From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Feb 23 18:57:42 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:57:42 -0000 Subject: Welcome and questions on Stage One Message-ID: Welcome everyone to the new HP catalogue group, and thanks again to Kelley for setting this up so quickly for us; I hope it helps with communication. As we have all got the various background documents, I'll launch straightaway into a series of topics that we probably need to discuss and agree before we go on. I've divided them up into different posts, as it will probably help to deal with them separately. The topics are: - 1 (this post) stage one of the plan and some technical stuff 2 stage two ? reject codes 3 stage two ? subject categories Looking forward to your responses and further questions of your own STAGE ONE We are looking to index approximately 100 000 posts on the main, current HPfGU list, plus approx 7000 posts on a pre-Aug 2000 archive list. (The early list is the beginning of the group before it transferred to Yahoo.) It's a lot of posts, and the first time-consuming task is to get the complete message index in one place for people to work from. In my plan, under `Stage One', I simply suggested cutting and pasting the message indexes from the HPfGU site onto Excel worksheets. There are two possible ways this can be speeded up. Firstly, Paul Kippes, the Admin team's technowizard (who maintains the back-up archives) could probably cut and paste the whole index in one go onto Excel for us. Kelley has just sent him an email to see if he would be prepared to give us some help on this project, and this is one of the first questions I'd like to put to him. My other questions, apart from can he do it are: - what is the best size of spreadsheet to work with ? (Units of 500, 1000 posts or whatever ? Threads are no respecter of arbitrary boundaries.. it has to be easy to follow on from one sheet to the next when tracing an argument) - where should the Excel sheets be based ? on our individual computers, or on a server somewhere ? They certainly need to end up in one central place for obvious reasons. Secondly, there is a rather more complex and time-consuming solution, which would save a lot of time later. The gist of this is that all the old posts, with their existing headings could be put into a database (not Excel), and Carolina could write a link programme between this database and the website we use to access it, to enable us to not only work simultaneously on it, but also to overcome any computer incompatibility problems that might crop up, especially as more people work on the project as we go on. My questions relating to this solution are: - Can the archive posts just be dumped into such a database, and would you do it all at once, or in orderly chunks of eg 1000 at a time? - How long would it take? - Where would the database be located (what server, as before with the Excel sheets) - Which website would we use to access it and would there be any major problems in multiple people accessing it any one time? - will it still be possible to speed read the posts one after another if we do this? (central to rejecting and coding them up) The overall advantage of this second solution, although it sounds rather complex, is that once you have coded up the posts, you can then do much more sophisticated searches for topics than you would be able to do in Excel. This will help later, when you want to group sets of posts together in threads for further editing (if we ever get that far..). It would also become a great resource for HPfGU members to search, if it were put up on the main site in a read-only form. However, if we stick with Excel and solution one, it is possible to write search routines that can find strings of words and characters, to enable us to group together individual posts belonging to threads. Thoughts please (and Carolina, apologies if I have not explained correctly). Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Feb 23 19:00:03 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:00:03 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?STAGE_TWO_=96_the_subject_categories?= Message-ID: Um, the heart of the matter in my opinion. My questions are: Do the seven sections make sense to you ? Should there be more or less ? Were the sub-topics the right ones within the sections ? Would you be able to use them easily to label posts ? Looking at the problem from a different angle, if you were presented with these seven sections as a menu on the main HPfGU website, would you find them adequate as a starting point for searching for a post or a topic ? My own misgivings are: SECTION ONE ? LITERARY ANALYSIS Is the title too stuffy ? Is the themes section too loosely defined? Should SHIPPING be here ? SECTION TWO ? INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERS Are you ok with the fact that some characters could be in a number of different sections? Will it be possible to put the TBAYS in as indicated, despite the fact they tend to refer to much more than one character? Should `historical Wizarding characters' be here, or perhaps in section 5 or 6? SECTION THREE ? CHAPTER BY CHAPTER ANALYSIS I meant this section strictly as a default for things which did not fit anywhere else, and for the chapter discussion initiated by admin ? does it work ?? Would you put eg the TBays here which analysed what happened in the Shrieking Shack, or should they go with characters it gets very, very complicated and we need to have a consistent approach if we are not to leave ourselves open to howlers. SECTION FIVE ? THE WIZARDING WORLD Can you think of any more sections ? SECTION SIX ? MAGICAL CREATURES Are you ok with the distinction here between this section and Section two ? characters ? A bit arguable with Moaning Myrtle, Peeves, maybe ? SECTION SEVEN ? FUTURE PREDICTIONS This is all Barry's fault. It was his original silly suggestion on the main list that we document these that started me off on the whole project, so blame him for this one.. Do the sections work ? Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Feb 23 18:58:55 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:58:55 -0000 Subject: Stage two - reject codes Message-ID: Ignoring all technical stuff in the previous post, lets assume we have a system that works, and we are beginning to code up posts for inclusion or non-inclusion. What did you think of my nine reject categories, which were: 1 ? Admin/list management related 2 ? Movie-related 3 ? Discussing spoiler issues/problems 4 ? Off-topic chatter 5 ? Listings of personal `favourite' characters, topics, whatever 6 ? Fanfic-related 7 ? Repeated post/content 8 ? Merely agreeing with something, adding nothing else 9 ? Post was correcting a trivial mistake in a previous post I found that these worked for the first 1000 posts, but only because this was an early stage in the development of the list. There are two big problems likely to come up as we go on: - posts which simply repeat, or come up with an exactly similar point that has gone before (but which may generate entirely new discussion points) - posts which are based on simply wrong canon, and cause loads of people to pile in correcting things, (but also in passing make further new points) My tentative view at this stage is that the first group (repeated posts) should be allowed in for coding up purposes, and be included in subsequent edited threads, but severely pruned to reflect their role in starting off a new discussion. On the second group, I am inclined to reject them unless they lead to something new being said as a consequence. Other problems on what to reject/what to include may have occurred to you lets hear them (I can hear Barry sharpening his red pen enthusiastically..) Carolyn From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Feb 23 20:09:09 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:09:09 -0000 Subject: Welcome and questions on Stage One