[HP4GU-FAQ] Catalogue questions and New FPs

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

In a message dated 17/01/2003 00:46:44 GMT Standard Time, 
porphyria at mindspring.com writes:


> > Well, there's a chance that we might make this
> > available to the 
> > public, so unfortunately, you'll probably have
> > to delete your snarky 
> > comments.  
> 
> I've duly trimmed my snarky remarks. I'm still not sure making this totally
> public would be a good plan (what about ANN and OMG?), but at least mine's 
> not
> patently offensive right now. 

I've put the odd comment, but nothing personal (IIRC).
Well, there's the odd exception. I seem to remember writing something like, 
'Elkins endeavours to explain what the heck she's on about' to describe the 
content of one post. ;-)

I haven't really used ANN. If it truly adds nothing new, then I usually don't 
bother with it.

As for competitions and stuff, I catalogued (briefly) loads of those 
prediction derby posts before Cindy said she probably wouldn't have bothered. 
I think we sort of came to an agreement that every thread (if worthwhile) 
should be represented, but not necessarily every post, unless it said 
something significant. So that amazing and invaluable 'green' thread *could* 
have been represented by just one post. If that's called up, then the rest of 
the thread should appear under the replies bit on Webview, shouldn't it?

I've got a lot more ruthless recently. I bear in mind Cindy's adage that we 
should judge whether that post could be useful to anyone writing a FAQ. So if 
it's completely outlandish, or stupid (as opposed to a startlingly new or 
subversive take), I just omit it. Although I still err on the side of 
caution.

And I've got into a habit of not cataloguing posts that simply ask a question 
(unless the question itself is so original or thought-provoking that it 
deserves a mention.
If the question is answered, it will refer back to the original post, so both 
the question and its attribution are represented that way

And occasionally I think it's just, well, an act of compassion to omit a 
thread.

Right, Cindy? ;-)

> ,<>
> Should we have one for the Dursleys as a group?

I've been keying 'Dursleys', also 'Potters', 'Weasleys', etc when they are 
referred to as a group. But we're not entering character names in the 
Database, unless there's good reason. As in 'Nick' (Nearly Headless).

Actually, I seem to remember that Debbie and I came across what we thought 
was an anomaly in the cataloguing of the Dursley, Weasley and Malfoy 
(individual) adults, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was, or 
what we decided to do.

Do you, Debbie? <waves at Debbie, to whom she's not spoken for ages>


> <>Also, why is there no star by the Snape FP? Are we not finished yet? I 
> mean, I
> know it's a labor of love, but let me rest!!!

I confess to relaxing slightly on Snape posts, knowing you've already dealt 
with them!

But anyway, come June 21st, you can start revising it!

> ~Eloise <ducking>



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