From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sun Aug  1 12:26:07 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 12:26:07 -0000
Subject: UPDATE, Sunday 29th July
Message-ID: <ceingv+5qik@eGroups.com>

PROGRESS
We have now coded/allocated for coding 19315 posts. Of the 19315, 
17918 have actually been coded, and of the 17918, 12315 have been 
rejected - 68.7%. 

This week, with 5 people working on the project, we managed to code 
1212 posts.

REJECT CATEGORIES
Because the numbers of posts coded to the reject categories are now 
so large, I have had to ask Paul to do the category mergers discussed 
during last week, but sometime this week you should see a new, 
simplified line up of reject categories which will look like this:

0.1 ADMIN/list manag/spoiler issues
0.2 Movie-related 
0.3 OT/personal favs/quizzes etc 
0.4 Fan-fic-related            
0.5 FAQs/Adds nothing new
0.6 Mere agreement  
0.7 Mistakes/perpetrating mistakes           
0.8 Duplicated posts/trivial posting errors
0.9 Too illiterate, badly written      

Paul - I guess these mergers should take place after rather than 
before you merge Kelly's database with ours (?)

THEORY ACRONYMS, SHIPPING & TBAY

Up to now I have been saying none of the theory acronyms are in use 
yet. However, as I dealt with the long SHIPPING thread that I have 
mentioned in several posts this week, I realised that two of the 
theory acronyms were now being used within the Relationshipping 
section 2.14, so can you watch out for these and code accordingly.

2.14.2 FITD (Farmer In The Dell)
2.14.4 OBHWF (One Big Happy Weasley Family)

Also, in response to this labyrinthine thread, there have needless to 
say, been 'aargh, no shipping' objections. To accommodate these, I 
have sorted out the acronyms in section 2.14 into for/against 
shipping - see details below under category changes.

Finally, many of these early SHIP theories increasingly use TBAY 
style. Please tick TBAY in section 5 when you come across them.

CATEGORY CHANGES

New categories:
2.14.9 (1073) Anti-SHIPPING
2.14.9.1 (1074) ASSET
2.14.9.2 (1075) LANDLUBBERS
2.14.9.3 (1076) RAPIST
2.14.9.4 (1077) RASPBERRY
3.15.8 (1072) Azkaban
3.17.2 (1070) Triwizard Tournament
4.4.5 (1071) British School Traditions

Deleted categories (because of above re-organisation):
2.14.1 (872) ASSET
2.14.3 (874) LANDLUBBERS
2.14.5 (876) RAPIST
2.14.6 (877) LANDLUBBERS



 

 







From annemehr at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  1 14:39:21 2004
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:39:21 -0000
Subject: UPDATE, Sunday 29th July
In-Reply-To: <ceingv+5qik@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ceivap+7h55@eGroups.com>

While you were composing this update, I managed to code up a decent
chunk of posts. I am going to try much harder to make time for this,
because the current posting surge at HPfGU has made me realise we'd
better get cracking or we'll be left in the dust! Anyway...

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003"
<carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
[...] 
> CATEGORY CHANGES
> 
> New categories:
> 2.14.9 (1073) Anti-SHIPPING
> 2.14.9.1 (1074) ASSET
> 2.14.9.2 (1075) LANDLUBBERS
> 2.14.9.3 (1076) RAPIST
> 2.14.9.4 (1077) RASPBERRY
> 3.15.8 (1072) Azkaban
> 3.17.2 (1070) Triwizard Tournament
> 4.4.5 (1071) British School Traditions

I hate to be a pain, but do we need a category for the Hogwarts
Express? I just coded up a post about the length of time it takes to
get from London to Hogsmeade. I put it under Geography, where it seems
to fit fine, but it made me think of the other HE posts that will come
up -- ones about being allowed to do magic, or whether there ought
to/would be disciplinary consequences to causing tentacles to sprout
all over another student's face. These would fit under Law and Order,
3.3.5 and 3.3.6, or even under "Prefects" -- I just wondered if we
wanted to collect them all together also. If we did add this category,
I'd put it under "Hogwarts" rather than "Magical Transportation,"
because the subject is much wider than merely getting from one place
to another.

On a related note, while Hogwarts has categories for Teachers and
Prefects, there isn't one for "Discipline" or "School Rules" -- an
umbrella category that seems like it would come in handy, especially
as Filch comes into this a lot, too.

Anne






From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sun Aug  1 16:43:06 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 16:43:06 -0000
Subject: UPDATE, Sunday 29th July
In-Reply-To: <ceivap+7h55@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cej6iq+biva@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" <annemehr at y...> 
wrote:
> While you were composing this update, I managed to code up a decent
> chunk of posts. I am going to try much harder to make time for this,
> because the current posting surge at HPfGU has made me realise we'd
> better get cracking or we'll be left in the dust! Anyway...


What a star - thanks. I tell myself that we'll be rejecting all those 
posts as 'nothing new' when we eventually get there.



> 
> I hate to be a pain, but do we need a category for the Hogwarts
> Express? I just coded up a post about the length of time it takes to
> get from London to Hogsmeade. I put it under Geography, where it 
seems
> to fit fine, but it made me think of the other HE posts that will 
come
> up -- ones about being allowed to do magic, or whether there ought
> to/would be disciplinary consequences to causing tentacles to sprout
> all over another student's face. These would fit under Law and 
Order,
> 3.3.5 and 3.3.6, or even under "Prefects" -- I just wondered if we
> wanted to collect them all together also. If we did add this 
category,
> I'd put it under "Hogwarts" rather than "Magical Transportation,"
> because the subject is much wider than merely getting from one place
> to another.

The existing one is no good to you then (?):
3.10.7	????Hogwarts Express & Platform 9 3/4  
It is under travel at the moment. I think if the post was about the 
way they should be punished for the things they get up to on the 
train, I'd see that as an extension of the school discipline system.
	
> 
> On a related note, while Hogwarts has categories for Teachers and
> Prefects, there isn't one for "Discipline" or "School Rules" -- an
> umbrella category that seems like it would come in handy, especially
> as Filch comes into this a lot, too.
> 
> Anne

I agree that the only school discipline code we have at the moment is:
3.16.4.8??????House championship, points system & house cup 

We could add:

3.16.4.9 ...School discipline system, general

Wd that be ok?
Carolyn






From annemehr at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  1 17:51:05 2004
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:51:05 -0000
Subject: UPDATE, Sunday 29th July
In-Reply-To: <cej6iq+biva@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cejai9+j0mc@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003"
<carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:

> The existing one is no good to you then (?):
> 3.10.7	????Hogwarts Express & Platform 9 3/4  
> It is under travel at the moment. I think if the post was about the 
> way they should be punished for the things they get up to on the 
> train, I'd see that as an extension of the school discipline system.

O.o

Well, I blew right by that one...

And thank you.

Anne, feeling sheepish




From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Sun Aug  1 22:17:27 2004
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:17:27 -0000
Subject: Content of final catalogue
In-Reply-To: <cedk53+nssb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cejq5n+v21m@eGroups.com>

I haven't been around much recently, as you've probably gathered.

I'm confused by this, now.

> Carolyn:

> As mentioned before, I think we do need to have them sorted to 
some 
> extent, for two reasons:

> - some reject categories may interest people for further searching 
> and review - movies, fanfic and perhaps OT are the most obvious
> - some reject categories - FAQ/adds nothing new will be used for 
> other purposes subsequently

This implies that people *will* be able to access the 'rejected' 
posts in the database.

> Carolyn:
> 
> Well, if the final decision is to put categories such 
> as 'Movie', 'OT', 'Fanfic' up as part of the catalogue, I imagine 
it 
> would be possible to have a universal search routine which enabled 
> you to sort them by author perhaps - this would be a useful search 
> option across the whole catalogue, I agree. However, if you wanted 
> any further refinement than this, eg any kind of subject 
> categorisation within a category like 'Movie', there would be no 
> alternative but to go in there and code up the movie posts. We've 
> made a decision not to do this right now, but someone who is 
> interested could maybe do this at some later date if they wanted 
to.

I don't see the need for additional coding.  People would just have 
to understand that if, say, they wanted to read movie-related posts 
about Ron, the 'Ron' categories would be of no help.  But they could 
(I believe) still search on the text string 'Ron' if we gave them 
text-searching facilities.  All I'm suggesting is making best use of 
the work that is being done.

> David, previously:
> I confess part of my thinking here is that, given we have a 
database 
> of the entire list here, why not use it? It would be great to be 
able 
> to call up all posts that, say, include the text
> string 'Hermione' and are categorised as 'Snape'. This would give a
> different (but overlapping) set to those categorised as 'Hermione'
> and including the string 'Snape'. What about all posts
> categorised 'Snape' but *not* including the text string 'vampire'?
> Or all such posts whose author was Pippin, posted between GOF
> release and OOP release. Really, I think you are sitting on
> something of a goldmine here, and to focus only on the categories 
is 
> to miss out.
> 
> Carolyn:
> This is exactly what I am proposing - see the MEG document. The 
only 
> difference is that, right now, I am not proposing to include any 
of 
> the posts we are currently deciding are rejects for whatever 
reason.

This is the crux - will those posts be accessible or not?  As I 
understand it, we have three options:

- delete them from the database;
- keep them for specialists to use, but deny the general HPFGU 
member access;
- keep them, and let people access them on the same basis as the 
other posts.

None of these options involves significant effort to implement, so 
far as I can see - what may be more work is providing the sort of 
facilities to do Boolean searches on things like author etc, in a 
form that is not too forbidding to the average list member, but as I 
understand you above we are intending to try this anyway.

> Carolyn:
> Certainly this catalogue would defeat any such plan from Yahoo - 
it 
> will provide a much better search mechanism than anything they are 
> prepared to provide.
> 
> However, you have not persuaded me of the value of including every 
> post in the catalogue at this stage.

Nor was I trying to (depending on what exactly this means).

> My pragmatic perspective is that even with 13 people having access 
to 
> the database at present, progress is still extremely slow. If we 
> start trying to code up the 70% of posts that are currently being 
> rejected, we will frankly never finish the project. Any 
refinements 
> are possible down the line, but right now I'd like to try and 
reach 
> Base Camp 1, which I have suggested is getting up to post 50 000, 
and 
> getting some kind of prototype search routine working on that body 
of 
> posts.

I repeat, I'm *not* suggesting additional coding in any form.  but 
we are, in fact, coding all posts.

As I understand it, whether the reject posts are 'included' 
or 'excluded' from the catalogue is a cosmetic matter of semantics.  
De facto, they are in the database.  Yes, they get only very basic 
categorisation, but that's still a whole lot better than the 
situation out there on the list itself.

David




From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Sun Aug  1 22:41:12 2004
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:41:12 -0000
Subject: The perils of plain text
In-Reply-To: <cej6iq+biva@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cejri8+dqvl@eGroups.com>

Anne: 
> > I hate to be a pain, but do we need a category for the Hogwarts
> > Express? 

Carolyn:

> The existing one is no good to you then (?):
> 3.10.7	????Hogwarts Express & Platform 9 3/4  

Anne:

> O.o

> Well, I blew right by that one...

And I thought Anne meant 'I hate to be a pain, but why are we 
bothering with this special category for the Hogwarts Express, when 
I can code everything to Geography etc?'

Just goes to show...

David




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Mon Aug  2 09:10:56 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 09:10:56 -0000
Subject: Content of final catalogue
In-Reply-To: <cejq5n+v21m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cel0f0+9jqp@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" 
<dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:

I'm confused by this, now.

(....)

This is the crux - will those posts be accessible or not? As I
understand it, we have three options:

- delete them from the database;
- keep them for specialists to use, but deny the general HPFGU
member access;
- keep them, and let people access them on the same basis as the
other posts.