In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" wrote: > > The overall advantage of this second solution, although it sounds > rather complex, is that once you have coded up the posts, you can > then do much more sophisticated searches for topics than you would > be able to do in Excel. This will help later, when you want to group > sets of posts together in threads for further editing (if we ever get > that far..). It would also become a great resource for HPfGU members > to search, if it were put up on the main site in a read-only form. > > However, if we stick with Excel and solution one, it is possible to > write search routines that can find strings of words and characters, > to enable us to group together individual posts belonging to threads. > > Thoughts please (and Carolina, apologies if I have not explained > correctly). Evening. Personally, I'd rather work to a central database (the one on this site perhaps?) Spreadsheets (including Excel) are basically a sub-set of the database format and though I'm less familiar with spreadsheets, I do wonder if their filtering and sorting capabilities are as good. They are designed mainly for calculations after all. Can you enter stuff out of order into spreadsheets and have the programme sort them all into order? In other words, how easy are they to correct and modify? Because I suspect we'll be doing a lot of that. Secondly, it means using your most skilled people where they can be most effective. If they can organise a system that even a half-wit like me can use with facility then an extra few days spent at the front end will save weeks once we really get into it. Thirdly, I do not have Excel. I have a system that will format any spreadsheet I produce so that it is Excel readable, but I'd need expert opinion to tell me whether or no this could lead to translation or other errors. Barry From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Feb 23 21:04:19 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:04:19 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_STAGE_TWO_=96_the_subject_categories?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" = wrote: > Um, the heart of the matter in my opinion. My questions are: > > Do the seven sections make sense to you ? Should there be more or > less ? > > Were the sub-topics the right ones within the sections ? Would you be > able to use them easily to label posts ? > > Looking at the problem from a different angle, if you were presented > with these seven sections as a menu on the main HPfGU website, would > you find them adequate as a starting point for searching for a post > or a topic ? > However it's split up there are probably going to be anomalies. But we have a choice to make at the start of whether to go for fairly well defined categories or to be looser and possibly more flexible. As an instance - Section One. I'd be happy calling it Textual Analysis and including within this section the chapter by chapter discussions - they don't seem to produce an enormous number of posts. Anyway, there are posts that cover exactly the same ground posted at other times and the only difference is that they don't have the chapter heading as the subject line. Sometimes there is so much overlap that it almost amounts to duplication. Shipping. What can I say. You're probably aware of my animus towards SHIPs. Oh, I know that a lot of folk get a lot of fun from them, and good luck to them, but to classify them as analysis? Really, I suppose, they're a form of TBAY. Why not lump TBAY, SHIPs and FILKS into a separate section? All of them are closer to Fanfic than mainstream analysis. Section Two - Individual Characters. Seems OK. As you say, some characters will sprout up all over the place, but that can't be helped. One thing that did occur to me - it might be an idea to combine this section with the Beasts bit what with occasional outbreaks of animagitis flooding the site. There are possibilities that more characters may show this ability, or even to become ghosts or Dementors. Lump all the livestock in one place. The Historical characters would probably fit best in Section 5 IMO. Section Four - Sources and Influences (I assume) > SECTION FIVE ? THE WIZARDING WORLD > > Can you think of any more sections ? > > > SECTION SEVEN ? FUTURE PREDICTIONS > > This is all Barry's fault. It was his original silly suggestion on > the main list that we document these that started me off on the whole > project, so blame him for this one.. Do the sections work ? > I don't mind being blamed, I'm used to it. Overall, I'd suggest that the categories could be 1. Textual Analysis 2. Characters, Beasts, etc. 3. SHIPs, TBAY, FILKS 4. Sources and Influences 5. The wizarding world 6. Predictions Any good? I'll give some more thought to the sub-sections; I've got a nagging feeling that I've missed something. Barry From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Feb 23 21:46:56 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:46:56 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_STAGE_TWO_=96_the_subject_categories?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: Why not lump TBAY, SHIPs and FILKS into a separate > section? All of them are closer to Fanfic than mainstream analysis. Carolyn: Personally, as is well known, I don't care what we do with FILKS, chuck 'em all overboard if you like, and I share your distaste for SHIPing. However, as I ran through Inish Alley and all the TBay acronyms, I found it instructive to put them with their key character, and to find which ones fitted where, and which had nothing to do with characters really. The sheer number which get associated with Snape is an interesting phenomenon on its own. One of the great problems with the FP essays as they stand at the moment, is that they don't give anything like a comprehensive overview of all the theories which have come up in association with different characters or events, and this index/catalogue, call it what you will, could fill a big gap in this respect. If we went down the more complex database route, of course, we can use multiple codes, so individual posts can be linked to major categories in multiple ways - by character, by TBay etc. FILKs, so I am told, are supposed to comment on something, so I guess they should be parked according to subject matter, rather than just as a genre, or we will get Howlers. SHIPing...groan..by main associated character(s) I suppose. My section one on SHIPing was more for posts about SHIPing in general, if you look up the sample acronyms on Inish Alley. But it might be a difficult distinction to maintain. Carolyn From silmariel at telefonica.net Mon Feb 23 22:39:52 2004 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (a_silmariel) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:39:52 -0000 Subject: Welcome and questions on Stage One In-Reply-To: Message-ID: If you receive this twice, you know who to blame and it's not Barry this time. I'll try to clarify some things. It is not that we have to choose one approach or the other. We'll use excel first because it's easier, but any work done will be put in a mysql database as soon as it's made. And of course, Barry, if you prefer to work directly with the group database, do so, it provides a nice 'Export Table' function. No, excel is not a database, as Barry has pointed out it is not nearly as effective in data treatment. After all, that's what databases are designed for. What I really want is that no one has to do the same work twice. STAGE ONE: We have the first set of information that from my PoV is the worst work, because it needs reading, rejecting and categoricing 100000 posts that are kept prisoner online by yahoomort. What information do we have in the spreadsheet? 1 -- Post information: The raw material extracted from the message index, copied and pasted into a spreadsheet. 