From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Jul 1 15:45:46 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 15:45:46 -0000 Subject: New discussion document for MEG Message-ID: Following a chat with Paul and Kelley the other night I have now written a discussion document for them to present to MEG, to see if we can find a way forward on the legal issues and also the design and display of the catalogue for members. The document is now in the files section, in both PC and MAC formats if you want to read it and comment. Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Jul 1 20:35:04 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 20:35:04 -0000 Subject: Proposed category changes, section 1 Message-ID: Ok, on to my fourth HP assignment this week. Over the last 10 days there was some discussion of new categories needed in section 1 which we didn't finally agree. I have gone back over the posts, and have to say my view hasn't changed much! What I think should be done is [proposed changes in square brackets]: 1.1.7 Bravery/courage 1.1.7.1 Cowardice [& Fear] [1.1.7.2 Rashness & anger] 1.2.2 Dumbledore's agenda [1.2.2.1 DD's gleam] 1.3.1 Parameters set by JKR [/authorial intent] 1.3.5 Back History 1.3.5.1 [Godric's Hollow/]Death of Lily & James [1.3.5.2 Shrieking Shack] My reasoning on all this is as follows: DD's gleam is definitely an aspect of DD's agenda, rather than just plot development. It is about something he personally realises and takes into account. Shrieking Shack is a legitimate back history event which we have not viewed in real time, and references to it are scattered across the books. The other topics suggested so far as key incidents requiring codes of their own (Graveyard in GOF, battle at MoM, Harry's occlumency lessons, scar connection) already have good codes that exist (either the relevant chapters, or characters or, in the case of occlumency, its own code). However, I will admit I am stumped about what do with 'motivation', 'forgiveness' and 'sloth'. I still think there is a case for a 7 sins/7 virtues sub-head under 1.1.1.1 (religious influences) to catch those Peg Kerr's altogether, and any related threads. You could also say that they are a form of character analysis and just put them all under 1.4.(Characterisation). Don't know if people would think to look there though. Another change that we might consider, bearing in mind our plans for reducing the theory acronyms if they don't attract many posts, is that at the second edit stage, we might consider creating some sub- heads mainly under the characters to group together certain popular theory themes surrounding those characters. Eg, we already have Vampire!Snape, and there have already been so many speculations about whether he loved Lily before we have got anywhere near LOLLIPOPS, that I can see a 'Snape's lovers' sub-head emerging (sorry, Barry), ESE!Snape (of course), etc etc. It would certainly help break up the mass of posts that are already coded there. We had a discussion a while back about whether DD's agenda and Voldie's agenda should really be back with the characters, and decided against it at the time, but that is more of the same idea really. The issue of where people would think to look for things is a very valid one, and extremely relevant to the MEG discussion document I have just put up. More thought needed on all this - and I forgot to add in to the document Anne's suggestion that reader's should be able to see our category definitions. That would help, and I am sure it is possible technically on the initial search screens they encounter. Ok, I think I have done all my homework for this week. Please can you all get back to me with your responses to the various things I have sent round, and these proposed code changes ? Thanks Carolyn From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Jul 2 04:55:34 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 04:55:34 -0000 Subject: New discussion document for MEG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" wrote: > Following a chat with Paul and Kelley the other night I have now > written a discussion document for them to present to MEG, to see if > we can find a way forward on the legal issues and also the design and > display of the catalogue for members. > > The document is now in the files section, in both PC and MAC formats > if you want to read it and comment. > > Carolyn I have read this, and agree wholeheartedly. I'm not much on technical or legal issues, but I definitely think it's best that users can bring up actual posts, and that the whole thing be accessible only through HPfGU and through the home page. Re your proposed category changes in your next post, they look good to me, too. Agreeable today, aren't I? Anne From paul-groups at wibbles.org Fri Jul 2 08:13:35 2004 From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 03:13:35 -0500 Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: New discussion document for MEG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm still up having finished some fictionalley tasks that can only be done in the middle of the night. But it gave me a chance to read the documents. Just a few quick points: 1) In case it matters, the catalogue will contain all messages and each message can be retrieved without any alterations (without exceptions). That is the starting point. An admin can always get to any original post. But within the database, we'll have the potential to modify a copy of the post and disable it from consideration and perhaps split it into multiple posts. I'm only bringing this up because I think there can be other uses that the HPFGU Mod team can get out of it. 2) When suggesting a possible user presentation of the categories, list the number of immediate sub categories in parens--like Snape (10) to indicate Snape has 10 children (as if :) ). 3) I can't have a hugh influx of people connecting to my computer. My hope is to stay under the radar of my ISP. 4) Change "Paul may need help" to "Paul would like to have help" 5) Requestions donations would be good rather than requiring payment The Mod folks like to complain about Yahoo's sucky search capability. We have the data. And we can utilitize it in ways that are not too difficult. ----- Original Message ----- From: annemehr Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 04:55:34 -0000 Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: New discussion document for MEG To: hpfgu-catalogue at yahoogroups.com --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" wrote: > Following a chat with Paul and Kelley the other night I have now > written a discussion document for them to present to MEG, to see if > we can find a way forward on the legal issues and also the design and > display of the catalogue for members. > > The document is now in the files section, in both PC and MAC formats > if you want to read it and comment. > > Carolyn I have read this, and agree wholeheartedly. I'm not much on technical or legal issues, but I definitely think it's best that users can bring up actual posts, and that the whole thing be accessible only through HPfGU and through the home page. Re your proposed category changes in your next post, they look good to me, too. Agreeable today, aren't I? Anne 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 Fri Jul 2 08:16:05 2004 From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 03:16:05 -0500 Subject: current posts Message-ID: Do we want to catalog the current discussions (posts > 103,000)? I haven't been processing new messages into the project archive. But I see no reason that if someone is reading the posts, they can't take care or categorizing at the same time. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Jul 2 09:14:39 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 09:14:39 -0000 Subject: current posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Paul Kippes wrote: > Do we want to catalog the current discussions (posts > 103,000)? I > haven't been processing new messages into the project archive. But I > see no reason that if someone is reading the posts, they can't take > care or categorizing at the same time. Carolyn: Yes, they should be loaded in, why not. My recollection is that our current archive runs up to about post 80 000 or something, but all the posts need to be in there eventually. From silmariel at telefonica.net Fri Jul 2 11:24:43 2004 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (a_silmariel) Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 11:24:43 -0000 Subject: Back to work Message-ID: Hi all, It's been some months but I'm back to the group. Will you assign me a batch of posts, Carolyn? Regarding to the site design (as seen by final users)... I don't know how to draw, fictionalley has so nice drawings that I think we should find a real artist to do the job, but I've been playing with the standar linux image manipulator (GIMP for friends) for years, I've cooperated in a couple of actual (and oficial) sites, mainly discussing the design with the authors, choosing colours and such. I even sold a couple of wide screen images for a commercial software a year ago( :) ). I can make a 'not - so - terrible - to - look' first concept of the site, at least till we find something we really like. Carolina From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Jul 2 13:07:50 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 13:07:50 -0000 Subject: Back to work In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_silmariel" wrote: > > Hi all, > > It's been some months but I'm back to the group. Will you assign me a batch of posts, Carolyn? Carolyn: Welcome and really good to see you back. Could you take posts 4801- 4900 on the main list? Did you receive the definitions document I sent out earlier this week ? It will update you on some decisions we have made on what belongs where.. I will also be making the category changes proposed in my email yesterday sometime tomorrow unless any one really disagrees with them today.. > > I can make a 'not - so - terrible - to - look' first concept of the > site, at least till we find something we really like. > > Carolina Carolyn: I'm sure Paul will welcome all the help you can offer.. none of the rest of us have any skills in this area, I think. From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri Jul 2 16:38:59 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 16:38:59 -0000 Subject: "Reader Reactions" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Anne: > Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I'm thinking of is posts that discuss the > subject of reader interpretation in general. For instance, while MAGIC > DISHWASHER was being debated, a side thread erupted about literary > criticism and what lit crit standards and theories ought to be applied > to HP and to theories such as MD. Another facet are posts discussing, > say, whether JKR *saying* Snape is abusive in an interview holds any > more value than the readers' reactions to the actual text. Stuff like > that. It's not a huge category, but there were some thoughtful posts > and I'm not sure where we'd code them. I'm thinking one category, > properly named, could probably hold them all. > > Pippin? Are you around? And Jayne? You must remember stuff like this... I remember stuff like that, and while the volume was probably small I think there are some Fantastic Posts among them - see for example #34802. Those related to MD are probably not the best examples as some of them were rather whiny as I'm sure Pip (*not* Pippin) will remember all too well. I'm not yet sufficiently familiar with the categorisation system to say if it adequately covers this type of post, or where it would go, but I do see it as a significant category. From pip at etchells0.demon.co.uk Fri Jul 2 16:50:32 2004 From: pip at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 16:50:32 -0000 Subject: Symbolic dates? Message-ID: Is there a category for the discussion of certain dates as significant in themselves (ie things happen repeatedly on certain dates)? 3385 (one of Rita's multi-posts) talks briefly about Halloween being significant; speculates Harry was conceived on that day. I recall a few other posts over the years which have also discussed Halloween, Christmas etc as significant symbolically. Currently I've classed it as 1.5 symbolism - it doesn't seem to fit any of the subcategories for symbolism. Pip From pip at etchells0.demon.co.uk Fri Jul 2 17:10:04 2004 From: pip at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 17:10:04 -0000 Subject: "Reader Reactions" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Anne: > > Pippin? Are you around? And Jayne? You must remember stuff like > this... > Dave: > I remember stuff like that, and while the volume was probably > small I think there are some Fantastic Posts among them - see for > example #34802. Those related to MD are probably not the best > examples as some of them were rather whiny as I'm sure Pip (*not* > Pippin) will remember all too well. I do indeed. Don't worry about the Pippin bit, btw. Somewhere, on some website, I have an introduction breakdown with the words 'whoever you think I am, I'm the other one.' ;-) There was a *lot* of whining, and some truly stupid comments by the truly stupid section of the English lit brigade (apologies to any academics in the group - obviously you will belong to the incredibly bright section of the English lit brigade, or you wouldn't be here [grin]), along the lines of 'this type of critical approach isn't *allowed*, so there'. (I'm afraid I responded at my patronising worst [grin]). But there was also some really good stuff, as you say Anne, which discussed the different ways in which HP can be approached. 'How readers interpret'? 'Styles of interpretation'? Either sounds better than 'literary interpretation', IMO, since one of my arguments in the MD thing was I was using a long established interpretation style that came from the world of Theatre, not the world of English lit. > > I'm not yet sufficiently familiar with the categorisation system > to say if it adequately covers this type of post, or where it > would go, but I do see it as a significant category. It is. There was some good stuff there, in amongst the moans. Pip From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Jul 3 12:21:33 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 12:21:33 -0000 Subject: Symbolic dates? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" wrote: > Is there a category for the discussion of certain dates as > significant in themselves (ie things happen repeatedly on certain > dates)? > > 3385 (one of Rita's multi-posts) talks briefly about Halloween being > significant; speculates Harry was conceived on that day. I recall a > few other posts over the years which have also discussed Halloween, > Christmas etc as significant symbolically. > > Currently I've classed it as 1.5 symbolism - it doesn't seem to fit > any of the subcategories for symbolism. > > Pip Carolyn: I think this would be useful. I have added a new category: 1.7.1.1 Significant dates to cover this. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Jul 3 12:30:11 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 12:30:11 -0000 Subject: "Reader Reactions" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" wrote: > > > Anne: > > > > Pippin? Are you around? And Jayne? You must remember stuff like > > this... > > > Dave: > > I remember stuff like that, and while the volume was probably > > small I think there are some Fantastic Posts among them - see for > > example #34802. Those related to MD are probably not the best > > examples as some of them were rather whiny as I'm sure Pip (*not* > > Pippin) will remember all too well. > > I do indeed. Don't worry about the Pippin bit, btw. Somewhere, on > some website, I have an introduction breakdown with the > words 'whoever you think I am, I'm the other one.' ;-) > > There was a *lot* of whining, and some truly stupid comments by the > truly stupid section of the English lit brigade (apologies to any > academics in the group - obviously you will belong to the incredibly > bright section of the English lit brigade, or you wouldn't be here > [grin]), along the lines of 'this type of critical approach isn't > *allowed*, so there'. (I'm afraid I responded at my patronising > worst [grin]). > > But there was also some really good stuff, as you say Anne, which > discussed the different ways in which HP can be approached. 'How > readers interpret'? 'Styles of interpretation'? Either sounds better > than 'literary interpretation', IMO, since one of my arguments in > the MD thing was I was using a long established interpretation style > that came from the world of Theatre, not the world of English lit. > > > > > I'm not yet sufficiently familiar with the categorisation system > > to say if it adequately covers this type of post, or where it > > would go, but I do see it as a significant category. > > It is. There was some good stuff there, in amongst the moans. > > Pip Carolyn: Its a subject which interests me a lot as well (& Barry, have you read 34802? Dave referred to it a while ago on the main list). We had a couple of codes that were relevant to cover these type of posts, but I have done some sharpening up, as follows [changes in square brackets]: 1.3 Literary techniques [now called: Literary criticism] 1.3.1 Parameters set by JKR[/authorial intent] 1.3.1.1 Constraints due to genre 1.3.1.2 [Reader response & subversive readings] 1.3.1.3 [What is canon?] NB, the last used to be in section 4, but I realised it was more relevant here, so moved it and the two posts so far classified to it, to here. Hope this covers the options. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Jul 3 13:17:52 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 13:17:52 -0000 Subject: Peg Kerr's 7 sins & 7 virtues Message-ID: Ok, I have answered my own question on this and given these their own code. Although not theories, as such, I decided they were a suffiently coherent group of posts to deserve their own heading. Therefore I have added a code under 'religious influences': 1.1.1.7 (7 sins & 7 virtues) I have also gone back in and added this code to the essays we have already encountered, but I didn't add it to any threads related to those essays, I leave it to your discretion if you want to go back and do this yourselves. The posts were: Pride 1553 (Barry) Envy 1699 (Kelly) Gluttony 1878 (Kelly) Lust 2118 (Jayne) Anger 2545 (Barry) Covetousness 2998 (Barry) Faith 3468 (Anne) Hope 3660 (Carolyn) Charity 4371 (Barry) Loyalty 788 (Carolyn) Fortitude 4797 (Carolyn) I did *not* add the new code to two other Peg Kerr essays I have come across: Secrets 957 (Carolyn) Courtesy & Ambition 1209 (Carolyn) as I didn't think these last two fitted into the sins/virtues sequence. Is that right? There also seem to be some missing - anyone know which posts they were? Carolyn From annemehr at yahoo.com Sat Jul 3 13:32:43 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 13:32:43 -0000 Subject: Peg Kerr's 7 sins & 7 virtues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" wrote: > There also seem to be some missing - anyone > know which posts they were? > > Carolyn Barry mentions having done a "Sloth" one back in msg. # 382 of this list... Anne leaving for our holiday weekend From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Jul 4 13:21:59 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 13:21:59 -0000 Subject: UPDATE, Sunday 4th July Message-ID: PROGRESS We have coded, or allocated for coding 13015 posts. Of the 13015, 11688 have actually been coded, and of the 11688, 8166 have been rejected, a rate of 69%. This means that only an additional 500 posts have been coded this week, mainly because only two other people besides me have found the time.. ADMIN There have been three documents written this week - some revised cataloguing notes, a set of category definitions, and a discussion document for MEG. All in the files section. I have made some progress in adding the definitions to the live site, but find I can only put on about 20 at a time before the site locks me out and I have to re-boot before continuing. Any way of solving this Paul? I was interested to learn from a post on the main site recently that MEG is in fact a type of extracranial magnetic field, which would explain a good deal. CATEGORY CHANGES AMENDMENTS 1.1.7.1 (1042) Cowardice becomes: Cowardice & fear 1.3 (6) Literary techniques becomes: Literary criticism 1.3.1 (38) Parameters set by JKR becomes: Parameters set by JKR/authorial intent 1.3.5.1 (989) Death of Lily & James becomes: Godric's Hollow/Death of Lily & James NEW CATEGORIES 1.1.1.5 (1055) 7 sins & 7 virtues 1.1.7.2 (1049) Rashness & anger 1.2.2.1 (1050) DD's 'gleam' 1.3.1.2 (1053) Reader response & subversive readings 1.3.1.3 (1056) What is canon ? 1.3.5.2 (1051) Shrieking Shack 1.7.1.1 (1052) Significant dates 2.4.3.6 (1054) Harry's scar 3.7.4.1 (1057) Parseltongue DELETIONS 4.3.3 (520) What is canon ? (Posts 6258 and 6986 transferred to new code 1.3.1.3) From paul-groups at wibbles.org Sun Jul 4 16:31:35 2004 From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes) Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 11:31:35 -0500 Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] UPDATE, Sunday 4th July In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I wasn't able to confirm this (did about 40). If it is a bug on my side, closing the browser and opening a new one should fix things. If it is a communications problem, waiting the time of a typical reboot may permit the page to load. I have noticed spotty connections. They were especially bad Friday morning around 6-8 am your time. ----- Original Message ----- From: a_reader2003 Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 13:21:59 -0000 Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] UPDATE, Sunday 4th July To: hpfgu-catalogue at yahoogroups.com I have made some progress in adding the definitions to the live site, but find I can only put on about 20 at a time before the site locks me out and I have to re-boot before continuing. Any way of solving this Paul? From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Jul 4 17:52:09 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 17:52:09 -0000 Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] UPDATE, Sunday 4th July In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Paul Kippes wrote: > I wasn't able to confirm this (did about 40). If it is a bug on my > side, closing the browser and opening a new one should fix things. If > it is a communications problem, waiting the time of a typical reboot > may permit the page to load. I have noticed spotty