None of these options involves significant effort to implement, so
far as I can see - what may be more work is providing the sort of
facilities to do Boolean searches on things like author etc, in a
form that is not too forbidding to the average list member, but as I 
understand you above we are intending to try this anyway.

(....)

I repeat, I'm *not* suggesting additional coding in any form. but
we are, in fact, coding all posts.

As I understand it, whether the reject posts are 'included'
or 'excluded' from the catalogue is a cosmetic matter of semantics.
De facto, they are in the database. Yes, they get only very basic
categorisation, but that's still a whole lot better than the
situation out there on the list itself.

David


Carolyn:
Nothing is yet decided about the final presentation of the catalogue. 
However, looking at the reject categories, some are obviously more 
suitable for offering to the members than others.

Using the new headings which we have recently decided on, I would 
suggest that:

0.2 Movie-related 
0.3 OT/personal favs/quizzes etc 
0.4 Fan-fic-related  

might eventually form part of the catalogue if people were prepared 
to accept that they were not sub-coded in any way beyond their 
general heading.

The following reject categories are never likely to be included, 
unless you can think of a tactful heading that doesn't draw attention 
to the reasons why they were rejected in the first place.

0.6 Mere agreement  
0.7 Mistakes/perpetrating mistakes           
0.8 Duplicated posts/trivial posting errors
0.9 Too illiterate, badly written  


For the remaining two categories:

0.1 ADMIN/list manag/spoiler issues
0.5 FAQs/Adds nothing new

I feel it would extremely confusing to include old Admin messages, as 
they may not be consistent with the current Humungous Bigfile and 
other recent Admin pronouncements. I would keep them for specialist 
reference by the Admin team, or perhaps present them as a resource to 
the Feedback list.

The content of the final group of posts in 0.5 is banal in the 
extreme (by definition) and, IMO, not useful to anyone, which is why 
they have been rejected in the first place. However, I am hoping that 
a trawl of this section will provide a renewed impetus to the FAQ 
team as to the *subjects* they should be covering, and eventually 
generate a series of revamped essays for that section on HPfGU. To 
write those essays they won't be using the content of the posts in 
0.5, but will obviously trawl our other categories extensively for 
ideas.

Beyond these thoughts, and those outlined in the MEG paper, I don't 
have a final view on what form the actual search functions might 
take. When it comes to it, quick and dirty solutions always appeal to 
me more than over-refined ideas that take too long to implement. The 
membership are so desperate for this catalogue that I am sure they 
would put up with something a bit clunky if it worked on the core 
problem - which is finding posts relevant to book canon. 

Anything else is icing on the cake, IMO, so right now, I am rather 
focused on getting the initial classification completed. If possible, 
I will try and do that in a way that doesn't preclude further 
classification work on the "excluded" posts later.


Clearer ? 

Carolyn






From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Tue Aug  3 15:03:44 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 16:03:44 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re:
In-Reply-To: <cel0f0+9jqp@eGroups.com>
References: <cel0f0+9jqp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <50A09C89-E55E-11D8-BCB8-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>


Just come across my first post that mentions transfer of powers between 
Voldy and Harry (10351) - There's a coincidence!

Anyway - how have others dealt with this?
Is it just "Harry" and "Magical powers" or do I delve into  "Plot 
development" and "Foreshadowing"?

Barry




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Tue Aug  3 16:20:17 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 16:20:17 -0000
Subject: No subject
In-Reply-To: <50A09C89-E55E-11D8-BCB8-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <ceoe01+kib5@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> 
> Just come across my first post that mentions transfer of powers 
between 
> Voldy and Harry (10351) - There's a coincidence!
> 
> Anyway - how have others dealt with this?
> Is it just "Harry" and "Magical powers" or do I delve into  "Plot 
> development" and "Foreshadowing"?
> 
> Barry


Ah.. forgot to mention this, I've been dealing with it too, much 
further on. I have been using Harry+Voldy(agenda & character codes)
fairly consistently plus others, depending on which way the posts 
twist. It turns into Uber-Harry, possessor or not of superpowers 
(generally disliked in favour of triumph of ornnery child over 
evil..), which got 'Good vs Evil' coding etc 

Puts a new twist on that common remark 'needs his head examined', 
don't it?

Carolyn

PS You will be pleased to know that serious doubts are starting to 
creep in about DD as well (at last)- post 11615 and following. Good 
stuff.




From kkearney at students.miami.edu  Wed Aug  4 02:33:38 2004
From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum)
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 02:33:38 -0000
Subject: TBAY that adds nothing new?
Message-ID: <cephu2+33ld@eGroups.com>

How are we dealing with TBAYish posts that don't add any new
information?  For example, posts greeting new members of a ship, which
don't add to Harry Potter canon discussion but do develop the ship
environment.

Personally, I'd prefer to keep it in the database, since these posts
definitely add to a newcomer's understanding of TBAY.  But I wanted to
check with everyone first.

Also, a comment I meant to make a while ago.  Why should we code a
post as 5.4 TBAY only if it doesn't have the proper subject indicator?
 I think it would be infinitely more helpful if _all_ TBAY posts, both
labeled and not, were collected in one category.  Otherwise, it seems
a user would have to browse this category, and then do a keyword
search on subject lines, in order to find all posts of interest.

-Kelly      




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Wed Aug  4 08:16:22 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 08:16:22 -0000
Subject: TBAY that adds nothing new?
In-Reply-To: <cephu2+33ld@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ceq60m+r570@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "corinthum" <kkearney at s...> 
wrote:
> How are we dealing with TBAYish posts that don't add any new
> information?  For example, posts greeting new members of a ship, 
which
> don't add to Harry Potter canon discussion but do develop the ship
> environment.
> 
> Personally, I'd prefer to keep it in the database, since these posts
> definitely add to a newcomer's understanding of TBAY.  But I wanted 
to
> check with everyone first.


Carolyn:
I've been making much the same decision. Posts I might otherwise have 
rejected as OT have sometimes been allowed in as part of that shippy 
TBay environment if I thought they added something about the various 
group identities. However, not all of them. One part of the thread 
diverged off into an argument about the alleged environment at (I 
think) Sugar Quill. I thought this went too far, even though much the 
same personalities and shipping topics were involved.

Also, I'm afraid I have given up coding to the characters on SHIP 
posts, and just tick a trio ship/gay ship or whatever heading. OK, 
shoot me down, I'll go back and add the codes if everyone thinks this 
is a crime.



> 
> Also, a comment I meant to make a while ago.  Why should we code a
> post as 5.4 TBAY only if it doesn't have the proper subject 
indicator?
>  I think it would be infinitely more helpful if _all_ TBAY posts, 
both
> labeled and not, were collected in one category.  Otherwise, it 
seems
> a user would have to browse this category, and then do a keyword
> search on subject lines, in order to find all posts of interest.
> 
> -Kelly

Carolyn:
I don't have a problem doing this, lets change the rule and tick TBAY 
for all TBAY for all of them. As I recall, the reason might have been 
that in the final search routine, Paul could have programmed it to 
pick up TBAY in the headers as well as our Admin codes, but this way 
is surer, and we won't miss any of them.




From annemehr at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  4 15:35:17 2004
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 15:35:17 -0000
Subject: Multiple Post/TBAY
Message-ID: <ceqvnl+u5om@eGroups.com>

I'm now seeing Catlady has begun her omnibus posting style, which
brings up a question: suppose all but one of her responses in a post
are rejectable. If we are only coding up one section, are we still
ticking "Multiple Post?"

Re TBAY: I've been coding quite a few SHIP/SLASH discussions, but none
have been in TBAY style, except for maybe a one-line reference at the
end (e.g. "hanging out in SLASH lagoon" as a tag line). We're not
coding such passing references to the 'BAY under TBAY, are we?

The group is really evolving -- a lot more posts need a lot of thought
to code up properly...

Anne




From kkearney at students.miami.edu  Wed Aug  4 18:16:31 2004
From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum)
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 18:16:31 -0000
Subject: TBAY that adds nothing new?
In-Reply-To: <ceq60m+r570@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cer95v+b4ca@eGroups.com>

Carolyn wrote:

> Also, I'm afraid I have given up coding to the characters on SHIP 
> posts, and just tick a trio ship/gay ship or whatever heading. OK, 
> shoot me down, I'll go back and add the codes if everyone thinks 
this 
> is a crime.

Well, I sometimes just hit trio ships if it's a discussion of just 
HRH (H/R vs H/H vs neither discussions), but if it involves someone 
outside the trio (Harry/Cho, for example), I also code characters.  
With non-trio ships and gay ships I always include characters, since 
there are so many different combos discussed.

-Kelly




From kkearney at students.miami.edu  Thu Aug  5 00:42:05 2004
From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum)
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 00:42:05 -0000
Subject: Multiple Post/TBAY
In-Reply-To: <ceqvnl+u5om@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cervot+73ja@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" <annemehr at y...> wrote:
> I'm now seeing Catlady has begun her omnibus posting style, which
> brings up a question: suppose all but one of her responses in a post
> are rejectable. If we are only coding up one section, are we still
> ticking "Multiple Post?"
> 
> Re TBAY: I've been coding quite a few SHIP/SLASH discussions, but none
> have been in TBAY style, except for maybe a one-line reference at the
> end (e.g. "hanging out in SLASH lagoon" as a tag line). We're not
> coding such passing references to the 'BAY under TBAY, are we?
> 
> The group is really evolving -- a lot more posts need a lot of thought
> to code up properly...

I've hit a similar situation, where a poster starts with a paragraph
or two of TBAY-style writing to comment on the shipping debate, then
drops it to discuss other topics (most recent example in my set, post
11017).  I coded it as TBAY, even though most of it wasn't. 
Objections, ideas?

-Kelly 




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Thu Aug  5 08:19:54 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 08:19:54 -0000
Subject: Multiple Post/TBAY
In-Reply-To: <cervot+73ja@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cesqja+rcil@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "corinthum" <kkearney at s...> 
wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" <annemehr at y...> 
wrote:
> > I'm now seeing Catlady has begun her omnibus posting style, which
> > brings up a question: suppose all but one of her responses in a 
post
> > are rejectable. If we are only coding up one section, are we still
> > ticking "Multiple Post?"
> > 
> > Re TBAY: I've been coding quite a few SHIP/SLASH discussions, but 
none
> > have been in TBAY style, except for maybe a one-line reference at 
the
> > end (e.g. "hanging out in SLASH lagoon" as a tag line). We're not
> > coding such passing references to the 'BAY under TBAY, are we?
> > 

> 
> I've hit a similar situation, where a poster starts with a paragraph
> or two of TBAY-style writing to comment on the shipping debate, then
> drops it to discuss other topics (most recent example in my set, 
post
> 11017).  I coded it as TBAY, even though most of it wasn't. 
> Objections, ideas?
> 
> -Kelly


On TBAY - yes, code for it, even if only a section of the post is in 
this style, some people hate it so much. However, if only passing 
references are in this style, I dunno, I'd probably let them go if 
they really are one-liners..

On Multiple posts - yes, tick this even if only one of the bits is 
relevant to the catalogue and the rest is reject

When we hear back about the legal aspects of the catalogue it will be 
clearer what we can do about multiple posts in terms of technical 
display. One idea I had for multiple posts was background 
highlighting the relevant bit to a thread you were reading.

Carolyn



Carolyn






From kelleythompson at gbronline.com  Thu Aug  5 18:38:35 2004
From: kelleythompson at gbronline.com (Kelley)
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 18:38:35 -0000
Subject: Heidi's comments
Message-ID: <ceturb+c5ej@eGroups.com>

>From Heidi; her comments are in quotes, my own to you all are in 
brackets:

Heidi:
"Yahoo's t&c is irrelevant for the content of the posts; we cannot
replicate the interface of yahoomort, though.