2 -- Cataloguing Information: Codes for rejection and up to six categories. Six categories is a random desition. Just using the number of the category is enough. Name can be used or not but is not necessary. 3 -- Control information: It is not in the spreadsheet, but I strongly suggest that we include another code for the rewiever, from the start. > - what is the best size of spreadsheet to work with ? (Units of > 500, 1000 posts or whatever ? Threads are no respecter of arbitrary > boundaries.. it has to be easy to follow on from one sheet to the > next when tracing an argument) The actual size of the manageable file is variable. Some programs start having problems while managing too big documents. From my side it is indifferent, each spreadsheet can contain a different number of posts. I say indefferent because proofs of reliability against the mysql database are made with millions of registers, so from the technical side, all posts can go in one spreadsheet. > - where should the Excel sheets be based - on our individual > computers, or on a server somewhere ? They certainly need to end up > in one central place for obvious reasons. Now let's save that Excel (or spreadsheet) into .cvs format. You can make it as long as you want, the only restriction is one sheet per spreadsheet. Then send me the .csv document. I'll put that info into a database, retrieve it in any number of ways, and make .cvs that can be opened by spreadsheets. I'll have a database, and can open it to remote access for those brave users who want to work from a text-only remote console. STAGE TWO: Making it possible on-line. That's what I should have been doing this weekend, planning this in a more detailed way. One option is to access remotely to the database, via a client, but I have not looked for nice graphical utilities that could already exist. Other is to access trough formularies in a web page. [ ].....database and the website we use to access it, to enable > us to not only work simultaneously on it, but also to overcome any > computer incompatibility problems that might crop up, especially as > more people work on the project as we go on. My questions relating to > this solution are: > - Can the archive posts just be dumped into such a database, > and would you do it all at once, or in orderly chunks of eg 1000 at a > time? > - Where would the database be located (what server, as before > with the Excel sheets) > - How long would it take? The database will be already set up. Dump it entirely, send it to another computer, start a Mysql database (runs in Linux and Windows and it's free use, no licenses to pay), grab the dump you made and insert it into the 2.database. This should be done in a day. > - Which website would we use to access it and would there be > any major problems in multiple people accessing it any one time? I think limiting up to 30 users at time is the standard security measure to avoid DoS attacks for small servers, but my plans include a very 'light' (in the sense of amount of data to be transmitted) web interface, we should not be a problem for the http server. The database can be in another computer or in the same. Basically we need a fixed IP number, a 256kbps 24h/day connection and a computer. With that and Apache we are independent. Apache is an http server running both in Windows and Linux and also free, and I can set it up or get someone to do it. Barry, which Java version does your Mac run? STAGE THREE: Absorbing the whole posts in the database, not only the index information. I have no idea of how to do it from yahoo, insincerely (I have an idea but surely is ilegal). I'd be glad to hear what Paul has to say. Insert that new info in the database. Absorbing previous groups in the database. This will create a conflict with post numbers that somehow will be solved. I'm tired, it is late, but I though I had to try to explain some things. The key is no matter how you do it, your work won't be lost. Either trough the group database (I will iron my hands a little for not having proposed it myself) or a spreadsheet. I know all of you have questions. Shoot. Carolina From silmariel at telefonica.net Mon Feb 23 22:24:20 2004 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (silmariel) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 23:24:20 +0100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Welcome and questions on Stage One In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200402232324.20261.silmariel@telefonica.net> I'll try to clarify some things. It is not that we have to choose one approach or the other. We'll use excel first because it's easier, but any work done will be put in a mysql database as soon as it's made. And of course, Barry, if you prefer to work directly with the group database, do so, it provides a nice 'Export Table' function. No, excel is not a database, as Barry has pointed out it is not nearly as effective in data treatment. After all, that's what databases are designed for. What I really want is that no one has to do the same work twice. STAGE ONE: We have the first set of information that from my PoV is the worst work, because it needs reading, rejecting and categoricing 100000 posts that are kept prisoner online by yahoomort. What information do we have in the spreadsheet? 1 -- Post information: The raw material extracted from the message index, copied and pasted into a spreadsheet. 2 -- Cataloguing Information: Codes for rejection and up to six categories. Six categories is a random desition. Just using the number of the category is enough. Name can be used or not but is not necessary. 3 -- Control information: It is not in the spreadsheet, but I strongly suggest that we include another code for the rewiever, from the start. > - what is the best size of spreadsheet to work with ? (Units of > 500, 1000 posts or whatever ? Threads are no respecter of arbitrary > boundaries.. it has to be easy to follow on from one sheet to the > next when tracing an argument) The actual size of the manageable file is variable. Some programs start having problems while managing too big documents. >From my side it is indifferent, each spreadsheet can contain a different number of posts. I say indefferent because proofs of reliability against the mysql database are made with millions of registers, so from the technical side, all posts can go in one spreadsheet. > - where should the Excel sheets be based ? on our individual > computers, or on a server somewhere ? They certainly need to end up > in one central place for obvious reasons. Now let's save that Excel (or spreadsheet) into .cvs format. You can make it as long as you want, the only restriction is one sheet per spreadsheet. Then send me the .csv document. I'll put that info into a database, retrieve it in any number of ways, and make .cvs that can be opened by spreadsheets. I'll have a database, and can open it to remote access for those brave users who want to work from a text-only remote console. STAGE TWO: Making it possible on-line. That's what I should have been doing this weekend, planning this in a more detailed way. One option is to access remotely to the database, via a client, but I have not looked for nice graphical utilities that could already exist. Other is to access trough formularies in a web page. [ ].....database and the website we use to access it, to enable > us to not only work simultaneously on it, but also to overcome any > computer incompatibility problems that might crop up, especially as > more people work on the project as we go on. My questions relating to > this solution are: > - Can the archive posts just be dumped into such a database, > and would you do it all at once, or in orderly chunks of eg 1000 at a > time? > - Where would the database be located (what server, as before > with the Excel sheets) > - How long would it take? The database will be already set up. Dump it entirely, send it to another computer, start a Mysql database (runs in Linux and Windows and it's free use, no licenses to pay), grab the dump you made and insert it