connections. They > were especially bad Friday morning around 6-8 am your time. Carolyn: Paul, I've done them now. It must have been a sticky connection - it was fine for the last hour or so, and enabled me to finish them all in one go. One of those things... From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Jul 5 14:56:20 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 15:56:20 +0100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] MEG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7994321E-CE93-11D8-B0D0-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Finally returning to the grindstone after indulging in a little light assault and battery on the main board. MEG - no major probs with the doc that I can see, though this copyright niggle enters realms far beyond my ken. I can't add anything constructive to that, I'm afraid. I agree that too many hyperlinks would defeat the whole object of the exercise (well, nearly), plus if something can be accessed via the search facility, even via a hyperlink, does that impinge on the copyright thingy? More generally - one year? Maybe - as the shortest estimate; the contrasting extreme would be about the time the next Ice Age rolls over us. It's a bit of a "how long is a piece of string?" question, but I really think we should try and get up to date before the next book is published. Personally I have no problem sticking around until we're up to date or nearly so (it's the frog in the well problem), but at that point I'll probably bow out. Coding current posts could be handed over as an Admin/Housekeeping function. It shouldn't be too onerous, or at least not until the site goes bananas with book 6. Whaddaya think? Barry BTW - I can read xxx.doc files with no trouble, it only garbles when it's in tabular form - which can usually be rectified with some nifty work with my space, tab keys. Oddly the mac version you kindly posted was unreadable on my mac. Very strange. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Jul 6 14:26:31 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:26:31 -0000 Subject: MEG In-Reply-To: <7994321E-CE93-11D8-B0D0-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > Finally returning to the grindstone after indulging in a little light assault and battery on the main board. Hm, newly-dubbed the HBP I see.., well, they got the blood bit right anyway. > > MEG - no major probs with the doc that I can see, though this > copyright niggle enters realms far beyond my ken. I can't add anything > constructive to that, I'm afraid. > > I agree that too many hyperlinks would defeat the whole object of the > exercise (well, nearly), plus if something can be accessed via the > search facility, even via a hyperlink, does that impinge on the > copyright thingy? Yes, it does. If its all just hyperlinks, we probably don't contravene anything, so its a tempting solution legally, as well as technically fairly simple. However, it makes the whole thing very dull and pointless, a slight improvement on Yahoo maybe, but not a great deal. I'm hopeful we won't have to settle for this, even if it means leaving out posts from troublemakers. > More generally - one year? Maybe - as the shortest estimate; the > contrasting extreme would be about the time the next Ice Age rolls over > us. It's a bit of a "how long is a piece of string?" > question, but I really think we should try and get up to date before > the next book is published. I think if we all made an effort, we could get the first 50000 posts done by the end of the year, and it would be great to launch that. I think the response from the members would be so enthusiastic it will not only give us all a boost, but will also prompt the setting up of a longer-term team to keep it running. > > Personally I have no problem sticking around until we're up to date or > nearly so (it's the frog in the well problem), but at that point I'll > probably bow out. Coding current posts could be handed over as an > Admin/Housekeeping function. It shouldn't be too onerous, or at least > not until the site goes bananas with book 6. > Whaddaya think? > > Barry Good, ...its important not to have to be integrating new people all the time, because the coding is going to get very tricky shortly, and conversations rather esoteric as to what we do with it all. Book 6 will, of course, present us with an entirely new set of problems. Hope you will stick around long enough to at least help set up the new coding structure to deal with them.. > > BTW - I can read xxx.doc files with no trouble, it only garbles when > it's in tabular form - which can usually be rectified with some nifty > work with my space, tab keys. Oddly the mac version you kindly posted > was unreadable on my mac. Very strange. Well, not entirely surprised; I shouldn't think Bill Gates took a lot of trouble to get it right. Now there is an evil overlord who has read the rule book.. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Jul 7 09:01:59 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 09:01:59 -0000 Subject: Use of reject codes Message-ID: In connection with the MEG paper, Kelley (Thompson) asked me some questions about our reject categories, and how we were using them. She was surprised at our reject rate of 70%. I thought this was worth discussing. The breakdown as of last Sunday was: 5 - REJECT 609 - ADMIN/list management related 881 - Movie-related 63 - Discussing spoiler issues/problems 4585 - Off-topic Chatter 169 - Listings of personal favourite topics/characters etc 277 - Fan-fic-related 53 - Repeated /duplicated post 1123 - Adds nothing new 98 - Mere agreement 106 - FAQs & their answers 85 - Correction of trivial mistake in past post 93 - Mistakes/perpetrating mistakes 19 - Too illiterate, badly written Most of these reject categories are fairly straightforward, but Kelley did want to know how we are using 'Adds nothing new'. The definition I wrote for the category was: 'Use this for first statement of questions, where the question is repeated in subsequent replies. Also use it selectively to ignore posts that repeat points that are frequently made.' I'd be interested in your views on how easy you have found this to interpret in practice. It implies that the first person to make a particular point takes precedence over a later one, for instance. Its important we are clear about this, as using this category effectively is likely to become more important as we go on, especially after the main reject categories (movie and OT) get their own separate lists, leaving the main list for pure canon discussion. Carolyn PS On another definition point - does anyone think post 5309 should be marked TBAY? Also, I coded it in because I found it amusing, but strictly, I suppose you could call it Fanfic - opinions? From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Jul 7 13:49:03 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:49:03 +0100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Use of reject codes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <688F4078-D01C-11D8-B0E3-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> On 7 Jul 2004, at 10:01, a_reader2003 wrote: > In connection with the MEG paper, Kelley (Thompson) asked me some > questions about our reject categories, and how we were using them. > She was surprised at our reject rate of 70%. I thought this was worth > discussing. > > > Most of these reject categories are fairly straightforward, but > Kelley did want to know how we are using 'Adds nothing new'. The > definition I wrote for the category was: > > 'Use this for first statement of