Loose Ends

[elfundeb2]

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:

> Here's an idea for what we might do about noting good posts we spot 
> on the main list.  Let's go ahead and try simply entering things 
into 
> the database on this list. If you see a post that should go in the 
> database but don't know/have time to deal with the keywords, leave 
> them blank, but fill in a description.  Those of us who do know the 
> keywords will try to fill them in when we have some time.

Yes, this is a good idea. Let's do it, though I don't think anyone 
should be concerned about putting incorrect keywords into the 
database because it takes about the same time to add one or to change 
one.  Most of them are really quite simple; for example, every 
character name is a keyword.  So if the post is about Harry, if you 
put Harry in, anyone who looked at the database would have some idea 
what it's about.  
> 
> We've never really talked about how fantastic a post has to be to 
be 
> fantastic.  We also haven't talked about what to do when a thread 
has 
> a *lot* of fantastic posts (like the bullying thread) -- should we 
> catalogue each one, or just the first one?
> 
> I'm not sure.  Thoughts?
> 
I will give the definitive answer here.  It depends.  Sometimes the 
entire thread is brilliant (Stoned Harry, for example).  Virtually 
every post in the thread built on the theory in some manner.  There, 
marking the first one  would be sufficient.  With other threads, like 
the bully thread (which went on for 300 posts), it would be more 
useful to pinpoint the landmark posts in the discussion, because a 
lot of the posts didn't add anything.  

The other thing is that when a thread is developing it's harder to 
figure out what will really stand out in the end.  

To answer Jo's question, what makes a post fantastic?  I think it's a 
lot like pornography -- I know it when I see it.  New theories, new 
ways of looking at things, something well-presented.  I think posts 
that summarize and cite to a lot of past thinking on a particular 
question (especially past thinking from periods that aren't included 
in the Enchilada) should be marked in the database even if they're 
not really brilliant posts because they will lead to other relevant 
posts.  I wouldn't include anything with really bad spelling or 
grammar.

But this is just my opinion.  Do others have any additional thoughts?

Debbie