into the 2.database. This should be done in a day. > - Which website would we use to access it and would there be > any major problems in multiple people accessing it any one time? I think limiting up to 30 users at time is the standard security measure to avoid DoS attacks for small servers, but my plans include a very 'light' (in the sense of amount of data to be transmitted) web interface, we should not be a problem for the http server. The database can be in another computer or in the same. Basically we need a fixed IP number, a 256kbps 24h/day connection and a computer. With that and Apache we are independent. Apache is an http server running both in Windows and Linux and also free, and I can set it up or get someone to do it. Barry, which Java version does your Mac run? STAGE THREE: Absorbing the whole posts in the database, not only the index information. I have no idea of how to do it from yahoo, insincerely (I have an idea but surely is ilegal). I'd be glad to hear what Paul has to say. Insert that new info in the database. Absorbing previous groups in the database. This will create a conflict with post numbers that somehow will be solved. I'm tired, it is late, but I though I had to try to explain some things. The key is no matter how you do it, your work won't be lost. Either trough the group database (I will iron my hands a little for not having proposed it myself) or a spreadsheet. I know all of you have questions. Shoot. Carolina From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Feb 24 06:00:01 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 06:00:01 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_STAGE_TWO_=96_the_subject_categories?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello, all. I'll admit first I haven't been able to download the original files yet-- apparently my computer doesn't like zip files. My personal technowizard (that's my husband) was a bit too busy this weekend to help. By the way, I'm not experienced technically, but once we get a system set up and I learn it, I am good with the grunt work and familiarity with HPfGU posting culture. --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > > Shipping. What can I say. You're probably aware of my animus towards > SHIPs. Oh, I know that a lot of folk get a lot of fun from them, and good > luck to them, but to classify them as analysis? Really, I suppose, they're > a form of TBAY. Why not lump TBAY, SHIPs and FILKS into a separate > section? All of them are closer to Fanfic than mainstream analysis. Shipping posts make my eyes cross, too. We will have to sort them, though, because people are going to look for them and we do want to be complete. I think we could get away with banishing them to their own category, because as far as I can tell they don't analyse either the text or the characters the way other posts do. Instead, they seem to have a logic all their own. TBAY does not belong with SHIPs and FILKs, IMO. TBAY is real analysis of plot and character, much as anyone may or may not like the style. Besides, many threads weave into and out of TBAY as different people join the discussion. I think they will have to be sorted into textual analysis and character analysis, etc., as they fit. Or edited or rejected, of course, as appropriate. FILKs, now, I think we can leave out entirely. I can't remember any that have ever generated a canon discussion thread. CMC (Coriolanus) already sorts them and publishes them on his own website. True, his are from other sources besides HPfGU, but for us to deal with ours seems like it would just duplicate his efforts. We could just note a link to his site in our final product. > > Overall, I'd suggest that the categories could be > > 1. Textual Analysis > 2. Characters, Beasts, etc. > 3. SHIPs, TBAY, FILKS > 4. Sources and Influences > 5. The wizarding world > 6. Predictions > > Any good? > > I'll give some more thought to the sub-sections; I've got a nagging > feeling that I've missed something. > > Barry I'd have it: 1. Textual Analysis 2. Characters: Beasts, Beings and Spirits 3. SHIPs 4. Sources and Influences 5. The Wizarding World 6. Predictions Anne From silmariel at telefonica.net Tue Feb 24 14:44:53 2004 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (silmariel) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:44:53 +0100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] STAGE TWO =?iso-8859-1?q?=96=20the=20subject?= categories In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200402241544.53702.silmariel@telefonica.net> >I'd have it: >1. Textual Analysis >2. Characters: Beasts, Beings and Spirits >3. SHIPs >4. Sources and Influences >5. The Wizarding World >6. Predictions >Anne 1. Textual Analysis 2. Characters: Beasts, Beings and Spirits 3. The Wizarding World 4. Interests: SHIPs Sources and Influences Filks, If not let out. (*) 5. Predictions (*) This section can be added later if a Filk lover wants to do it. I personally delete all Filk posts (in case they have offspring), so I really don't mind what do we do with them. Later it can be retrieved a plain list with all Filk (at Least all filks that follow the FILK convention in the subject) posts if anyone wants to go and review them. Interests is there because I don't see clear S&Influences or ships as primary categories. I know we need somewhere to put them, but I wanted a more general category to include those themes that really don't add very much, as Ships or Alchemy. As fantastic as Alchemy discussion can be, well, I don't know what percentage of the population is interested in intense research about it. Questions to Rowling? We have a lot of posts about that, what do we do with them? Carolyn: <> Aha, I assumed that was the reason behind 6 colums for categories in the spreadsheet. The structure of the tables in the database will be: POST: Post_ID Name From Date Rejection_code ID_Reviewer CATEGORY: Name Category_ID Number father_ID (if father ID=0 it is a first level category) POST_CATEGORY: Post_ID Category_ID A post can be assigned to 1..n categories. Categories follow a tree structure so later will be possible to change them without catastrophes. We'll be able to add categories on the fly, and will help, in the future, to build the bridge between FP and us. You know, the first question that arised in my mind when I received the categories list was where to put Catlady's once a week posts. They need multiple categories. If anyone can explain me the difference between ships, ships, and ships, I'll be glad to hear it. Currently I don't know whether you refer to relationSHIPs (the one I put in 'Interests') or SHIPs as boats. I'm very lost. Carolina P.S. I proudly announce I will lead chapter discussion for Snape's Worst Memory. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Feb 24 14:44:17 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:44:17 -0000 Subject: Welcome and questions on Stage One In-Reply-To: <200402232324.20261.silmariel@telefonica.net> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, silmariel wrote: > > I'll try to clarify some things. It is not that we have to choose one approach or the other. We'll use excel first because it's easier, but any work done will be put in a mysql database as soon as it's made. (big snip) > I know all of you have questions. Shoot. > > Carolina Carolyn: >From what you are saying, I gather we could make an immediate start using the Excel cut and paste approach that I suggested, and you can incorporate any work done that way into the final database ? But are you also saying that (with cooperation from Paul Kippes) you could also immediately create a mysql database that we could all access and work on directly ? And would this database contain all the text of the posts, or just the title index ? I am slightly confused, as I understood from our previous emails that doing that might take a little time to set up, especially writing the programme to access it directly from a website. Sorry for stupid questions...also, we should probably discuss with the admin team where the database should live, long term, ie what server. I guess you won't want to host it yourself indefinitely ! From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Feb 24 15:06:56 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:06:56 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_STAGE_TWO_=96_the_subject_categories?