Club posts - there was no implied or express permission, so those 
can't be used without permission *unless* the club member was a 
yahoogroup member on or after September 30, 2000 (maybe the 15th - 
not sure when the faq project was announced but I know it was within 
that month). Post Sept 30 (or 15) all posts are usable, except for 
that little bit from may-or-june of 2003 until the tou was remedied. 
Posts made then can be used if the listie was still on the list in 
jan 2004, when the revised terms were put into place."

[Kelley: I believe I've found the message she means, #1025 on main by 
Penny on Sept 5, 2000. There was plenty of discussion about it before 
this, mainly in the archives from the old club, which y'all have no 
doubt seen, so I'm assuming she's going by this September message as 
it's the first to "officially" announce the FAQs (FPs).

Re "*unless* the club member was a yahoogroup member on or after 
September 30, (5th) 2000," for our purposes, if a post we want to use 
for the Catalogue was posted by someone who left the club/group prior 
to this date, we'd have to try to obtain their permission.  Any posts 
made before Sept 5th are fair game if the member was still a list 
member as of Sept 5th.

And, re "that little bit from may-or-june of 2003 until the tou was
remedied," for our purposes, if the person joined during that time, 
posted and left before the tou (HBF) was remedied, *and* we want to 
use their post in the Catalogue, permission must be obtained or the 
post must be left out. If the person stayed on the list after the HBF 
was edited, the posts are okay.

I can go through the membership records to determine people's join 
and leave dates; what's the easiest way for me to find which of the 
first 8800 or so messages are being used for the catalogue?  Just 
start at message #1 in the catalogue and go forward?  Is there a way 
to just get a list of the email addresses / Yah ids of the people 
whose posts will be used from those first 8800?  Certainly many of 
the posts used from that time will be from lots of the same people.

I can also find the dates re "May or June of '03 to whenever the TOU 
was remedied," and determine which posters are applicable here, too.  
I'm also intending to try to obtain permission from any of the 
posters in question, as well, though I'm guessing it may be more 
sensible to wait and see which posts are going to be used from that 
period.]

Heidi:
"Legally, it will make no difference if the catalogue is inacessable 
or accessable, but I suggest it not be google-able or otherwise robot-
able. 'Socially', though people might be pissed if their real name 
was on the post, and that was publicly accessable + googleable. If 
the names of the posters aren't anywhere but within the yahoogroup, 
it's no problem at all."

[Kelley: So, long as it's not publicly accessible, shouldn't be any 
problem. Re "real name" being on the post somewhere, I'm thinking 
that since it was apparently okay with folks to have this info go to 
the list in the first place, and again, as long as the Catalogue 
isn't 'public', we shouldn't have too many problems here, either.]

Heidi:
"If a post has been deleted, or if a member whose post was posted 
during the 'no permission' times in 99-2000 and 2003, the post 
content cannot be used anonymously, but the facts contained in it 
(ie "This post is about Snape and his loff for Lily") can be. But the 
post itself can't be in any database.

Same with the content quoted in another's post; it has to be removed 
or summarized without using the original words. Per copyright, the 
subject line, post number and author names do not have to be used, 
but equal numbers might get upset if their names are used, or aren't. 
There is nothing preventing highlighting relevant parts of posts."
<end relevant comments from Heidi>

[Kelley: Okay; this answers my question (kills my idea <g>) of using 
Paul's archives for cataloguing, re deleted posts -- deleted posts 
will just be left out.  As far as summarizing / paraphrasing, this is 
more applicable to the FPs.  Perhaps if a post we want to use for the 
catalogue is quoting material from a deleted post, paraphrasing could 
be done then.  An option, at least.]


Just some posts I noted while searching:
#69 on main -- Penny:
"4. You may notice that I've added some legal mumbo-jumbo to the
group description since yesterday. Heidi & I (both lawyers) had been
discussing the need to have this language so that we can create the
FAQs. We also thought we needed it over on Yahoo and were about to
discuss the issue when we made the call to move over here. We needed
it even more at Yahoo because we needed to be able to legally move
the messages over from Yahoo to a separate site. Hopefully, noone will
have any real concerns with this, but if you do, Heidi stands at the
ready to answer your questions."

(Kelley: When she says "over on Yahoo", she's referring to the Club; 
at this point we'd migrated to egroups, and they'd not been taken 
over by Yahoo yet.)

Archive:
"Topics/FAQs"
Aug 1, 2000, #5551
July 31, 2000, #5487 + replies

--Kelley





From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Fri Aug  6 05:04:40 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes)
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 00:04:40 -0500
Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Heidi's comments
In-Reply-To: <ceturb+c5ej@eGroups.com>
References: <ceturb+c5ej@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <c89e39d50408052204149fe6d8@mail.gmail.com>

Can you elaborate on "I can go through the membership records to
determine people's join and leave dates?"  The join & leave dates for
the Yahoo HPFGU Group are not relevant, right?  And the join & leave
dates for the Yahoo Club have long been lost.

Just to clarify one of your comments: We do not have a list
associating Yahoo club IDs to email addresses.  The email addresses
used on all Club messages were faked.  However, there may be a remote
chance that an included post has a current Yahoo ID profile containing
an email address.

To me, this helps to justify the capability of being able to split and
edit posts.


----- Original Message -----
From: Kelley <kelleythompson at gbronline.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 18:38:35 -0000
Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Heidi's comments
To: hpfgu-catalogue at yahoogroups.com

>From Heidi; her comments are in quotes, my own to you all are in 
brackets:

Heidi:
"Yahoo's t&c is irrelevant for the content of the posts; we cannot
replicate the interface of yahoomort, though.

Club posts - there was no implied or express permission, so those 
can't be used without permission *unless* the club member was a 
yahoogroup member on or after September 30, 2000 (maybe the 15th - 
not sure when the faq project was announced but I know it was within 
that month). Post Sept 30 (or 15) all posts are usable, except for 
that little bit from may-or-june of 2003 until the tou was remedied. 
Posts made then can be used if the listie was still on the list in 
jan 2004, when the revised terms were put into place."

[Kelley: I believe I've found the message she means, #1025 on main by 
Penny on Sept 5, 2000. There was plenty of discussion about it before 
this, mainly in the archives from the old club, which y'all have no 
doubt seen, so I'm assuming she's going by this September message as 
it's the first to "officially" announce the FAQs (FPs).

Re "*unless* the club member was a yahoogroup member on or after 
September 30, (5th) 2000," for our purposes, if a post we want to use 
for the Catalogue was posted by someone who left the club/group prior 
to this date, we'd have to try to obtain their permission.  Any posts 
made before Sept 5th are fair game if the member was still a list 
member as of Sept 5th.

And, re "that little bit from may-or-june of 2003 until the tou was
remedied," for our purposes, if the person joined during that time, 
posted and left before the tou (HBF) was remedied, *and* we want to 
use their post in the Catalogue, permission must be obtained or the 
post must be left out. If the person stayed on the list after the HBF 
was edited, the posts are okay.

I can go through the membership records to determine people's join 
and leave dates; what's the easiest way for me to find which of the 
first 8800 or so messages are being used for the catalogue?  Just 
start at message #1 in the catalogue and go forward?  Is there a way 
to just get a list of the email addresses / Yah ids of the people 
whose posts will be used from those first 8800?  Certainly many of 
the posts used from that time will be from lots of the same people.

I can also find the dates re "May or June of '03 to whenever the TOU 
was remedied," and determine which posters are applicable here, too.  
I'm also intending to try to obtain permission from any of the 
posters in question, as well, though I'm guessing it may be more 
sensible to wait and see which posts are going to be used from that 
period.]

Heidi:
"Legally, it will make no difference if the catalogue is inacessable 
or accessable, but I suggest it not be google-able or otherwise robot-
able. 'Socially', though people might be pissed if their real name 
was on the post, and that was publicly accessable + googleable. If 
the names of the posters aren't anywhere but within the yahoogroup, 
it's no problem at all."

[Kelley: So, long as it's not publicly accessible, shouldn't be any 
problem. Re "real name" being on the post somewhere, I'm thinking 
that since it was apparently okay with folks to have this info go to 
the list in the first place, and again, as long as the Catalogue 
isn't 'public', we shouldn't have too many problems here, either.]

Heidi:
"If a post has been deleted, or if a member whose post was posted 
during the 'no permission' times in 99-2000 and 2003, the post 
content cannot be used anonymously, but the facts contained in it 
(ie "This post is about Snape and his loff for Lily") can be. But the 
post itself can't be in any database.

Same with the content quoted in another's post; it has to be removed 
or summarized without using the original words. Per copyright, the 
subject line, post number and author names do not have to be used, 
but equal numbers might get upset if their names are used, or aren't. 
There is nothing preventing highlighting relevant parts of posts."
<end relevant comments from Heidi>

[Kelley: Okay; this answers my question (kills my idea <g>) of using 
Paul's archives for cataloguing, re deleted posts -- deleted posts 
will just be left out.  As far as summarizing / paraphrasing, this is 
more applicable to the FPs.  Perhaps if a post we want to use for the 
catalogue is quoting material from a deleted post, paraphrasing could 
be done then.  An option, at least.]


Just some posts I noted while searching:
#69 on main -- Penny:
"4. You may notice that I've added some legal mumbo-jumbo to the
group description since yesterday. Heidi & I (both lawyers) had been
discussing the need to have this language so that we can create the
FAQs. We also thought we needed it over on Yahoo and were about to
discuss the issue when we made the call to move over here. We needed
it even more at Yahoo because we needed to be able to legally move
the messages over from Yahoo to a separate site. Hopefully, noone will
have any real concerns with this, but if you do, Heidi stands at the
ready to answer your questions."

(Kelley: When she says "over on Yahoo", she's referring to the Club; 
at this point we'd migrated to egroups, and they'd not been taken 
over by Yahoo yet.)

Archive:
"Topics/FAQs"
Aug 1, 2000, #5551
July 31, 2000, #5487 + replies

--Kelley




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT


________________________________
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/
  
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HPFGU-Catalogue-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
  
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sat Aug  7 18:20:11 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 18:20:11 -0000
Subject: Heidi's comments
In-Reply-To: <ceturb+c5ej@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cf36gr+p6lh@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Kelley" 
<kelleythompson at g...> wrote:
> From Heidi; her comments are in quotes, my own to you all are in 
> brackets:
> 
> Heidi:
> "Yahoo's t&c is irrelevant for the content of the posts; we cannot
> replicate the interface of yahoomort, though.
> 
> Club posts - there was no implied or express permission, so those 
> can't be used without permission *unless* the club member was a 
> yahoogroup member on or after September 30, 2000 (maybe the 15th - 
> not sure when the faq project was announced but I know it was 
within 
> that month). Post Sept 30 (or 15) all posts are usable, except for 
> that little bit from may-or-june of 2003 until the tou was 
remedied. 
> Posts made then can be used if the listie was still on the list in 
> jan 2004, when the revised terms were put into place."

Carolyn:

GROUP 1 POSTS TO CHECK (early Club)
The FAQ project was first announced to the members in Club post 5657 
(Aug 3rd 2000), and again on Aug 10th 2000 (6540).
Post 69 (Aug 25th 2000) in the main group (you found this one too 
Kelley), seems to me a very clear statement (including legal stuff) 
that Club archives were to be indexed in some way.
Message 1025 (Sep 5th 2000) does mention it all again, but not so 
clearly

GROUP 2 POSTS TO CHECK (Gap in TOU)
Posts 1st May 03- 1st Jan 04 run through from 56539-87884.


