use the appropriate prefix or because s/he used it when it was not 
>> necessary.  Go ahead and rectify these errors when you catalogue.  A 
>> post which makes reference to an established theory by means of 
>> shorthand (ie, Fourth Man, Big Bang, MAGIC DISHWASHER) and does not 
>> elucidate the meaning of that theory in the post should still carry 
>> a TBAY designation, even if the poster did not write in a "TBAY 
>> style."
> 
> 
> I am cataloguing part of the phase which led up to the creation of the TBAY 
> prefix. I should presumably go back and give the prefix retrospectively?
> Should the above example and the rest of that thread be TBAYed? I regard 
> CUPIDSBLUDGER as a TBAY theory and we do have some slight refs to ships and 
> tugboats, etc. here and there.
> 
> There is a practical problem cataloguing as something as both TBAY and SHIP 
> as really it needs a minimum of four key word on a line.
> 
> Or should I go for,
> 
> TBAY  SHIP  Black
> TBAY  SHIP  Snape
> TBAY  SHIP  Florence ?
> 
> Going back to the guidelines, I guess I'm not quite sure of the reason 
> *why* we're using the TBAY prefix as a keyword, at all.
> If it is so that someone can pull out all the TBAY threads, then surely 
> *all* the posts pertaining to such theories should be given TBAY as a 
> keyword, whether the meaning of the theory's name is elucidated or not. 
> Otherwise, incomplete threads will emerge from the search.
> 
> The reasons for using the prefix on the main board don't really pertain 
> here, do they?
> (Unfortunately! I love reading TBAY posts, but they are pigs to catalogue 
> and avoiding them would speed me up considerably!)
> 
> (Later)
> A constructive suggestion:
> Since, skimming through other people's catalogues, TBAY doesn't seem to 
> have figured much, if at all, as a keyword yet (unless Amy's done some), 
> how about, instead of actually putting it in as a *keyword*, we put it in 
> as the first word in the 'comments' column?
> That way, we don't clutter up the 'Topics' columns, but if anyone performed 
> an 'Accio TBAY!' on the Comments column, all the TBAYs should immediately 
> fly into their hands.... Shouldn't they? And whatever posts you summoned up 
> via any other column in a sort, the comments column would tell you 
> immediately if it was a TBAY, should you need warning, time to make a cup o
> f tea, break out the single malt, take a tranquilliser, or whatever.
> 
> On the subject of what *not* to include, I suspect that I may be leaving in 
> posts that could be omitted, but I've erred on the side of caution. I've 
> commented occasionally that the post adds little (I even employed Pip's 
> friend ANN, yesterday). I'd rather leave it to the discretion of the FAQ 
> editor to make the final decision. (It takes me longer to come to a 
> decision about whether it's worth keeping than it does to catalogue it.) 
> Occasionally when there's been a bit of a ding-dong disagreement over 
> something (Snape didn't take the Wolfsbane Potion to the Shack - Oh yes he 
> did - Oh no he didn't) I've felt it quite helpful to catalogue more or less 
> the whole thread to represent the feeling of the list, rather than of one 
> or two individuals.
> 
> Eloise
> Who doesn't try to be difficult, but just has a natural talent for it.
> 
And does appreciate the new all inclusive guidelines - really! :-)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]