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: > > Shipping posts make my eyes cross, too. We will have to sort them, > though, because people are going to look for them and we do want to be complete. I think we could get away with banishing them to their own category, because as far as I can tell they don't analyse either the text or the characters the way other posts do. Instead, they seem to have a logic all their own. Carolyn: Oh good, we all think the same on this stuff ! How about banishing them as you suggest to their own section, but re-fixing the titles of each post to make clear who is supposed to be shipping with whom. Eg R/H, H/H etc ? Then people can follow their favourites. However, I can see one or two problemettes in doing this. Quite a few of the bigger theories are essentially about relationships, eg various adults with the mysterious Florence, Snape with Lily etc. There are also some more amusing posts about darker relationships, eg Harry and Bella. Do we banish all this to the SHIP bin ? I don't think we should. > TBAY does not belong with SHIPs and FILKs, IMO. TBAY is real analysis of plot and character, much as anyone may or may not like the style. Besides, many threads weave into and out of TBAY as different people join the discussion. I think they will have to be sorted into textual analysis and character analysis, etc., as they fit. Or edited or rejected, of course, as appropriate. Carolyn: Yes, I agree. Lets all contemplate MAGIC DISHWASHER for a moment in horrified silence, as possibly the worst case we will have to deal with...if we can think of a way forward on that, the rest will be a cinch. > > FILKs, now, I think we can leave out entirely. I can't remember any > that have ever generated a canon discussion thread. CMC (Coriolanus) already sorts them and publishes them on his own website. True, his are from other sources besides HPfGU, but for us to deal with ours seems like it would just duplicate his efforts. We could just note a link to his site in our final product. Carolyn: Yes, this might a good solution. People got very protective of them on the Feedback site recently so I don't want to upset everyone again, but the thought of having to read them all for classification purposes haunts me.. Perhaps people could search our database just by 'FILK' and pull them all out that way if they really wanted to ? > > I'd have it: > > 1. Textual Analysis > 2. Characters: Beasts, Beings and Spirits > 3. SHIPs > 4. Sources and Influences > 5. The Wizarding World > 6. Predictions > > Anne Carolyn: I don't mind putting Beasts, Beings & Spirits in with the characters; it makes sense to me, especially Barry's point about animagitis. SHIPs .. needs more thought, see above ! Hopefully you've been able to open the subject file now Anne, so you may agree that 'Textual analysis' and 'sources and influences' might be best kept together ?? From silmariel at telefonica.net Tue Feb 24 15:18:54 2004 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (silmariel) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:18:54 +0100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Welcome and questions on Stage One In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200402241618.54087.silmariel@telefonica.net> > Carolyn: > > From what you are saying, I gather we could make an immediate start > using the Excel cut and paste approach that I suggested, and you can > incorporate any work done that way into the final database ? Yes. > But are you also saying that (with cooperation from Paul Kippes) you > could also immediately create a mysql database that we could all > access and work on directly ? No. I said it can be accesed remotely, but one has to be very brave, because it is a database session, so you have to work probably in a text console and using SQL (Simple Query Language to friends). That means the resources are there but one needs to be a guru, Gryffindor, or used enough to work with databases. I said I would look for a graphic client user-friendly but I have no clue if it exists. I'll post the question to a programmer's forum. >And would this database contain all the text of the posts, or just the title index ? The index, I've sent the structure of the database, that later can be expanded to include posts. Raw posts include a lot of information, and I won't go into them yet, I'd prefer to talk about them with Paul. An example heading for a post: ------------------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from telesmtp2.mail.isp ([10.20.4.62]) by mb120.terra.es (terra.es) with ESMTP id HTJWQ801.HWA for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:58:56 +0100 Received: from n10.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.65]) by telesmtp2.mail.isp (terra.es) with SMTP id HTJWQ700.ORL for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:58:55 +0100 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-12099707-0-1077562730-silmariel=telefonica.net at returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.198] by n10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Feb 2004 18:58:50 -0000 X-Sender: carolynwhite2 at aol.com X-Apparently-To: HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 48121 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2004 18:58:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 23 Feb 2004 18:58:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n37.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.105) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Feb 2004 18:58:49 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.147] by n37.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Feb 2004 18:57:43 -0000 To: HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 66.218.66.105 From: "a_reader2003" X-Originating-IP: 195.93.33.12 X-Yahoo-Profile: a_reader2003 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com; contact HPFGU-Catalogue-owner at yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:57:42 -0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Welcome and questions on Stage One Reply-To: HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Status: R X-Status: N -------------------------------------------- There is info in here that may be useful and I'd like to study it. > I am slightly confused, as I understood from our previous emails that > doing that might take a little time to set up, especially writing the > programme to access it directly from a website. Making a program to manage a database from a web page does take more time, but just granting access to remote users to a database is a matter of minutes. Replicating the database could take a day because we have to work in two places at once. > Sorry for stupid questions...also, we should probably discuss with > the admin team where the database should live, long term, ie what > server. I guess you won't want to host it yourself indefinitely ! No, really. Expect a lot of misunderstandings here. The normal operation would be to talk during hours or days, and by mail is more difficult. Carolina From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Feb 24 16:35:17 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:35:17 -0000 Subject: Welcome and questions on Stage One In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_silmariel" wrote: > > And of course, Barry, if you prefer to work directly with the group > database, > do so, it provides a nice 'Export Table' function. > This all depends if you (or other experts that may wander