> Kelley:
> I can go through the membership records to determine people's join 
> and leave dates; what's the easiest way for me to find which of the 
> first 8800 or so messages are being used for the catalogue? 

Carolyn:
Paul is there some way you provide an auto summary of the Club posts 
1-7815, plus posts on the main group 1-1025, showing if they have 
been rejected or not? There is such a high reject rate on the early 
posts, that I am hoping we will have to check the authorship 
of 'only' about 2600 - I guess we could quickly re-order them by 
author, to spot the frequent posters/well-known names that, for sure, 
were members of the subsequent group after Sept 5th, leaving only 
relatively few to check more carefully.

Note - see my recent reply to David on how posts might be used in the 
final catalogue. There is some discussion about giving members access 
to the movie, OT and fan-fic sections of the reject list. If we did, 
we would have to do more checking, according to these guidelines that 
Heidi has given us. 


PUBLIC/PRIVATE ACCESS
> Heidi:
> "Legally, it will make no difference if the catalogue is 
inacessable 
> or accessable, but I suggest it not be google-able or otherwise 
robot-
> able. 'Socially', though people might be pissed if their real name 
> was on the post, and that was publicly accessable + googleable. If 
> the names of the posters aren't anywhere but within the yahoogroup, 
> it's no problem at all."
> 
> [Kelley: So, long as it's not publicly accessible, shouldn't be any 
> problem. Re "real name" being on the post somewhere, I'm thinking 
> that since it was apparently okay with folks to have this info go 
to 
> the list in the first place, and again, as long as the Catalogue 
> isn't 'public', we shouldn't have too many problems here, either.]
> 

Carolyn:
There was never any intent to make the catalogue public on the net, 
so this seems not a problem to comply with.



> Heidi:
> "If a post has been deleted, or if a member whose post was posted 
> during the 'no permission' times in 99-2000 and 2003, the post 
> content cannot be used anonymously, but the facts contained in it 
> (ie "This post is about Snape and his loff for Lily") can be. But 
the 
> post itself can't be in any database.
> 
> Same with the content quoted in another's post; it has to be 
removed 
> or summarized without using the original words. Per copyright, the 
> subject line, post number and author names do not have to be used, 
> but equal numbers might get upset if their names are used, or 
aren't. 

Carolyn:
Paul, would you be able to identify which posts have been deleted, so 
we can watch out for their content appearing in other posts, in 
addition to the other two groups of posts we have to look for?

I think that what we have to end up with is a long list 
of 'forbidden' posts, which have to be avoided because:

(a) they have already been selected for inclusion, BUT they do not 
seem to be part of the new Egroups after Sep 5th 2000, and can no 
longer be contacted for permission to use
(b) they joined AND left between 1st May 2003-1st Jan 2004
(c) the post has been deleted
(d) posts which quote deleted posts (we will have to go back to the 
Yahoo group to track threads for this I think??)

Is this a fair summary of what will be the 'problem' posts to watch 
out for?


Heidi:
> There is nothing preventing highlighting relevant parts of posts."

Carolyn:
This is good to know. It means we can devise some system for dealing 
with all of CatLady's portmanteau postings. 


All in all, I found this advice very encouraging. I think there will 
be relatively few posts which are a real pity to lose, once we have 
worked it all out carefully. And its great to be able to use the full 
text, rather than links as we originally thought we might have to.

Carolyn





From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Sat Aug  7 20:53:51 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes)
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 15:53:51 -0500
Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Heidi's comments
In-Reply-To: <cf36gr+p6lh@eGroups.com>
References: <cf36gr+p6lh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <c89e39d50408071353785a5367@mail.gmail.com>

Either Kelley or Dicy have the summaries.


----- Original Message -----
From: a_reader2003 <carolynwhite2 at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 18:20:11 -0000
Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Heidi's comments
To: hpfgu-catalogue at yahoogroups.com

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Kelley" 
<kelleythompson at g...> wrote:
> From Heidi; her comments are in quotes, my own to you all are in 
> brackets:
> 
> Heidi:
> "Yahoo's t&c is irrelevant for the content of the posts; we cannot
> replicate the interface of yahoomort, though.
> 
> Club posts - there was no implied or express permission, so those 
> can't be used without permission *unless* the club member was a 
> yahoogroup member on or after September 30, 2000 (maybe the 15th - 
> not sure when the faq project was announced but I know it was 
within 
> that month). Post Sept 30 (or 15) all posts are usable, except for 
> that little bit from may-or-june of 2003 until the tou was 
remedied. 
> Posts made then can be used if the listie was still on the list in 
> jan 2004, when the revised terms were put into place."

Carolyn:

GROUP 1 POSTS TO CHECK (early Club)
The FAQ project was first announced to the members in Club post 5657 
(Aug 3rd 2000), and again on Aug 10th 2000 (6540).
Post 69 (Aug 25th 2000) in the main group (you found this one too 
Kelley), seems to me a very clear statement (including legal stuff) 
that Club archives were to be indexed in some way.
Message 1025 (Sep 5th 2000) does mention it all again, but not so 
clearly

GROUP 2 POSTS TO CHECK (Gap in TOU)
Posts 1st May 03- 1st Jan 04 run through from 56539-87884.


> Kelley:
> I can go through the membership records to determine people's join 
> and leave dates; what's the easiest way for me to find which of the 
> first 8800 or so messages are being used for the catalogue? 

Carolyn:
Paul is there some way you provide an auto summary of the Club posts 
1-7815, plus posts on the main group 1-1025, showing if they have 
been rejected or not? There is such a high reject rate on the early 
posts, that I am hoping we will have to check the authorship 
of 'only' about 2600 - I guess we could quickly re-order them by 
author, to spot the frequent posters/well-known names that, for sure, 
were members of the subsequent group after Sept 5th, leaving only 
relatively few to check more carefully.

Note - see my recent reply to David on how posts might be used in the 
final catalogue. There is some discussion about giving members access 
to the movie, OT and fan-fic sections of the reject list. If we did, 
we would have to do more checking, according to these guidelines that 
Heidi has given us. 


PUBLIC/PRIVATE ACCESS
> Heidi:
> "Legally, it will make no difference if the catalogue is 
inacessable 
> or accessable, but I suggest it not be google-able or otherwise 
robot-
> able. 'Socially', though people might be pissed if their real name 
> was on the post, and that was publicly accessable + googleable. If 
> the names of the posters aren't anywhere but within the yahoogroup, 
> it's no problem at all."
> 
> [Kelley: So, long as it's not publicly accessible, shouldn't be any 
> problem. Re "real name" being on the post somewhere, I'm thinking 
> that since it was apparently okay with folks to have this info go 
to 
> the list in the first place, and again, as long as the Catalogue 
> isn't 'public', we shouldn't have too many problems here, either.]
> 

Carolyn:
There was never any intent to make the catalogue public on the net, 
so this seems not a problem to comply with.



> Heidi:
> "If a post has been deleted, or if a member whose post was posted 
> during the 'no permission' times in 99-2000 and 2003, the post 
> content cannot be used anonymously, but the facts contained in it 
> (ie "This post is about Snape and his loff for Lily") can be. But 
the 
> post itself can't be in any database.
> 
> Same with the content quoted in another's post; it has to be 
removed 
> or summarized without using the original words. Per copyright, the 
> subject line, post number and author names do not have to be used, 
> but equal numbers might get upset if their names are used, or 
aren't. 

Carolyn:
Paul, would you be able to identify which posts have been deleted, so 
we can watch out for their content appearing in other posts, in 
addition to the other two groups of posts we have to look for?

I think that what we have to end up with is a long list 
of 'forbidden' posts, which have to be avoided because:

(a) they have already been selected for inclusion, BUT they do not 
seem to be part of the new Egroups after Sep 5th 2000, and can no 
longer be contacted for permission to use
(b) they joined AND left between 1st May 2003-1st Jan 2004
(c) the post has been deleted
(d) posts which quote deleted posts (we will have to go back to the 
Yahoo group to track threads for this I think??)

Is this a fair summary of what will be the 'problem' posts to watch 
out for?


Heidi:
> There is nothing preventing highlighting relevant parts of posts."

Carolyn:
This is good to know. It means we can devise some system for dealing 
with all of CatLady's portmanteau postings. 


All in all, I found this advice very encouraging. I think there will 
be relatively few posts which are a real pity to lose, once we have 
worked it all out carefully. And its great to be able to use the full 
text, rather than links as we originally thought we might have to.

Carolyn




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT


________________________________
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/
  
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HPFGU-Catalogue-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
  
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Sat Aug  7 21:00:51 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes)
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 16:00:51 -0500
Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Heidi's comments
In-Reply-To: <c89e39d50408071353785a5367@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cf36gr+p6lh@eGroups.com> <c89e39d50408071353785a5367@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c89e39d504080714005b8fded0@mail.gmail.com>

My mistake.

Something like the following, but switchable between clubs and groups?
 I'll probably just make this script take starting and ending numbers
and generate a file that can be loaded into Excel.  Would that be a
problem--requiring that the summary.php output must be saved for
Excel?
http://24.0.253.65:8888/admin/summary.php

On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 15:53:51 -0500, Paul Kippes <kippesp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Either Kelley or Dicy have the summaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: a_reader2003 <carolynwhite2 at aol.com>
> Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 18:20:11 -0000
> Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Heidi's comments
> To: hpfgu-catalogue at yahoogroups.com
> 
> --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Kelley"
> <kelleythompson at g...> wrote:
> > From Heidi; her comments are in quotes, my own to you all are in
> > brackets:
> >
> > Heidi:
> > "Yahoo's t&c is irrelevant for the content of the posts; we cannot
> > replicate the interface of yahoomort, though.
> >
> > Club posts - there was no implied or express permission, so those
> > can't be used without permission *unless* the club member was a
> > yahoogroup member on or after September 30, 2000 (maybe the 15th -
> > not sure when the faq project was announced but I know it was
> within
> > that month). Post Sept 30 (or 15) all posts are usable, except for
> > that little bit from may-or-june of 2003 until the tou was
> remedied.
> > Posts made then can be used if the listie was still on the list in
> > jan 2004, when the revised terms were put into place."
> 
> Carolyn:
> 
> GROUP 1 POSTS TO CHECK (early Club)
> The FAQ project was first announced to the members in Club post 5657
> (Aug 3rd 2000), and again on Aug 10th 2000 (6540).
> Post 69 (Aug 25th 2000) in the main group (you found this one too
> Kelley), seems to me a very clear statement (including legal stuff)
> that Club archives were to be indexed in some way.
> Message 1025 (Sep 5th 2000) does mention it all again, but not so
> clearly
> 
> GROUP 2 POSTS TO CHECK (Gap in TOU)
> Posts 1st May 03- 1st Jan 04 run through from 56539-87884.
> 
> > Kelley:
> > I can go through the membership records to determine people's join
> > and leave dates; what's the easiest way for me to find which of the
> > first 8800 or so messages are being used for the catalogue?
> 
> Carolyn:
> Paul is there some way you provide an auto summary of the Club posts
> 1-7815, plus posts on the main group 1-1025, showing if they have
> been rejected or not? There is such a high reject rate on the early
> posts, that I am hoping we will have to check the authorship
> of 'only' about 2600 - I guess we could quickly re-order them by
> author, to spot the frequent posters/well-known names that, for sure,
> were members of the subsequent group after Sept 5th, leaving only
> relatively few to check more carefully.
> 
> Note - see my recent reply to David on how posts might be used in the
> final catalogue. There is some discussion about giving members access
> to the movie, OT and fan-fic sections of the reject list. If we did,
> we would have to do more checking, according to these guidelines that
> Heidi has given us.
> 
> PUBLIC/PRIVATE ACCESS
> > Heidi:
> > "Legally, it will make no difference if the catalogue is
> inacessable
> > or accessable, but I suggest it not be google-able or otherwise
> robot-
> > able. 'Socially', though people might be pissed if their real name
> > was on the post, and that was publicly accessable + googleable. If
> > the names of the posters aren't anywhere but within the yahoogroup,
> > it's no problem at all."
> >
> > [Kelley: So, long as it's not publicly accessible, shouldn't be any
> > problem. Re "real name" being on the post somewhere, I'm thinking
> > that since it was apparently okay with folks to have this info go
> to
> > the list in the first place, and again, as long as the Catalogue
> > isn't 'public', we shouldn't have too many problems here, either.]
> >
> 
> Carolyn:
> There was never any intent to make the catalogue public on the net,
> so this seems not a problem to comply with.
> 
> > Heidi:
> > "If a post has been deleted, or if a member whose post was posted
> > during the 'no permission' times in 99-2000 and 2003, the post
> > content cannot be used anonymously, but the facts contained in it
> > (ie "This post is about Snape and his loff for Lily") can be. But
> the
> > post itself can't be in any database.
> >
> > Same with the content quoted in another's post; it has to be
> removed
> > or summarized without using the original words. Per copyright, the
> > subject line, post number and author names do not have to be used,
> > but equal numbers might get upset if their names are used, or
> aren't.
> 
> Carolyn:
> Paul, would you be able to identify which posts have been deleted, so
> we can watch out for their content appearing in other posts, in
> addition to the other two groups of posts we have to look for?
> 
> I think that what we have to end up with is a long list
> of 'forbidden' posts, which have to be avoided because:
> 
> (a) they have already been selected for inclusion, BUT they do not
> seem to be part of the new Egroups after Sep 5th 2000, and can no
> longer be contacted for permission to use
> (b) they joined AND left between 1st May 2003-1st Jan 2004
> (c) the post has been deleted
> (d) posts which quote deleted posts (we will have to go back to the
> Yahoo group to track threads for this I think??)
> 
> Is this a fair summary of what will be the 'problem' posts to watch
> out for?
> 
> Heidi:
> > There is nothing preventing highlighting relevant parts of posts."
> 
> Carolyn:
> This is good to know. It means we can devise some system for dealing
> with all of CatLady's portmanteau postings.
> 
> All in all, I found this advice very encouraging. I think there will
> be relatively few posts which are a real pity to lose, once we have
> worked it all out carefully. And its great to be able to use the full
> text, rather than links as we originally thought we might have to.
> 
> Carolyn
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> 
> ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> ________________________________
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HPFGU-Catalogue-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>