questions, where the question is > repeated in subsequent replies. Also use it selectively to ignore > posts that repeat points that are frequently made.' > > I'd be interested in your views on how easy you have found this to > interpret in practice. It implies that the first person to make a > particular point takes precedence over a later one, for instance. > > Its important we are clear about this, as using this category > effectively is likely to become more important as we go on, > especially after the main reject categories (movie and OT) get their > own separate lists, leaving the main list for pure canon discussion. > Worth a thought or two, especially since it'll be difficult to change things later. Easy to use; too easy sometimes - I sometimes have to stop and think if this is the same thought expressed differently or a subtle change of approach to the subject that's worth recording. One point that bothers me; posters join, post, drift away and are replaced. The Yahoo search facility is crap; very few browse through past posts, they usually only enter the infernal pit when directed to specific posts. Anything posted 6 months ago is ancient history. So it's reasonable to assume that earlier posts are not much read and probably never read if the subject matter has lain dormant for a while. So there are likely to be lots of examples of independent 'discoveries' - restatements of previously posted theories that are not derived or copied from the originals. Do they deserve a mention? My instinct is to say yes. But it'd be up to the team member to decide if it was a continuation of an existing thread or fortuitous serendipity. Not easy, I know. As an aside, there's a poster on the board, fairly new I think, who posts, without attribution, ideas from threads that have petered out not too long ago. Doesn't even refer to 'recent posts'. A bad habit to get into. Whether it's sloppiness or something else I'm not too certain. Might be helpful if the Admin put up a reminder of posting etiquette. > Carolyn > > PS On another definition point - does anyone think post 5309 should > be marked TBAY? Also, I coded it in because I found it amusing, but > strictly, I suppose you could call it Fanfic - opinions? > I like it. Why didn't you add 1.13.5.2 "After book 7, Predictions, no canon" just to be on the safe side? TBAY seems fine to me. Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 3261 bytes Desc: not available URL: From boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com Wed Jul 7 14:54:58 2004 From: boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com (boyd_smythe) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:54:58 -0000 Subject: Use of reject codes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carolyn wrote regarding "Nothing New" category: > 'Use this for first statement of questions, where the question is > repeated in subsequent replies. Also use it selectively to ignore > posts that repeat points that are frequently made.' > > I'd be interested in your views on how easy you have found this to > interpret in practice. It implies that the first person to make a > particular point takes precedence over a later one, for instance. > > Its important we are clear about this, as using this category > effectively is likely to become more important as we go on, > especially after the main reject categories (movie and OT) get their > own separate lists, leaving the main list for pure canon discussion. > > Carolyn boyd: For this project to become a useful tool for group members, we'll need to effectively seperate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. But as Barry noted, this is going to become harder as we start seeing the same thoughts expressed many, many times. Frankly, once we've categorized 100,000 posts, the next 20,000 are going to be brutal if we have to look back every time to see whether someone has said it better. I propose we reject to "Nothing New" only if we have seen the same thing was said better elsewhere in our current allocation of posts. The result will be more posts kept, with more repeated thoughts, but much faster coding. Then in Phase Two (after all posts have been coded), we go back and sift through the posts in each category and either keep only the better ones or mark them with an additional category to cross-reference (e.g. not FP, but RP--Representative Post). --boyd From boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com Wed Jul 7 15:52:27 2004 From: boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com (boyd_smythe) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:52:27 -0000 Subject: Predictions Message-ID: boyd: As promised, I've been thinking about predictions and how to handle them, and I have a few *somewhat* leading questions. * When coding a prediction, should we code it as both a prediction and also whatever other topics the prediction covers? For example, might predicting a war at Hogwarts include both 1.13.4.2 (Book 7, Predictions/no canon) and 1.2.3 (War & Miltary Strategy, Hogwarts Defences)? This would allow cross-checking for predictions regarding specific subjects for prediction-geeks like me. * Should the many TBAYs that are both interpretations of canon *and* predictions be coded to predictions, as well? Again, this would allow easier cross-checking. * Do any SHIPs belong in predictions? For example, "I think Hermione will end up with Harry when the series is over, because in PoA ...." In some ways, most SHIPping is prediction, since the arguments eventually get around to who JKR will have with whom in future books; so perhaps the SHIP codes are sufficient here. Plus, SHIPpers be a foul lot of scallywags, arrh, and must be kept apart from more simple folk. <];) * When coding a prediction that is *not* book-specific (e.g. "someone will be Imperio'd, and I think it's Ron"), where does that go, Book 6 or Book 7? Should we add a category for such predictions? (please, please, otherwise we'll be choosing willy-nilly between books 6 & 7 and adding no value to our poor members). * Should there be specific codes for the big prediction topics that have no current category, such as how/whether LV will be defeated? Who will die? Will the Cubs ever win the World Series? Will anyone ever come up with a cleaner that gets out tough grass stains? (OK, maybe just the first two.) --boyd [Ed. Note: Not actually a Cubs fan.] From annemehr at yahoo.com Wed Jul 7 15:59:22 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:59:22 -0000 Subject: Use of reject codes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" wrote: > Most of these reject categories are fairly straightforward, but > Kelley did want to know how we are using 'Adds nothing new'. The > definition I wrote for the category was: > > 'Use this for first statement of questions, where the question is > repeated in subsequent replies. Also use it selectively to ignore > posts that repeat points that are frequently made.' > > I'd be interested in your views on how easy you have found this to > interpret in practice. It implies that the first person to make a > particular point takes precedence over a later one, for instance. Anne: I've been aware that we have multiple people coding up posts, and we are *each* going to run across points for the first time, which alone is going to give us duplication. I've been fairly liberal about accepting and coding up posts that make intelligent canon points. I've also been assuming that end users will actually want to be able to see multiple posts on a given subject rather than just one or two 'definitive' posts, and want our