along) think it feasible, wise and straight-forward. I expect I will need fairly detailed instructions. > > Barry, which Java version does your Mac run? > The latest - Java 2 Standard Edition version 1.4.2. I did a download of updates from Apple at the weekend. I've never had the opportunity to use Java before - it was just something that sat in my Utilities mocking me. How are you thinking of utilising it - Applets or Web Start? While we're on the subject of downloading I've been raiding the Archives while waiting for my half-wit client to finally decide exactly what it is he wants me to do on his project. There was a problem in Archive 2, file m35000-39999. It doesn't seem to be a file but a folder and I can't open it. It doesn't have the .txt suffix that the rest have. Also, there seems to be a limit to how much you can download in a session; I got to m50000 and was informed that I'd reached my download limit and to try again later. Last person to say that to me was a barman. Barry From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Feb 24 17:01:47 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:01:47 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_STAGE_TWO_=96_the_subject_categories?= In-Reply-To: <200402241544.53702.silmariel@telefonica.net> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, silmariel wrote: > >I'd have it: > > >1. Textual Analysis > >2. Characters: Beasts, Beings and Spirits > >3. SHIPs > >4. Sources and Influences > >5. The Wizarding World > >6. Predictions > > >Anne > > > > 1. Textual Analysis > 2. Characters: Beasts, Beings and Spirits > 3. The Wizarding World > 4. Interests: > SHIPs > Sources and Influences > Filks, If not let out. (*) > 5. Predictions > > Interesting. The Main Categories are getting fewer. Probably for the best. Most searchers would be happier with fairly broad choices to start with, branching out into more specific fields, I think. > > You know, the first question that arised in my mind when I received the > categories list was where to put Catlady's once a week posts. They need > multiple categories. > Me too. I vote you tell her she has to resubmit all her messages as separate subject posts. Though she's just an outstanding example of combining comments from varying posts in an omnibus reply. Others do it too, only less frequently. > If anyone can explain me the difference between ships, ships, and ships, I'll > be glad to hear it. Currently I don't know whether you refer to relationSHIPs > (the one I put in 'Interests') or SHIPs as boats. I'm very lost. > SHIPs is Ships is ships. An abomination upon the face of the Earth by any name. Pseudo-romantic slush, probably engendered by over-dosing on TV soaps. Caused by incipient brain rot in the SHIP fanatics and high blood pressure in those (like me) who are subjected to them. > > P.S. I proudly announce I will lead chapter discussion for Snape's Worst > Memory. Must dig out and rephrase some trenchant posts I made on the subject - it's a thread I feel strongly about. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Feb 24 17:26:55 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:26:55 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_STAGE_TWO_=96_the_subject_categories?= In-Reply-To: <200402241544.53702.silmariel@telefonica.net> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, silmariel wrote: > > > 1. Textual Analysis > 2. Characters: Beasts, Beings and Spirits > 3. The Wizarding World > 4. Interests: > SHIPs > Sources and Influences > Filks, If not let out. (*) > 5. Predictions > > (*) This section can be added later if a Filk lover wants to do it. I personally delete all Filk posts (in case they have offspring), so I really don't mind what do we do with them. Later it can be retrieved a plain list with all Filk (at Least all filks that follow the FILK convention in the subject) posts if anyone wants to go and review them. Carolyn: None of us like FILKS it seems ! I think as long as these posts have FILK in the subject line, we don't bother to classify them any further. It lets people find them, but doesn't give us much work. Is this a decision ? > >Interests is there because I don't see clear S&Influences or ships as primary categories. I know we need somewhere to put them, but I wanted a more general category to include those themes that really don't add very much, as Ships or Alchemy. As fantastic as Alchemy discussion can be, well, I don't know what percentage of the population is interested in intense research about it. Carolyn: I'd probably prefer to use the word 'Themes' rather than 'Interests' for the subjects that seem to be ending up in this section. Alchemy comes up a fair amount, Christianity of course.. >> Questions to Rowling? We have a lot of posts about that, what do we do with them? Carolyn: I wouldn't include them, personally - I think it is a new reject category, unless there is something substantial there, and if there is, chances are it forms part of a theory post somewhere else. >> You know, the first question that arised in my mind when I received the categories list was where to put Catlady's once a week posts. They need multiple categories. Carolyn: Yes, she's a big problem for us ! I think we have no option but to break the post up into separate bits, then code them individually. Tiresome, but fortunately, not too many people use this posting style. Would this mean we have to allocate her posts a special numbering system eg 12345.1, 12345.2 etc ? >> If anyone can explain me the difference between ships, ships, and ships, I'll be glad to hear it. Currently I don't know whether you refer to relationSHIPs (the one I put in 'Interests') or SHIPs as boats. I'm very lost. Carolyn: This discussion here is all about relationSHIPs, not boats (although of course some of the relationSHIP posts have become aquatic TBay boats sometimes, but ignore that for now !). From silmariel at telefonica.net Tue Feb 24 20:45:27 2004 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (silmariel) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:45:27 +0100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: STAGE TWO =?iso-8859-1?q?=96=20the=20subject?= categories In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200402242145.27115.silmariel@telefonica.net> > Carolyn: > None of us like FILKS it seems ! I think as long as these posts have > FILK in the subject line, we don't bother to classify them any > further. It lets people find them, but doesn't give us much work. Is > this a decision ? It seems we have consensus. Carolyn: >I'd probably prefer to use the word 'Themes' rather than 'Interests' >for the subjects that seem to be ending up in this section. Alchemy >comes up a fair amount, Christianity of course.. Oh, yes, I used another word because we had a Themes subcategory in literary analisys, the name is not important if it transmits the correct semantic. I like :: 2. Characters: Beasts, Beings and Spirits because I inmediately perceive the kind of posts I will find in it. (sort of the The Magical ZooSpiritSphere ) >Carolyn: I wouldn't include them, personally - I think it is a new >reject category, unless there is something substantial there, and if >there is, chances are it forms part of a theory post somewhere else. Ok. >Yes, she's a big problem for us ! I think we have no option but to >break the post up into separate bits, then code them individually. >Tiresome, but fortunately, not too many people use this posting >style. Would this mean we have to allocate her posts a special >numbering system eg 12345.1, 12345.2 etc ? Barry: Me too. I vote you tell her she has to resubmit all her messages as separate subject posts. Though she's just an outstanding example of combining comments from varying posts in an omnibus reply. Others do it too, only less frequently. Sincerely, as we can assign 6 categories to each one of her posts, if she manages to earn the INCLUDE in more than six fragments of the post, I