From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Sat Aug  7 21:19:07 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes)
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 16:19:07 -0500
Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Heidi's comments
In-Reply-To: <c89e39d504080714005b8fded0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cf36gr+p6lh@eGroups.com> <c89e39d50408071353785a5367@mail.gmail.com> <c89e39d504080714005b8fded0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c89e39d5040807141930704b2c@mail.gmail.com>

Man, I should read the entire post first--my name kept popping up in
that last one.

First, a definition.  The database we're using for the Catalog will
contain all posts in their original, unaltered form.  Even if a person
requests the post to be deleted, it won't be
wipe-the-slate-clean-no-holds-barred deleted.  (I'd prefer the term
restricted rather than deleted.)  But its content won't be searchable.
 My understanding is that we can insert our own text either
summarizing the post or the subject of the post.

I've pretty much planned on having an "edited" view of all the posts
that would be data we've either cleaned up, cut up, or altered.  At
the moment, every post is somehow converted on-the-fly into the view
we all see.  I can eliminated this extra processing step while at the
same time support these legal hoops.

So, yes.  We can easily identify deleted posts since they will still
be in the system and only have a flag specifying that it is a
restricted post.  At same time, I'll probably have a reason code for
why the original post was removed.

Will we be doing two things:  1) Removing posts and 2) replacing
rewording posts with summary content?  Or just removing.



From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sun Aug  8 12:34:35 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 12:34:35 -0000
Subject: UPDATE, Sunday, 8th August
Message-ID: <cf56kr+p84h@eGroups.com>

PROGRESS

To date, we have now coded/allocated for coding 21565 posts. Of the 
21565, 19709 have actually been done, and of the 19709, 13532 have 
been rejected (68%).

The reject rate is beginning to go down slightly as the OT list has 
now been launched, however, not much as they are also gearing up to 
the first movie.

This week, with 8 people coding, we managed 1791 posts.

LEGAL STUFF
Please see Kelley's summary of Heidi's advice, my reply and ongoing 
discussion with Paul as to how we manage it. Basically, its good news 
and we should be able to present the posts in a user-friendly way.

TECH STUFF
Erm, Paul..could we get Kelly's database merged with ours, and then 
the reject categories sorted out ?? Sorry to chase you..

NEW CATEGORIES
2.1.8 (1080) Amos Diggory
2.8.19 (1079) Mrs Crouch
3.16.4.9 (1078) School discipline system, general
3.16.8.16 (1081) Riding broomsticks

On that last one, which is about classes to learn to ride broomsticks 
at Hogwarts, I really hate the title I've used. If anyone can think 
of a better one, let me know. (Clean suggestions only pl...)







From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Sun Aug  8 17:03:58 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes)
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 12:03:58 -0500
Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Heidi's comments
In-Reply-To: <c89e39d5040807141930704b2c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cf36gr+p6lh@eGroups.com> <c89e39d50408071353785a5367@mail.gmail.com> <c89e39d504080714005b8fded0@mail.gmail.com> <c89e39d5040807141930704b2c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c89e39d5040808100379876099@mail.gmail.com>

I trust this will generated the correct file data showing rejected posts.  

http://24.0.253.65:8888/admin/rejected.php



From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Tue Aug 10 21:06:37 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 21:06:37 -0000
Subject: Identifying reject posts (was Heidi's comments)
In-Reply-To: <c89e39d5040808100379876099@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cfbdct+abp3@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Paul Kippes <paul-
groups at w...> wrote:
> I trust this will generated the correct file data showing rejected 
posts.  
> 
> http://24.0.253.65:8888/admin/rejected.php

Paul

I tried using this and it works ok to generate a text file, but how 
do I set it to pick up only the rejects ? At the moment I seem to 
have to specify the posts it should pick up (??).

And is this the mechanism we use for identifying the threads 
generated by posts deleted by someone, or is this something different?

FYI, Kelley and I looked at that post that Cindy managed to get in 
and reject (46741) and found that it had got quoted in at least two 
further posts (46763 and 46822), which are ones which we will have to 
clean up to comply with Heidi's advice. Similar process with other 
such posts.

Carolyn








From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Tue Aug 10 21:10:59 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 21:10:59 -0000
Subject: Got it to work/Identifying reject posts (was Heidi's comments)
In-Reply-To: <cfbdct+abp3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cfbdl3+778g@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" 
<carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Paul Kippes <paul-
> groups at w...> wrote:
> > I trust this will generated the correct file data showing 
rejected 
> posts.  
> > 
> > http://24.0.253.65:8888/admin/rejected.php
> 
> Paul
> 
> I tried using this and it works ok to generate a text file, but how 
> do I set it to pick up only the rejects ? At the moment I seem to 
> have to specify the posts it should pick up (??).
> 

Carolyn:
Sorry, got it to work the second time I tried it..but these are 
presumably all the rejects put together, not sorted into their 
categories?






From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Wed Aug 11 03:54:12 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes)
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:54:12 -0500
Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Got it to work/Identifying reject posts (was Heidi's comments)
In-Reply-To: <cfbdl3+778g@eGroups.com>
References: <cfbdl3+778g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <c89e39d504081020544163784d@mail.gmail.com>

Right.  If you want to filter based on this, I can add drop downs. 
How many category drop downs do you want?  I'll probably just
generalize this script and make the reject flag a toggle.

(I can't easily make a script of that deals with reject categories
without hard coding category IDs.)


----- Original Message -----
From: a_reader2003 <carolynwhite2 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 21:10:59 -0000
Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Got it to work/Identifying
reject posts (was Heidi's comments)
To: hpfgu-catalogue at yahoogroups.com

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" 
<carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Paul Kippes <paul-
> groups at w...> wrote:
> > I trust this will generated the correct file data showing 
rejected 
> posts.  
> > 
> > http://24.0.253.65:8888/admin/rejected.php
> 
> Paul
> 
> I tried using this and it works ok to generate a text file, but how 
> do I set it to pick up only the rejects ? At the moment I seem to 
> have to specify the posts it should pick up (??).
> 

Carolyn:
Sorry, got it to work the second time I tried it..but these are 
presumably all the rejects put together, not sorted into their 
categories?





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT


________________________________
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/
  
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HPFGU-Catalogue-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
  
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Thu Aug 12 19:19:05 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:19:05 -0000
Subject: Various technical stuff
Message-ID: <cfgfr9+e1uf@eGroups.com>

Paul

I'm conscious there are a few technical bits and pieces that people 
have requested that we are not able to deliver yet, and I know you 
are working on the FA servers and we are in a queue, but could you 
let us know:

- what you decided with Carolina about the Java programming [to fix 
the category list in one place, and save time on it re-loading]

- how you'd like to go about starting to design the public screens 
for the catalogue

- the timescale for merging Kelly's dbase/fixing the reject categories

On this last one, its not so much that I'm chasing, its just that 
there is no point in my running the reject routines until these bits 
of housekeeping are done, as I will only have to do it all again.

Meanwhile, we'll just carry on ticking the boxes...

Carolyn

PS Just feeling pressured because of the repeated calls for this 
catalogue every time I look at the Feedback list ..they don't know we 
are working on it, but every other post demands such a thing.




From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Fri Aug 13 07:58:24 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes)
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 02:58:24 -0500
Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Various technical stuff
In-Reply-To: <cfgfr9+e1uf@eGroups.com>
References: <cfgfr9+e1uf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <c89e39d504081300586c6d0dab@mail.gmail.com>

I'm having second thoughts on the Java thing.  I was going to research
how Google Gmail seems to be sending data back to the server without
changing screens.  (If anyone here has a Gmail account, I'm referring
to the 'starring' function.)  I'm guessing that this would permit me
to load the categories only once, and just submit which boxes are
checked.

Do I really need to be involved in the design of the public screens?

I should have some time this weekend to look at what the merge will
take.  Maybe Friday develop a solution, Saturday get some scripts to
Kelly, and Sunday incorporate her data.


----- Original Message -----
From: carolynwhite2 <carolynwhite2 at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:19:05 -0000
Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Various technical stuff
To: hpfgu-catalogue at yahoogroups.com

Paul

I'm conscious there are a few technical bits and pieces that people 
have requested that we are not able to deliver yet, and I know you 
are working on the FA servers and we are in a queue, but could you 
let us know:

- what you decided with Carolina about the Java programming [to fix 
the category list in one place, and save time on it re-loading]

- how you'd like to go about starting to design the public screens 
for the catalogue

- the timescale for merging Kelly's dbase/fixing the reject categories

On this last one, its not so much that I'm chasing, its just that 
there is no point in my running the reject routines until these bits 
of housekeeping are done, as I will only have to do it all again.

Meanwhile, we'll just carry on ticking the boxes...

Carolyn

PS Just feeling pressured because of the repeated calls for this 
catalogue every time I look at the Feedback list ..they don't know we 
are working on it, but every other post demands such a thing.



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT


________________________________
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/
 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HPFGU-Catalogue-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Fri Aug 13 08:10:35 2004
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:10:35 -0000
Subject: Various technical stuff
In-Reply-To: <cfgfr9+e1uf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cfht1r+pml6@eGroups.com>

Carolyn wrote:

> PS Just feeling pressured because of the repeated calls for this 
> catalogue every time I look at the Feedback list ..they don't know 
we 
> are working on it, but every other post demands such a thing.

