New and Improved Guidelines for Cataloguing Posts

[lucky_kari]

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at y..., "ssk7882" <skelkins at a...> wrote:
> Yes.  That's been my philosophy as well.  The situation that I would 
> very much like for us to avoid is one in which the FAQ editors, 
> having noticed that some groups of messages seem to have been far 
> more idiosyncratically or extensively culled than others, get all 
> *paranoid* and decide that they must do a cull themselves to make 
> certain that the cataloguer did not leave out anything good, or 
> impose too much of her own personal taste on the work.  I don't want 
> the FAQ editors to worry that worthy posts might have been omitted on 
> the whim of the cataloguer.  I want the FAQ editors to feel that they 
> can trust the spreadsheet to include everything that they might want 
> to find.  So I've been trying to err on the side of caution as well.

Very well. Constant Vigilance! 

> I'm inclining towards the latter opinion myself (especially since 
> it's already a given that the FAQs can never be *perfectly* 
> current).  If others agree, then I will leave the 45000-46000 
> spreadsheet as it is, to be taken up and completed later on, and 
> instead get to work on an older block of messages.  (I'll even take
> a recentish batch, so that Eloise's TBAY misery can have some 
> company.)  But I thought that I'd best run that idea past you all 
> first, to see what you think of it.

I think it's a great idea, especially since you seem to have a handle
on how to catalogue TBAY posts, and your examples could be very
beneficial. 

Eileen