also vote to tell her to repost. I don't want to adapt a sistem only to include a poster, only 3 or 4 replies combined is in a post is not a problem, omnibuses are. I will adapt the database later so there are no conflicts with post numbers from previous groups, I don't want to start patching an structure that now is clean and flexible, unless there is a good reason. Carolina From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Feb 25 18:24:42 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:24:42 -0000 Subject: Subject category list - version 2 Message-ID: Hi I made some changes to the subject list based on our discussions so far and emailed it to you all - its now down to five main categories from seven. Some further questions: SECTION 1 - Themes & sources Should this be the first section ? I thought it kind of set the scene, but don't mind if you want to make it section four instead. I took (relation)SHIPPING out of it, and put it into section 2. SECTION 2 - Individual characters I put beasts, beings & spirits into here (sections 2.9, 2.10 and 2.11). Finally, section 2.12 is relationSHIPPING - it can be a place for ships between any type of character, human, magical or otherwise, which hopefully fulfills all tastes.. However, I am still a bit concerned that theories such as LOLLIPOPS might end up here - my own preference would be to keep these with their key characters. My thinking here is guided not by an outbreak of gooey sentiment, but just that relationships between the adult characters might well be significant for the plot, whereas the vast majority of the SHIPPING between the schoolkids seems to be just wishful thinking. (Except, I suppose, if jealousy caused by it all leads to future betrays..?). I have also left the list of theory acronyms with their characters for the time being - do you agree with how they are allocated, for instance, the vast over-simplification of putting MAGIC DISHWASHER with Dumbledore, just because one of the central themes of it is that he is the puppet master.. SECTIONS 3-4 are largely as before. Finally, a question for Carolina: Presumably all the sections of this list should be numbered to several levels, eg 1 1.1 1.1.1 1.1.1 This is ok, but the characters are currently organised alphabetically, what happens if we insert a new character half way down a list ?? Look forward to your thoughts Carolyn From silmariel at telefonica.net Wed Feb 25 20:01:58 2004 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (silmariel) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:01:58 +0100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Subject category list - version 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200402252101.58592.silmariel@telefonica.net> > Presumably all the sections of this list should be numbered to > several levels, eg > > 1 > 1.1 > 1.1.1 > 1.1.1 > > This is ok, but the characters are currently organised > alphabetically, what happens if we insert a new character half way > down a list ?? Sorry for a brief response, I've slept only 2-3 hours and I'm melting down. I expected it would be done, the categories table of the database is made to allow that, that's why we have 3 different numbers to control the category: Category_ID, Number, father_ID. Number is the position expected for that subcategory (an integer), so in case we decide that main category 2 is now 3 actually how the posts are inserted into categories in the database won't change, it will change the Number. It should be called something as IsChildNumber. Posts can also be inserted at any level, not only the lower. Carolina From kelleythompson at gbronline.com Wed Feb 25 20:15:38 2004 From: kelleythompson at gbronline.com (Kelley) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:15:38 -0000 Subject: Hello, and some files Message-ID: Hi, everyone! I'm sorry for not speaking up here yet; for some reason, Yahoo had my account bouncing, so I wasn't receiving any messages from this group. Seems to be in working order now, though (knock wood). I've begun uploading some files here (from the FAQ list) that might be helpful. The Enchilada is here along with some of Paul's Magical Spreadsheets. :-) I have more to upload; these others might be redundant, but useful to look at, anyway. Oh! Carolina, Paul would be happy to answer any questions, so you should feel free to contact him -- kippesp@ yahoo.com. If it's all right with you all, I would like to invite both Paul and Dicey to this group; they both gave a lot of technical assistance to the FP project, cataloguing in particular, so if they're inclined, their advice would be wonderful. Please let me know if this is okay with you all. I'll keep uploading as I'm able (I need to see if I can figure out how it's supposed to be sorted) and jump in when I can. I've just gotten another draft of an update for the HBF to my drafting partner (Debbie, elfundeb), so that will soon go to the entire admin team for further comments, changes, etc., and I've been making notes for an VFAQ update (and was working on a Portkey update with Maria; she's done all the work, really, I just consulted, and oh, it's beautiful! ). Be nice to get all our documents updated at once. The admin team is working on some administrative issues now (still working out governance matters and so on), and that certain 'problem' we'd been having had seem to have backed off a bit, but was apparently working on the next assault. ;-) Anyway, am juggling a bit, but working on getting those documents finished up so to have more 'project' time. Btw, if any of y'all would like to reach me via YM, I'm kelleyscorpio there and almost always 'on', but almost always invisible. ;-) Feel free to buzz me anytime; if I'm at the computer, I'll respond. --Kelley From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Feb 26 00:00:48 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:00:48 -0000 Subject: Hello, and some files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Kelley" wrote: Hi Kelley > > I've begun uploading some files here (from the FAQ list) that might > be helpful. The Enchilada is here along with some of Paul's Magical Spreadsheets. :-) I have more to upload; these others might be redundant, but useful to look at, anyway. I managed to download them all except the biggest (2579KB) spreadsheet - where I get a message that I am exceeding the download limit for the site - is there some way round this ? But thanks for these, they have come at just the right moment as we were into the second version of our subject list. I'll look at them right away. BTW, I have now uploaded all our documents to the file section for ready reference as well, should have done this before. > > Oh! Carolina, Paul would be happy to answer any questions, so you > should feel free to contact him -- kippesp@ yahoo.com. > > If it's all right with you all, I would like to invite both Paul and Dicey to this group; they both gave a lot of technical assistance to the FP project, cataloguing in particular, so if they're inclined, > their advice would be wonderful. Please let me know if this is okay with you all. Kelley, I am sure that would be fine - hope our discussions so far make sense to them; sorry about the downer on FILKS that has emerged - we haven't quite chucked them out (yet)..and we won't really ask Catlady to re-post all her contributions for the last two years just to help with the filing (though it would help...!). Look forward to any comments you want to contribute, as and when you have time. We're all keen to see what Carolina and Paul come up with as the best way forward on the technical stuff.... Thanks Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Feb 26 09:55:10 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:55:10 -0000 Subject: Review of Kelley's files Message-ID: As I know some of you have trouble with zipped or Excel files, I have downloaded nearly all of the files Kelley put up yesterday and had a look in