Is there any way the database (minus the coding so far done, of 
course) could be made available for text searching in parallel with 
the catalogue production?  That would be far from perfect but it 
would trump Yahoo's search engine pro tem.

We'd need the elves to get a server to put it on as it wouldn't be 
fair to Paul otherwise.

David




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Fri Aug 13 08:46:35 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:46:35 -0000
Subject: Design of screens (was Various technical stuff)
In-Reply-To: <c89e39d504081300586c6d0dab@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cfhv5b+j1nb@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Paul Kippes <paul-
groups at w...> wrote:
> 
> Do I really need to be involved in the design of the public screens?
> 


We can come up with what should be on the screens, but the actual 
mechanics of making them work, alas yes..unless anyone else can do 
this here. [Carolina, are you around??]

Also, I've always found when designing for the web that its one thing 
coming up with content suggestions, but they rapidly evolve as 
technical possibilities are explained. It tends to be a collaborative 
process..

Carolyn





From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Fri Aug 13 08:56:14 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:56:14 -0000
Subject: Making database available (was Various technical stuff)
In-Reply-To: <cfht1r+pml6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cfhvne+kgk3@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" 
<dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:

> 
> We'd need the elves to get a server to put it on as it wouldn't be 
> fair to Paul otherwise.
> 
> David


Paul definitely can't host the database - he not only doesn't want 
to, but it would contravene his ISP's T&C. Also, it will need a 
server capable of handling at least the traffic of the main list.

I raised the issue of how the catalogue is eventually to be hosted in 
the MEG paper, but I am not aware of this issue being discussed as 
yet. One idea put forward was that to fund the server, the resource 
should be a paid-for service. Another was to solicit contributions 
from members to pay for it.

Carolyn




From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Sat Aug 14 07:13:12 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (kippesp)
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 07:13:12 -0000
Subject: Kelly download utility
Message-ID: <cfke28+o5ta@eGroups.com>

Kelly,

Download this file and rename it to kelly_report.php.
http://24.0.253.65:8888/admin/kelly_report.php.txt

Store the file in your web admin area.  I think this will be
c:\www\paracelsus\webroot\admin

I think the date we installed your computer was May 20th.  That is 
the default date I have in script.  When run, you'll see where it 
can be changed.

The script will download your data and save it into a file.  I don't 
think this will take longer than 30 seconds.  If after you've 
downloaded the file and it doesn't have "END" at the end, delete the 
file and try again.  PHP defaults to a 30 second timeout.

Email me the file and I'll see if I have problems with it.  I'll 
test it in a backup database.  I won't import it into production 
until I've checked it, you've checked it, and Carolyn has checked it.

It will probably take me a day once you send the file back to me.  
Post if you have problems or questions.

Paul





From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Sat Aug 14 13:01:22 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 14:01:22 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re:
In-Reply-To: <cfhvne+kgk3@eGroups.com>
References: <cfhvne+kgk3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <0AA23F16-EDF2-11D8-9844-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>

Carolyn -

Cleared the last batch allocated to me, next lot please.

Though with the distractions of Olympics, Test Matches *and* work, 
don't be surprised if my progress is a bit patchy over the next couple 
of weeks.

Barry




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sat Aug 14 14:38:43 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 14:38:43 -0000
Subject: Posts for Barry
In-Reply-To: <0AA23F16-EDF2-11D8-9844-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <cfl85j+amci@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> Carolyn -
> 
> Cleared the last batch allocated to me, next lot please.
> 
> Though with the distractions of Olympics, Test Matches *and* work, 
> don't be surprised if my progress is a bit patchy over the next 
couple 
> of weeks.
> 
> Barry


Sure, no problem. Do you want to take 14101-14600?

NB, I have just added a new code 1.1.8 Justice, because you will find 
there is a thread running about whether it is ok, in terms of moral 
plot development, for Voldie to die some other way than Harry killing 
him. I thought this required a new meta-theme - see what you think.

Also look out for questions for a JKR chat, there is a newish sub-
section down under JKR interviews for these.

I noticed it really was synchronised swimming this pm...(!) ..erm, 
going to read the new Jasper Forde out in the garden myself..

Carolyn




From kkearney at students.miami.edu  Sat Aug 14 23:17:50 2004
From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum)
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 23:17:50 -0000
Subject: Kelly download utility
In-Reply-To: <cfke28+o5ta@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cfm6iu+8jcg@eGroups.com>

Paul wrote:

> Download this file and rename it to kelly_report.php.
> http://24.0.253.65:8888/admin/kelly_report.php.txt
> 
> Store the file in your web admin area.  I think this will be
> c:\www\paracelsus\webroot\admin

<snip>

> I think the date we installed your computer was May 20th.  That is 
> the default date I have in script.  When run, you'll see where it 
> can be changed...

I downloaded and saved the file, but, um (slightly embarrassed), how
do I run the script?

 
-Kelly




From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Sat Aug 14 23:40:31 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes)
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 18:40:31 -0500
Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Kelly download utility
In-Reply-To: <cfm6iu+8jcg@eGroups.com>
References: <cfm6iu+8jcg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <c89e39d504081416407d4b61a0@mail.gmail.com>

Browse to your local catalog utility and then make your way past the
"log in" page.  Then go to the new file, kelly_report.php.  You'll
need to manually enter that in your brower's URL.

http://localhost/admin/kelly_report.php


----- Original Message -----
From: corinthum <kkearney at students.miami.edu>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 23:17:50 -0000
Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Kelly download utility
To: hpfgu-catalogue at yahoogroups.com

Paul wrote:

> Download this file and rename it to kelly_report.php.
> http://24.0.253.65:8888/admin/kelly_report.php.txt
> 
> Store the file in your web admin area.  I think this will be
> c:\www\paracelsus\webroot\admin

<snip>

> I think the date we installed your computer was May 20th.  That is 
> the default date I have in script.  When run, you'll see where it 
> can be changed...

I downloaded and saved the file, but, um (slightly embarrassed), how
do I run the script?


-Kelly



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT


________________________________
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/
  
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HPFGU-Catalogue-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
  
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sun Aug 15 14:15:38 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 14:15:38 -0000
Subject: UPDATE, Sunday 15th August
Message-ID: <cfnr6a+i8rh@eGroups.com>

PROGRESS
We have achieved another small milestone - up to post 15000 on the 
main list. Together with the Yahoo Club, this means we have 
coded/allocated for coding 22815 posts. Of the 22815, 20650 have 
actually been coded, and of the 20650, 14754 have been rejected - 71%.

This week, with 8 people coding, we managed to do 941 posts.

CATEGORY ADDITIONS
1.1.8 (1082) Justice
2.4.32 (1084) Pansy Parkinson
2.4.33 (1085) Millicent Bulstrode
2.10.9 (1083) Aunt Marge




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Mon Aug 16 16:17:05 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:17:05 -0000
Subject: QTTA and FB&WTFT
Message-ID: <cfqmm1+uo8a@eGroups.com>

A couple of people have asked me off-list, so just to remind you/let 
you know, the two school books issued for Comic Relief are filed 
under Beasts and Quidditch, respectively:

2.12.11 FB&WTFT (Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them)
3.6.3 QTTA (Quidditch Through The Ages)

Somehow, it didn't seem right to put them in section 1 with the other 
books, and more useful to put them with their main subject-matter, 
but send the usual howlers if you disagree. We can move them.

Carolyn




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Mon Aug 16 17:08:44 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:08:44 -0000
Subject: Longest ever Catlady missive?
Message-ID: <cfqpms+glgl@eGroups.com>

Post 15062 - 21 topics..................

Will nothing stop her?

Carolyn





From jdr0918 at hotmail.com  Tue Aug 17 02:04:01 2004
From: jdr0918 at hotmail.com (jayne reed)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:04:01 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Longest ever Catlady missive?
Message-ID: <BAY16-F27gFpDDStS3c0001dee4@hotmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040816/70928be7/attachment.html>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Wed Aug 18 07:56:33 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 07:56:33 -0000
Subject: Tech constraints on number of people
Message-ID: <cfv23h+h03k@eGroups.com>

Paul

You have mentioned a couple of times that you are in danger of 
violating your T&C with your ISP in allowing all of us to access your 
computer in the way we are doing.

Could you let us know roughly how many people you think you can have 
working on the database at any one time ? And whether this is a 
technical limit on the number of people actually working 
simultaneously on the database, or just a limit on the number of 
people who have been given password/security access to it?

The reason I want to know is that I want to understand better how 
many people I can have working on the project at once. 

>From my point of view there are other constraints, such as ensuring 
everyone is familiar enough with the categories to code correctly, 
plus my time in supporting people, answering queries and so on, so I 
am not thinking of suddenly doubling the numbers. However, I would 
like your estimate of the maximum number we could have on the project.

Thanks
Carolyn




From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Wed Aug 18 14:57:10 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 09:57:10 -0500
Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Tech constraints on number of people
In-Reply-To: <cfv23h+h03k@eGroups.com>
References: <cfv23h+h03k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <c89e39d5040818075753985e02@mail.gmail.com>

Beats me.  I'm already running a website when I'm not suppose to.  So
I guess that would be 0.

I don't get too hung up about it.  There are millions of people openly
sharing files or other content from their home PCs.  Plus, my data
isn't public since I have IP blocks, the security pop up, a
non-standard port.  Anyway, it seems to me that AOL messenger or Yahoo
messenger is the same thing--a service to which anyone can connect to
send you a message.

Once the connections start to interfere with my trying to accomplish
things, then we'd have a problem.  Eventually I'll be able to monitor
the traffic to know if that is the case.  Problems would happen there
if too may people were on at the same time.  For now, the best
statistic I have is that the server has transmitted a total of 740 MB
over 19 days.

Here is the line from my TOU.

(xiv) run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that
provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of
your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as
public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and
servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file
sharing, and proxy services and servers;


----- Original Message -----
From: carolynwhite2 <carolynwhite2 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 07:56:33 -0000
Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Tech constraints on number of people
To: hpfgu-catalogue at yahoogroups.com

Paul

You have mentioned a couple of times that you are in danger of 
violating your T&C with your ISP in allowing all of us to access your 
computer in the way we are doing.

Could you let us know roughly how many people you think you can have 
working on the database at any one time ? And whether this is a 
technical limit on the number of people actually working 
simultaneously on the database, or just a limit on the number of 
people who have been given password/security access to it?

The reason I want to know is that I want to understand better how 
many people I can have working on the project at once. 

>From my point of view there are other constraints, such as ensuring 
everyone is familiar enough with the categories to code correctly, 
plus my time in supporting people, answering queries and so on, so I 
am not thinking of suddenly doubling the numbers. However, I would 
like your estimate of the maximum number we could have on the project.

Thanks
Carolyn



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT


________________________________
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/
 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HPFGU-Catalogue-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Wed Aug 18 18:55:51 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:55:51 -0000
Subject: Tech constraints on number of people
In-Reply-To: <c89e39d5040818075753985e02@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cg08nn+tgnp@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Paul Kippes <paul-
groups at w...> wrote:
> Beats me.  I'm already running a website when I'm not suppose to.  
So I guess that would be 0.
(...)
 Problems would happen there
> if too may people were on at the same time.  For now, the best
> statistic I have is that the server has transmitted a total of 740 
MB over 19 days.
> 
> Here is the line from my TOU.
> 
> (xiv) run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that
> provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of
> your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as
> public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and
> servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file
> sharing, and proxy services and servers;
> 


Erm, right, clear as mud then. [I feel like that 740MB was probably 
me..] Ok, I'll risk approaching some more victims, er.. enthusiastic 
volunteers <g>. We just have to get the coding rate up. Just shriek 
when it becomes a problem.

Carolyn






From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Thu Aug 19 19:14:47 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:14:47 -0000
Subject: Emotion, hugs & kisses in HP..
Message-ID: <cg2u77+7uj5@eGroups.com>

Corinne's just come across a short, but difficult to code thread on 
love and affection in HP:

12607, 12621, 12622, 12650, 12653, 12660, 12661, 12680, 12626

At present it has been put under 1.1.3 Friendship, love & loyalty - 
do people think it fits there, or should we create a new sub-
category? Its more about expressions of emotion between the 
characters, Britishness or not etc

What think you?

Carolyn




From kkearney at students.miami.edu  Thu Aug 19 22:09:45 2004
From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:09:45 -0000
Subject: Emotion, hugs & kisses in HP..
In-Reply-To: <cg2u77+7uj5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cg38f9+p58i@eGroups.com>

Carolyn wrote:

> Corinne's just come across a short, but difficult to code thread on 
> love and affection in HP:
> 
> 12607, 12621, 12622, 12650, 12653, 12660, 12661, 12680, 12626
> 
> At present it has been put under 1.1.3 Friendship, love & loyalty - 
> do people think it fits there, or should we create a new sub-
> category? Its more about expressions of emotion between the 
> characters, Britishness or not etc

I might also check 1.4 Characterisation, since the thread is more or
less discussing whether the portrayal of the characters is realistic.

-Kelly, who apologizes for her lack of coding this month; dang real life.




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Fri Aug 20 16:22:16 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:22:16 -0000
Subject: Very curious tidbit..WW internet??
Message-ID: <cg58fo+shhc@eGroups.com>

>From Post 15928:

Q: Has Harry ever used the Internet? 

A: No. He's not allowed near Dudley's computer and Dudley's the only 
one who's got a computer. He gets beaten up if he goes too near the 
keyboard. So no, he's never used the Internet. I use it a lot but not 
Harry. Wizards don't really need to use the Internet but that's 
something that you'll find out later on in the series. They have a 
means of finding out what goes on in the outside world that I think 
is more fun than the Internet. Could anything be more fun than the 
Internet? Yes! 

Does anyone know the source of this quote? I have seen part of it 
before but have never seen the last two sentences. Have we seen this 
communication mechanism come up in the books yet? It doesn't sound 
like occlumency/legilimency, or owls or floo powder. It also sounds 
like it refers to the muggle world in some way. Are we about to see 
the WWW.com?

Carolyn, suddenly intrigued.




From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Fri Aug 20 20:18:11 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes)
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:18:11 -0500
Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Very curious tidbit..WW internet??
In-Reply-To: <cg58fo+shhc@eGroups.com>
References: <cg58fo+shhc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <c89e39d504082013185a616a64@mail.gmail.com>

See 90% down the page--3rd Q from the bottom:

http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript3.htm


----- Original Message -----
From: carolynwhite2 <carolynwhite2 at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:22:16 -0000
Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Very curious tidbit..WW internet??
To: hpfgu-catalogue at yahoogroups.com

>From Post 15928:

Q: Has Harry ever used the Internet? 

A: No. He's not allowed near Dudley's computer and Dudley's the only 
one who's got a computer. He gets beaten up if he goes too near the 
keyboard. So no, he's never used the Internet. I use it a lot but not 
Harry. Wizards don't really need to use the Internet but that's 
something that you'll find out later on in the series. They have a 
means of finding out what goes on in the outside world that I think 
is more fun than the Internet. Could anything be more fun than the 
Internet? Yes! 

Does anyone know the source of this quote? I have seen part of it 
before but have never seen the last two sentences. Have we seen this 
communication mechanism come up in the books yet? It doesn't sound 
like occlumency/legilimency, or owls or floo powder. It also sounds 
like it refers to the muggle world in some way. Are we about to see 
the WWW.com?

Carolyn, suddenly intrigued.



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT


________________________________
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/
  
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HPFGU-Catalogue-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
  
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Fri Aug 20 20:23:49 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 20:23:49 -0000
Subject: Very curious tidbit..WW internet??
In-Reply-To: <c89e39d504082013185a616a64@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cg5mkl+fk1d@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Paul Kippes <paul-
groups at w...> wrote:
> See 90% down the page--3rd Q from the bottom:
> 
> http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript3.htm
> 
> 

Thanks Paul - so its "true" then, March 12th 2001. Now I am going to 
worrit over this until I can think what she was referring to. Can 
this be the mirrors maybe, or something yet to come?

Carolyn




From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Fri Aug 20 21:56:27 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes)
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:56:27 -0500
Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Very curious tidbit..WW internet??
In-Reply-To: <cg5mkl+fk1d@eGroups.com>
References: <cg5mkl+fk1d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <c89e39d50408201456292872d8@mail.gmail.com>

Or, it could be the portraits.  I tought it was quite creative that
you could send a picture of someone to find out news in the area
around the other hangings.  Rather creative.


----- Original Message -----
From: carolynwhite2 <carolynwhite2 at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 20:23:49 -0000
Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Very curious tidbit..WW internet??
To: hpfgu-catalogue at yahoogroups.com

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Paul Kippes <paul-
groups at w...> wrote:
> See 90% down the page--3rd Q from the bottom:
> 
> http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript3.htm
> 
> 

Thanks Paul - so its "true" then, March 12th 2001. Now I am going to 
worrit over this until I can think what she was referring to. Can 
this be the mirrors maybe, or something yet to come?

Carolyn



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT


________________________________
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/
 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HPFGU-Catalogue-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sat Aug 21 11:37:26 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:37:26 -0000
Subject: Very curious tidbit..WW internet??
In-Reply-To: <c89e39d50408201456292872d8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cg7c5m+q4dq@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Paul Kippes <paul-
groups at w...> wrote:
> Or, it could be the portraits.  I tought it was quite creative that
> you could send a picture of someone to find out news in the area
> around the other hangings.  Rather creative.
> 

Could be, I suppose, although the quote is from an interview between 
GOF and OOP and by the end of GOF we had already been introduced to 
speaking portraits and moving photos. However, at that point the 
portraits' abilities had only been revealed to a limited extent (Vi, 
Fat Lady, Sir Cadogan), ie we hadn't seen the subjects move out of 
Hogwarts, as Phineas and Dilys do in OOP.

Somehow, the comment:

'They have a means of finding out what goes on in the outside world 
that I think is more fun than the Internet. Could anything be more 
fun than the Internet? Yes!'

sounds like another type of WW 'technology' altogether - one that any 
wizard can use, and for many purposes. It also sounded like something 
wizards could use to find out what was going on in the muggle world, 
but I'm probably reading too much into a throwaway remark!

If it refers to the portraits, it is surely somewhat limited to 
having a willing portrait, that is of a famous person and hung in all 
sorts of useful locations, otherwise the amount you could use it to 
find out things is a bit limited, surely?

I was beginning to think along the lines of mirrors in every home 
that were charmed to reflect back not the WW they were looking out 
at, but the muggle world 'behind' them, as it were. Eg, Harry's 
mirror at the Leaky Cauldron could reflect not Harry, but maybe the 
muggle street outside Diagon Alley. 

Carolyn






From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Sat Aug 21 22:15:31 2004
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:15:31 -0000
Subject: Very curious tidbit..WW internet??
In-Reply-To: <cg7c5m+q4dq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cg8hi3+fh5f@eGroups.com>

Carolyn wrote:

> I was beginning to think along the lines of mirrors in every home 
> that were charmed to reflect back not the WW they were looking out 
> at, but the muggle world 'behind' them, as it were. Eg, Harry's 
> mirror at the Leaky Cauldron could reflect not Harry, but maybe 
the 
> muggle street outside Diagon Alley. 

Aha!  No doubt JKR will think up some wacky word to describe this 
magical device, for example 'window'.  And the fact that Petunia 
uses one to spy on her neighbours is surely a stonking great clue.

David, now at his own IP address again




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sun Aug 22 08:31:52 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 08:31:52 -0000
Subject: Very curious tidbit..WW internet??
In-Reply-To: <cg8hi3+fh5f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cg9llo+52f@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" 
<dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:


> Aha!  No doubt JKR will think up some wacky word to describe this 
> magical device, for example 'window'.  And the fact that Petunia 
> uses one to spy on her neighbours is surely a stonking great clue.
> 
> David, now at his own IP address again


Oooh, what a spoilsport; thought I was on to something there. 
However, having foolishly admitted to being back at your own 
computer, this means you can get back to some coding doesn't it....??

Carolyn
cackling evilly 




From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk  Sun Aug 22 10:50:40 2004
From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune)
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 10:50:40 -0000
Subject: Boggarts
Message-ID: <cg9tq0+2j0d@eGroups.com>

I wonder shouldn't we add Boggarts to the Beings category, and 
Riddikulus to Spells, Potions and Incantations? I don't know if there 
are many posts on the subject (apparently not, or the categories 
would already have been there), but I distinctly remember a 
discussion about Snape and Boggarts when I joined the list - so the 
topic is going to come up. It just crossed my mind when I was reading 
post #11958, which I  coded 1.10.7 only, by default. It's not a major 
post, but still. I think more is coming.

Eva/Sigune




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sun Aug 22 13:26:54 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:26:54 -0000
Subject: Boggarts
In-Reply-To: <cg9tq0+2j0d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cga6uu+4j5f@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" 
<severelysigune at y...> wrote:
> I wonder shouldn't we add Boggarts to the Beings category, and 
> Riddikulus to Spells, Potions and Incantations? 


Boggarts are already there, sneakily hiding at 2.13.4 under 'Spirits' 
(they change their shape you know, depending on who's looking at 
them).

I've added Riddikulus - 3.8.4.12

Cheers
Carolyn




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sun Aug 22 17:23:38 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:23:38 -0000
Subject: UPDATE, Sunday 22nd August
Message-ID: <cgakqq+jp97@eGroups.com>

PROGRESS
To date we have coded/allocated for coding 24015 posts. Of the 24015, 
we have actually coded 21394, and of these, 14904 have been rejected 
(69%).

This week, with 4 people coding, we managed 744 posts..

TECH STUFF
Paul - I assumed that the databases have not yet been integrated? 
Does it look straightforward to do? Will you have time next week?

NEW CATEGORIES
2.12.15 (1086) Ravens
3.8.4.12 (1087) Riddikulus





From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Mon Aug 23 06:06:29 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 01:06:29 -0500
Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] UPDATE, Sunday 22nd August
In-Reply-To: <cgakqq+jp97@eGroups.com>
References: <cgakqq+jp97@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <c89e39d504082223065f3a4aee@mail.gmail.com>

The original email contained an attachment of type "text/plain; charset=US-ASCII" but we could not retrieve it via the Yahoo Groups API.
-------------- next part --------------
The original email contained an attachment named "posts_that_were_classified_differently_by_kelly.xls" but we could not retrieve it via the Yahoo Groups API.

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Mon Aug 23 07:20:21 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 07:20:21 -0000
Subject: Dbase update - attachment
In-Reply-To: <c89e39d504082223065f3a4aee@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cgc5rl+evrg@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Paul Kippes <paul-
groups at w...> wrote:

> 
> Attached are the collisions.  I don't expect it to take 20 minutes 
to
> resolve and can easily be done by Carolyn.  Basically it is a list 
of
> those posts that were classified in both databases.
> 

Carolyn:
Dumb question - how do I get at the attachment at the end of your 
post?




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Mon Aug 23 21:11:07 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 21:11:07 -0000
Subject: Merged data
In-Reply-To: <c89e39d504082223065f3a4aee@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cgdmhb+l3vv@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Paul Kippes <paul-
groups at w...> wrote:

> Attached are the collisions.  I don't expect it to take 20 minutes 
to
> resolve and can easily be done by Carolyn.  Basically it is a list 
of
> those posts that were classified in both databases.