them to see what's there, and here is a review of the contents. hpfgu - magical spreadsheet to 59544_tab.zip (1062KB) This is just the message index for posts 1-59544 on the current site in an Excel format. It is useful in that it saves us time cutting and pasting from the site, and we could use it to start work on coding immediately if we add the analysis columns on the right hand side. Note - there is another version of this file (hpfgu - magicalspreadsheet to 59544.zip, which is 2579KB and which I can't get to download from the site as it is too big; I am hoping it is just another version of the same data). hpfgu-postsum.zip This is just another version of the same message index, this time for two sets of posts, 1-44485 on the current site, and (usefully) an index of the archive posts 1-7815 which ran between 17 Sep 1999-3 Sep 2000, before the whole group transferred over to Yahoo. whole_enchilada.zip catalogue addendum.xls These two files belong together. Essentially what they are is an attempt to catalogue a selection (not all) of the posts between 21230 and 45000 on the current site. In total, 12684 posts are catalogued. Each post receives up to three code words, and there is an additional phrase describing the content of the post. topic terms (FAQ list) This is an 8-page list of terms and topics which are currently being used by the FAQ group (I think) to classify themes and ideas in the books. If you download anything, this is probably the most useful document. What I am going to do now is prepare a merge of all the terms used on the FAQ list and on the two enchilada files, and then compare it with the current (version 2) of our subject list. I want to check that we have not missed anything, and that there is a place for any post that comes up. Overall, however, I think the approach we have started is very compatible with all these previous cataloguing efforts, and will be much more comprehensive if we ever get it done ! Cheers Carolyn From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Feb 26 15:09:20 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:09:20 -0000 Subject: Review of Kelley's files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" wrote: > > Overall, however, I think the approach we have started is very > compatible with all these previous cataloguing efforts, and will be > much more comprehensive if we ever get it done ! > Encouraging news is always welcome and I approve of comprehensivity, but could I make a plea before the tidal wave of accumulated posts engulfs us. Would it be possible for someone who is holding the ends of all the strings (seems to be you Carolyn) to provide an occasional update as to what decisions have been made. Nothing fancy, just a few lines that states "Right, we've agreed to A, and that x will do this, y will consolidate these and pass it them z who will..." Maybe you already plan to do so. I appreciate that we're still only in the early stages of sizing up the task but I think that regular summaries of decided courses of action is a good habit to get into, especially since some of us may occasionally have to go missing for a few days at a time to deal with boring stuff like work. Getting up to speed again by wading through all the posts made in the meantime would be like running up the 'down' escalator. Hard work. And there's nothing worse than slaving away for a couple of days only to find that you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick or that a small change in the layout means that columns must be shuffled around in the spreadsheet before you can successfully download. I'm already starting to lose track of who said what in which post and does it apply to me. Not something that would make me feel confident in what I'm supposed to be doing once we get going. Similarly, don't be afraid to administer a boot up the backside if I don't do what I promised without good reasons. Barry From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Feb 26 19:35:01 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:35:01 -0000 Subject: Review of Kelley's files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" wrote: > > > > Overall, however, I think the approach we have started is very > > compatible with all these previous cataloguing efforts, and will be > > much more comprehensive if we ever get it done ! > > > > Encouraging news is always welcome and I approve of comprehensivity, > but could I make a plea before the tidal wave of accumulated posts > engulfs us. > > Would it be possible for someone who is holding the ends of all the > strings (seems to be you Carolyn) to provide an occasional update as > to what decisions have been made. Nothing fancy, just a few lines that > states "Right, we've agreed to A, and that x will do this, y will consolidate > these and pass it them z who will..." Maybe you already plan to do so. > > Barry (and everyone) Yes, of course, no problem. The situation is easy to summarise - no decisions at all have been taken at present, and I would not do so without explicit agreement from you all. The present state of play is that I am looking through the files that Kelley put up on the site last night, and seeing how they may affect Version 2 of the subject category file, which I emailed to everyone yesterday. Hopefully, I'll finish this analysis today or tomorrow, and I will send this to you all (it will be effectively version 3 of the subject list). I would greatly appreciate it if people could respond to that, as its essential we all feel comfortable with the classification system, and feel able to use it with confidence on the posts. In the meantime, the other useful feedback to receive would be on the reject classifications - are there enough, what do people think ? On the technical side, Carolina needs to start a dialogue with Paul Kippes, but unfortunately she had a bad accident last week and broke some bones in her foot, and is woozy from painkillers. Its the sort of subject which needs clear thinking, so I don't think its fair to pressurise in the circumstances ! In the short term, we could undoubtedly begin with the original plan A and code up Excel sheets (especially as the message indexes are now available from the files Kelley put up last night), so from that point of view, agreeing our subject categories and reject categories is quite a high priority. Hope this helps Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Feb 29 20:05:49 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:05:49 -0000 Subject: UPDATE & ACTION REQUIRED, SUNDAY 29 FEB !! Message-ID: Hi I have just finished reviewing the topic lists in the files that Kelley put on the site, and making changes to our subject list as a result. In the files section on this site there are now two new Word documents called: CategoriesV3 (I have taken down V2 and V1 to avoid confusion) De-duped HPfGU topic lists Please could you have a look at both ? The De-duped HPfGU list shows all the topics which were being used in the two Enchilada files and the FAQ file, arranged in four sections, plus in one continuous list at the end. You will see that there are many topics which would not be useful for directly cataloguing posts, although they are all relevant to the HP canon. Therefore, I have had to make some decisions what to use and what not to use - the result is shown in the Category list, Version3. Its important that you feel able to use the Category list - so let me know what you think. Should there be more topics ? Do you agree with the ones I have put in? Etc. The category list is now only four sections, and I have added numbering to every topic, so these codes can be used directly on our spreadsheets, no writing required. On the technical front, I have agreed with Carolina that I will do an intro email to Paul Kippes, and I will let everyone know the result of those discussions as I can. Look forward to your responses AND to your thoughts on the reject code list. Thanks Carolyn