Ok, I worked through the list and just checked each of those posts 
was coded correctly, sometimes taking away a code, sometimes adding a 
code - that was what I was supposed to do, right??

Out of interest, I also checked through the newly merged rejects, and 
found the total came to about 200 less than it did on Sunday. I had 
been adding 880 rejects to my total each week, which was the last 
number Kelly gave me before handing over the dbase to you. Is there 
anyway of checking how many rejects were on that file that Kelly gave 
you before merging? She's always pretty accurate, so I am kind of 
curious here.

Anyway, now that's done, is it possible to do those merges on the 
reject categories that we discussed a few weeks ago?

With thanks, as always for your time on this.
Carolyn









From kkearney at students.miami.edu  Tue Aug 24 00:37:48 2004
From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:37:48 -0000
Subject: Merged data
In-Reply-To: <cgdmhb+l3vv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cge2ks+t4ba@eGroups.com>

Carolyn wrote:

> Ok, I worked through the list and just checked each of those posts 
> was coded correctly, sometimes taking away a code, sometimes adding a 
> code - that was what I was supposed to do, right??

Also clueless as to how to access the attachment, I haven't looked at
Paul's list.  The collisions I expected to occur, however, were with
the posts that I had to recode in order to reorganize categories.  My
changes should have mirrored the real database; however, the
"categorized by" property was consequently switched to me rather than
the original categorizer.

> Out of interest, I also checked through the newly merged rejects, and 
> found the total came to about 200 less than it did on Sunday. I had 
> been adding 880 rejects to my total each week, which was the last 
> number Kelly gave me before handing over the dbase to you. Is there 
> anyway of checking how many rejects were on that file that Kelly gave 
> you before merging? 

The rejected posts numbers that I sent you for updates included all
posts I had categorized to date, both before going to sea and while
out there.  If you were getting your numbers from the reject category
[s] lists, then there would be some overlap between my rejects and
yours.  200 sounds about right, actually.

-Kelly




From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Tue Aug 24 03:15:14 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:15:14 -0500
Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Merged data
In-Reply-To: <cge2ks+t4ba@eGroups.com>
References: <cge2ks+t4ba@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <c89e39d504082320156f6db956@mail.gmail.com>

Kelly's counts (from her file) came out to:

rejects on and after 5/25: 696
rejects before 5/25: 174

approvals on and after 5/25: 682
approvals before 5/25: 72

Using the current database, the numbers came out 709, 174, 659, 72

The slight difference is caused by these numbers:
+--------+--------+----------+----------+
| source | number | reviewer | reviewer |
+--------+--------+----------+----------+
| YCLUB  |    335 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YCLUB  |    425 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YCLUB  |    580 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YCLUB  |   1051 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YCLUB  |   1443 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YCLUB  |   1444 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YCLUB  |   1524 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YCLUB  |   1525 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YCLUB  |   1526 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YCLUB  |   1527 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YCLUB  |   1528 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YCLUB  |   1529 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YCLUB  |   1539 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YCLUB  |   4106 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YCLUB  |   4844 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YCLUB  |   5033 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YCLUB  |   5178 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YCLUB  |   5233 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YCLUB  |   5500 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YCLUB  |   6255 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YCLUB  |   6258 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YCLUB  |   6986 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YCLUB  |   6999 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YCLUB  |   7003 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YGROUP |    221 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YGROUP |    646 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YGROUP |    957 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YGROUP |    968 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YGROUP |    970 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YGROUP |    976 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YGROUP |    977 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YGROUP |    981 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YGROUP |   1003 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YGROUP |   1006 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YGROUP |   1007 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YGROUP |   1041 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YGROUP |   1269 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YGROUP |   1699 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YGROUP |   1747 | paul     | kelly k  |
| YGROUP |   1878 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YGROUP |   7498 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
| YGROUP |   7499 | dave     | kelly k  |
| YGROUP |   8366 | carolyn  | kelly k  |
+--------+--------+----------+----------+
43 rows in set (0.04 sec)


----- Original Message -----
From: corinthum <kkearney at students.miami.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:37:48 -0000
Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Merged data
To: hpfgu-catalogue at yahoogroups.com

Carolyn wrote:

> Ok, I worked through the list and just checked each of those posts 
> was coded correctly, sometimes taking away a code, sometimes adding a 
> code - that was what I was supposed to do, right??

Also clueless as to how to access the attachment, I haven't looked at
Paul's list.  The collisions I expected to occur, however, were with
the posts that I had to recode in order to reorganize categories.  My
changes should have mirrored the real database; however, the
"categorized by" property was consequently switched to me rather than
the original categorizer.

> Out of interest, I also checked through the newly merged rejects, and 
> found the total came to about 200 less than it did on Sunday. I had 
> been adding 880 rejects to my total each week, which was the last 
> number Kelly gave me before handing over the dbase to you. Is there 
> anyway of checking how many rejects were on that file that Kelly gave 
> you before merging? 

The rejected posts numbers that I sent you for updates included all
posts I had categorized to date, both before going to sea and while
out there.  If you were getting your numbers from the reject category
[s] lists, then there would be some overlap between my rejects and
yours.  200 sounds about right, actually.

-Kelly





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT


________________________________
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/
  
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HPFGU-Catalogue-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
  
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Tue Aug 24 09:51:19 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:51:19 -0000
Subject: Merged data & new question on rejects for Paul
In-Reply-To: <cge2ks+t4ba@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cgf32n+3bo5@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "corinthum" <kkearney at s...> 
wrote:
> 
> The rejected posts numbers that I sent you for updates included all
> posts I had categorized to date, both before going to sea and while
> out there.  If you were getting your numbers from the reject 
category [s] lists, then there would be some overlap between my 
rejects and yours.  200 sounds about right, actually.
> 
> -Kelly


Ok, then that sorts that out, I thought some posts had got lost in 
the merge. As long as the reject numbers are correct now.

Paul - new question. Could you write me something that enables me to 
check how many posts have had the main 'reject' box ticked ? This 
will strip out any duplication that exists where people have ticked 
more than one reject sub-category. Something similar to the 
current 's' routine attached to every other category would be fine.

Carolyn




From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Sat Aug 28 05:47:16 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (kippesp)
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 05:47:16 -0000
Subject: Merged data & new question on rejects for Paul
In-Reply-To: <cgf32n+3bo5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cgp694+8l8f@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" 
<carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
> Paul - new question. Could you write me something that enables me 
to 
> check how many posts have had the main 'reject' box ticked ? This 
> will strip out any duplication that exists where people have 
ticked 
> more than one reject sub-category. Something similar to the 
> current 's' routine attached to every other category would be fine.

Later this weekend I should have the merge function released.  I 
wanted to complete a post total by category report at the same time 
to act as a confirmation that things are working.




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sat Aug 28 21:27:38 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:27:38 -0000
Subject: Socks - the last word
Message-ID: <cgqtca+nq8d@eGroups.com>

I totally insist that everyone reads post 17156 ! What fools we are 
to have missed this important insight. Everything pales into 
insignificance beside it...

Enjoy
Carolyn




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sun Aug 29 17:34:13 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:34:13 -0000
Subject: UPDATE, Sunday 29th August
Message-ID: <cgt42l+koit@eGroups.com>

PROGRESS

We have now coded/allocated for coding 25065 posts. Of the 25065, we 
have actually coded 23169 posts, and of the 23169, rejected 15166 - 
65%. 

This week, with 7 people coding, we managed to do 1775 posts.

NEW MEMBERS
I am very pleased to welcome Kathy (potioncat) and Laurasia 
(sevenhundredandthirteen) to our group, making us 20 in all. 

The posts are now beginning to get more complex to code, and we are 
fast approaching Theory Bay. It gets steadily more difficult to 
explain the category list and coding rules as we get further in, so 
if at all possible I'd like to try and soldier on now with our 
current team, unless we have a serious number of people dropping out.

Therefore, (you knew this was coming..), any time you can give to the 
project really will make a difference! I know that various people are 
now back from holiday, and, um, the Olympics can't go on much longer 
can they? So...

TECH STUFF
Some of the progress numbers might change a little next week as Paul 
has written me a new analysis routine for adding them up. I didn't 
use it this week as I have some questions to go through with him 
about exactly what it does and doesn't show. 

The next thing that happens is that apparently I will then be able to 
do all those reject category merges that were discussed about a month 
ago. Hm, just watch me screw that up..

Finally, Paul really needs some help to begin to design our screens 
for the presentation of the catalogue to members, so we are going to 
devise an ad detailing the skills we need. Kelley will put it up on 
OTC and Feedback for us, so it appears as an Admin message, not 
mentioning the catalogue. [We are still don't feel ready to explain 
the project all that widely to the members generally].

Hopefully there are enough web designers in HPfGU who may be able to 
give us a hand. As my experience with this kind of thing is that it 
is half content decisions/half technical suggestion, I think we are 
all going to find this very interesting, and a huge encouragement to 
see how our work might finally appear.

NEW CATEGORIES
1.1.1.6 (1090) Morality vs. immorality
1.1.3.2 (1088) Jealousy
3.8.4.13 (1089) Expelliarmus







From HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com  Tue Aug 31 00:14:37 2004
From: HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 31 Aug 2004 00:14:37 -0000
Subject: New file uploaded to HPFGU-Catalogue 
Message-ID: <1093911277.25225.21562.w37@yahoogroups.com>


Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the HPFGU-Catalogue 
group.

  File        : /Complete category list with definitions.doc 
  Uploaded by : carolynwhite2 <carolynwhite2 at aol.com> 
  Description : Complete definitions as at 30th August 04 

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/files/Complete%20category%20list%20with%20definitions.doc 

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

carolynwhite2 <carolynwhite2 at aol.com>
 







From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Tue Aug 31 00:17:07 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 00:17:07 -0000
Subject: New reject categories
Message-ID: <ch0g23+bn4r@eGroups.com>

Please note that the much-discussed new reject categories have now 
been created - there are now only 9 sections instead of the previous 
11, and some categories have been merged. 

Carolyn




From kelleythompson at gbronline.com  Tue Aug 31 09:51:04 2004
From: kelleythompson at gbronline.com (Kelley)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:51:04 -0000
Subject: FYI
Message-ID: <ch1hm8+sco2@eGroups.com>

Hi, everyone, 

Try not to fall off your chairs, but it seems Cindy appears to be 
gearing up for another round -- she joined main, OTC, and Movie with 
these ids and spammed the recent polls on main (Gender, How you found 
HPfGU, etc.):

pollbusterhpfgu at yahoo.com
pollbuster1hpfgu at yahoo.com
pollbuster2hpfgu at yahoo.com

(Guess now that her kids are back in school she's got a lot more time 
on her hands. Sigh.)

The reason I'm letting y'all know this is because I shut down 
the "Recommended Posts" db tables to only mods to keep her from 
damaging them.  So, if anyone here would like to add posts while 
doing cataloguing, just let me (or any of the elves) know and we'll 
get them added.

Thanks, guys!

--Kelley




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Tue Aug 31 15:54:27 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:54:27 -0000
Subject: FYI/Paul - security
In-Reply-To: <ch1hm8+sco2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ch26vj+f5g9@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Kelley" 
<kelleythompson at g...> wrote:
> Hi, everyone, 
> 
> Try not to fall off your chairs, but it seems Cindy appears to be 
> gearing up for another round -- she joined main, OTC, and Movie 
with 
> these ids and spammed the recent polls on main (Gender, How you 
found 
> HPfGU, etc.):
> 

Paul - assume you have got all the info you need to block her getting 
near the catalogue ?? She can't get at this group without an invite.

Carolyn, jumpy..