project to be more of a sorting effort and less a judgment by our few members of which posts are 'worthy'. That said, I've been quite comfortable using 'Adds Nothing New' for posts that are mostly personal opinion without reference to canon. For instance, there was one whose author believed Snape must have become a DE 'by accident' because she (the poster) didn't like to 'associate' with a character who had willfully murdered and tortured. Of course, even canon posts are ending up in there when I remember having seen others that have made the point much better. By the way, I have to compliment Carolyn on the category definitions. I have found them very useful, especially in the 0 through 1.7, 4, and 5 categories which I've found the most confusing to use (the others being much more self-explanatory). As we go forward in HPfGU history, the posts get more meaty and my coding rate decreases, and this has really helped. > Carolyn: > > PS On another definition point - does anyone think post 5309 should > be marked TBAY? Also, I coded it in because I found it amusing, but > strictly, I suppose you could call it Fanfic - opinions? Anne: I agree with Barry -- TBAY and After Book 7 Predictions/no canon. That is, if you are indeed going to accept it. I think I would have rejected it and flagged it 'Just for a Laugh' myself. By the way, I assume that 'Just for a Laugh' will also be available to the end users? It'd be a shame not to share... Anne From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jul 7 16:21:17 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 16:21:17 -0000 Subject: chat sessions Message-ID: I am sure this has come up before, but I just can't find the info I am looking for, so here goes again: I have come across a batch of posts transcribing a Scholastic chat session, followed by a large number of comments. I thought the transcripts might be worth saving (or not?), so I marked them 4.5 for the time being. What is the general policy? And how about the comments? Should they be coded for every topic that comes up? That seems overdoing it a bit... Eva/Sigune From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jul 7 16:34:19 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 16:34:19 -0000 Subject: ...and new questions Message-ID: What about posts like 3738, with lists of other possible questions, some of which are still relevant? E/S From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Jul 7 22:16:23 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 22:16:23 -0000 Subject: 'adds nothing new' (was Use of reject codes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" wrote: > Most of these reject categories are fairly straightforward, but > Kelley did want to know how we are using 'Adds nothing new'. The > definition I wrote for the category was: > > 'Use this for first statement of questions, where the question is > repeated in subsequent replies. Also use it selectively to ignore > posts that repeat points that are frequently made.' > > I'd be interested in your views on how easy you have found this to > interpret in practice. It implies that the first person to make a > particular point takes precedence over a later one, for instance. > Barry replied: So there are likely to be lots of examples of independent 'discoveries' - restatements of previously posted theories that are not derived or copied from the originals. Do they deserve a mention? My instinct is to say yes. But it'd be up to the team member to decide if it was a continuation of an existing thread or fortuitous serendipity. Not easy, I know. Boyd replied: I propose we reject to "Nothing New" only if we have seen the same thing was said better elsewhere in our current allocation of posts. The result will be more posts kept, with more repeated thoughts, but much faster coding. Then in Phase Two (after all posts have been coded), we go back and sift through the posts in each category and either keep only the better ones or mark them with an additional category to cross-reference (e.g. not FP, but RP--Representative Post). Anne replied: I've been aware that we have multiple people coding up posts, and we are *each* going to run across points for the first time, which alone is going to give us duplication. I've been fairly liberal about accepting and coding up posts that make intelligent canon points. I've also been assuming that end users will actually want to be able to see multiple posts on a given subject rather than just one or two 'definitive' posts, and want our project to be more of a sorting effort and less a judgment by our few members of which posts are 'worthy'. That said, I've been quite comfortable using 'Adds Nothing New' for posts that are mostly personal opinion without reference to canon. For instance, there was one whose author believed Snape must have become a DE 'by accident' because she (the poster) didn't like to 'associate' with a character who had willfully murdered and tortured. Of course, even canon posts are ending up in there when I remember having seen others that have made the point much better. Carolyn: The points which seem to be coming out here are: 1) We probably shouldn't worry too much about what other cataloguers have rejected to 'adds nothing new' because there will be a second stage edit, where things can be rescued if necessary. The only feasible approach is to try and remember what you, personally, have already consigned to this category. I have not yet thought through how we are going to do this second stage edit, but I hadn't envisaged reviewing many of the reject categories, other than 'FAQ'. However, probably we should include the 'adds nothing new' category in the review. And yes - I am also assuming that there will be many, many posts on a given subject, reflecting all the diverse opinions. I am not thinking of over-culling, only checking over and removing obvious misfits, and perhaps removing a thread or two that, in comparison with others that exist, adds nothing much. It would be worth starting to mull over the potential rules for editing, even at this early stage. 2) Personal opinion/no canon as criteria for 'adds nothing new'. Its no big deal, but I thought those belonged in: 0.5 ??Listings of personal favourite topics/characters etc (which I defined as): 'Polls, quizzes, likes & dislikes, anything which has no substantive canon analysis attached to it but which is merely personal opinion' However, I realise that the 'personal opinion' aspect is a bit of a fuzzy area, as Carolina has just queried the same thing to me in connection with a Ron thread, in which several posters not only got heated, but brought in large chunks of their personal childhood experiences to reinforce the points they were making. In that instance, my view was that it probably should be coded up rather than rejected because the thread ended up as quite a thorough thrashing of Ron's motivations and family pressures. On the other hand, it did have lots of 'well, I think he should have apologised' stuff, rather like the current Sirius threads. People might like to read all that, though, so they can side with one poster or another as they read through. Personally, I tend to use 'adds nothing new' for stuff which is either borderline FAQ, or its a relatively simple idea that I know I have seen lots of times before. Most things in these categories are also likely to be quite short, or a series of very short one-line replies to a more substantive post. Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Jul 7 22:20:32 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 22:20:32 -0000 Subject: chat sessions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" wrote: > I am sure this has come up before, but I just can't find the info I > am looking for, so here goes again: > I have come across a batch of posts transcribing a Scholastic chat > session, followed by a large number of comments. I thought the > transcripts might be worth saving (or not?), so I marked them 4.5 for > the time being. What is the general policy? And how about the > comments? Should they be coded for every topic that comes up? That > seems overdoing it a bit... > > Eva/Sigune Carolyn: Yes, I would code the transcript to 4.5, JKR interviews, as it is useful to have it recorded there. As to the replies, it depends how substantive they are. If one of JKR's comments sets off a good discussion, that's fine, but if it ends up as a series of one-liners, especially about things we have subsequently found out a lot more about and analysed to death, then I tend to chuck into 'adds nothing new'. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Jul 7 22:24:56 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 22:24:56 -0000 Subject: ...and new questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" wrote: > What about posts like 3738, with lists of other possible questions, > some of which are still relevant? > > E/S Carolyn: What do other people think? We could have a new category for posts like this (which is a list of questions to ask JKR should anyone ever get a chance). I have been a bit cavalier and rejected a lot of this to 'admin' up to now, certainly not coded to subject matter. (It always seemed to be a task that Penny was masterminding). Thoughts? From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Jul 7 22:59:03 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 22:59:03 -0000 Subject: Predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "boyd_smythe" wrote: > boyd: > As promised, I've been thinking about predictions and how to handle > them, and I have a few *somewhat* leading questions. > > * When coding a prediction, should we code it as both a prediction and also whatever other topics the prediction covers? For example, might predicting a war at Hogwarts include both 1.13.4.2 (Book 7, > Predictions/no canon) and 1.2.3 (War & Miltary Strategy, Hogwarts > Defences)? This would allow cross-checking for predictions regarding specific subjects for prediction-geeks like me. I have not been, but perhaps I should. I have just been putting things into one or other of the predictions categories, depending on how much canon support it had. However, I confess, I tend to only put very slight predictions in either category. If something is a long, carefully analysed piece, that argues for some outcome or other, this seems to me to go way beyond 'I think x will happen in book 7'. To take an extreme example, is MAGIC DISHWASHER a prediction? Would it have any meaning to code it here? > * Should the many TBAYs that are both interpretations of canon *and* > predictions be coded to predictions, as well? Again, this would allow > easier cross-checking. On the above argument, I would say no... > * Do any SHIPs belong in predictions? For example, "I think Hermione > will end up with Harry when the series is over, because in PoA ...." > In some ways, most SHIPping is prediction, since the arguments > eventually get around to who JKR will have with whom in future books; > so perhaps the SHIP codes are sufficient here. Plus, SHIPpers be a > foul lot of scallywags, arrh, and must be kept apart from more simple > folk. <];) Yuck. Can't we leave them in the SHIP box at the end of section 2 to fester? I do put the occasional SHIP into the prediction section, but try not to overdo it.. I mean, they all go round the same triangle don't they? On the other hand, there is MADAM WHIPLASH... > * When coding a prediction that is *not* book-specific (e.g. "someone > will be Imperio'd, and I think it's Ron"), where does that go, Book 6 > or Book 7? Should we add a category for such predictions? (please, > please, otherwise we'll be choosing willy-nilly between books 6 & 7 > and adding no value to our poor members). Erm, I think we decided that it depended where we were on the list at the time. That is, right now (around post 5000), its still pre-OOP, so in case of doubt, code to Book 5, unless it is quite clearly labelled a book 6 or 7 prediction. A bit earlier, pre-GOF, we were coding almost exclusively to GOF on predictions, as the publication frenzy grew. Make sense ?? > * Should there be specific codes for the big prediction topics that > have no current category, such as how/whether LV will be defeated? Who > will die? Will the Cubs ever win the World Series? Will anyone ever > come up with a cleaner that gets out tough grass stains? (OK, maybe > just the first two.) > > --boyd > [Ed. Note: Not actually a Cubs fan.] Hm. We have just had some footie-type World Series inflicted on us over here ...What is it with chasing balls of various sizes over patches of grass? Passeth all understanding.. Not in favour of prediction codes as such for big topics like these. Goes back to my first point - it seems to me that these kind of posts are way beyond predictions in the sense that I was using the categories. Be interested in other people's thoughts on these points, which are good ones to raise. Carolyn Thinking of issuing Detentions to Dave and Barry for the kettle thread, if I can finally pick myself up the floor from laughing....I mean, how are we going to code *that* ? Predictions??? Flatulence? Flat feet.. And the punishment? Well, Barry for one can do the second edit on the SHIP category for sure.. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Jul 8 10:37:38 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 11:37:38 +0100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Predictions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > However, I confess, I tend to only put very slight predictions in > either category. If something is a long, carefully analysed piece, > that argues for some outcome or other, this seems to me to go way > beyond 'I think x will happen in book 7'. To take an extreme example, > is MAGIC DISHWASHER a prediction? Would it have any meaning to code > it here? > > My inclination would be Foreshadowing and/or Dumbledore's agenda. > > > * Should the many TBAYs that are both interpretations of canon > *and* > > predictions be coded to predictions, as well? Again, this would > allow > > easier cross-checking. > > > On the above argument, I would say no... > I agree. There have been quite a few TBAYs that inspired predictive threads, so the results of TBAYers mental manglings will get coded anyway - and the source of the theory is usually mentioned in the post anyway. > > > * Do any SHIPs belong in predictions? For example, "I think > Hermione > > will end up with Harry when the series is over, because in > PoA ...." > > In some ways, most SHIPping is prediction, since the arguments > > eventually get around to who JKR will have with whom in future > books; > > so perhaps the SHIP codes are sufficient here. Plus, SHIPpers be a > > foul lot of scallywags, arrh, and must be kept apart from more > simple > > folk. <];) > > > Yuck. Can't we leave them in the SHIP box at the end of section 2 to > fester? I do put the occasional SHIP into the prediction section, but > try not to overdo it.. I mean, they all go round the same triangle > don't they? On the other hand, there is MADAM WHIPLASH... > SHIPs - the last refuge of the terminally romantic. Personally, I think there ought to be a mental health warning attached to all SHIPs:- "Caution! You are accessing an altered mind-state. Inoculation with Essence of Elkins is strongly recommended." > > > Carolyn > Thinking of issuing Detentions to Dave and Barry for the kettle > thread, if I can finally pick myself up the floor from laughing....I > mean, how are we going to code *that* ? Predictions??? Flatulence? > Flat feet.. > > And the punishment? Well, Barry for one can do the second edit on the > SHIP category for sure.. > Well, if I could do a little judicious post editing while I'm at it.... turn them into something slightly less fluffy..... BTW - finished my current batch. Another lot please - though I'm expecting a rush job to hit my desk any time soon, so there might be a short delay before completion. Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 3126 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Jul 8 11:00:52 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:00:52 -0000 Subject: Predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > Well, if I could do a little judicious post editing while I'm at > it.... turn them into something slightly less fluffy..... > > BTW - finished my current batch. Another lot please - though I'm > expecting a rush job to hit my desk any time soon, so there might be a > short delay before completion. > > Barry If only.. Can you take 6401-7000? Cheers Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Jul 9 08:13:34 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 08:13:34 -0000 Subject: From Kelly re 'Adds Nothing New' Message-ID: Regarding the use of "Adds Nothing New", I've been using it for several things. First, as you mentioned, for questions. If the poster adds his or her own answer or opinion to the question, I categorize it accordingly, but if it's just a straightforward query , whether about canon or asking for theories, I put it in "Adds Nothing New" (the replies, of course, get categorized appropriately). As far as "Also use it selectively to ignore posts that repeat points that are frequently made", I'm usually pretty lenient regarding this point. Even if I know a particular idea has been discussed ad nauseum, if the post is coherent and elaborates even a little, I will keep it in our database. However, I come across a lot of posts that suggest an idea but fail to develop it, then are followed by other posts which address the idea more fully. I try to look at it from our future users' perspective; if I were looking for past discussion of a theory or topic, would this post be at all helpful, or just an annoyance as I search for new ideas? If the database is going to be effective, we don't want our users wading through tons of posts stating the same thing. A bit arbitrary, I suppose, but that's my process. I've been using "Adds nothing new" much less often recently, since posters are beginning to add slightly new angles to old theories, and starting to support their theories with canon. Kelly From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sat Jul 10 13:54:25 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 14:54:25 +0100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Predictions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Got a smart one here - Joywitch, Post 6455 thought that the one to die in book 4 would be Sirius and that Sybill's first Prophecy forecasts the downfall of Voldy......missed it by one book. Barry From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Jul 10 15:34:09 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:34:09 -0000 Subject: Predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > Got a smart one here - > > Joywitch, Post 6455 thought that the one to die in book 4 would be > Sirius and that Sybill's first Prophecy forecasts the downfall of > Voldy......missed it by one book. > > Barry Ah, not as smart as you think, it wasn't her original idea, it was Rainy Lilac. Check post 3298 in the Yahoo Club and Joy's reply 3299. These two posts started a Sirius-dying thread, which can be read easily by clicking 'p' on 'Predictions, no canon, Book 4'. Posts 3298, 3299, 3300, 3302, 3305, 3307, 3315, 3321, 3322, 3346. There are also some uncanny accurate ones on what Trelawny's prediction was all about way back in the Yahoo club..I'll see if I can find them if you are interested. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Jul 10 15:45:14 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:45:14 -0000 Subject: Predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" wrote: > --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith > wrote: > > Got a smart one here - > > > > Joywitch, Post 6455 thought that the one to die in book 4 would be > > Sirius and that Sybill's first Prophecy forecasts the downfall of > > Voldy......missed it by one book. > > > > Barry > > Ah, not as smart as you think, it wasn't her original idea, it was > Rainy Lilac. Check post 3298 in the Yahoo Club and Joy's reply 3299. > > These two posts started a Sirius-dying thread, which can be read > easily by clicking 'p' on 'Predictions, no canon, Book 4'. Posts > 3298, 3299, 3300, 3302, 3305, 3307, 3315, 3321, 3322, 3346. Carolyn again: Yep, just found them (on predictions) - it was Brooksindy in Yahoo club post 6994 that got there first - and see 5905, 6998, 7148, 7150 in the club as well. I particularly remember doing them and thinking how sharp they were. > > There are also some uncanny accurate ones on what Trelawny's > prediction was all about way back in the Yahoo club..I'll see if I > can find them if you are interested. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Jul 10 20:09:28 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:09:28 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Death_by_Surstr=F8mming..?= Message-ID: This post is especially for Boyd, who is currently feeling a little distressed at the degree to which this list can veer off topic..... (was it 14 posts on the dangers of tripping over Duplo bricks you found??) Post 7210 OT Norwegian Christmas-sweets (long; includes cruel jokes directed at Swedes ;-) First of all, let me warn that anyone who mocks our great tradition of lutefisk, will be forced to spend a Spitsbergen night in a closed room, the only company being an open barrel of Surstr?mming... ;-) (enormous snip of extensive Norwegian Xmas dinner details, including lengthy recipes) Note: Surstr?mming is, as far as I know, made from a Swedish freshwater-fish, pickled and cured to the degree that it has started fermenting (apparently the process includes burying it for a while in a wooden barrel, though I may be mistaken on this). Tehre was a ferocious exchange of newspaper-articles between Danish and Swedish newspapers some years back, over a Swedish nuclear powerplant. It ended with the Swedish threatening to dump plane-loads of Surstr?mming over the Danes. The Danes maintained that this would be a warcrime according to international conventions (falling under the definition of chemical warfare). And believe me, folks, this thread goes on and on and on....it started with some idiot checking Brit Christmas customs for a fanfic.. Carolyn Who actually thinks this an improvement on the current list discussions.. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Jul 11 16:19:00 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 16:19:00 -0000 Subject: UPDATE Sunday 11th July Message-ID: PROGRESS As of today, 15115 posts have been allocated for coding/or coded. Of the 15115, 13799 have actually been done, and of the 13799, 9695 have been rejected (hooray)- a continuing rate of 70%. This week, in a mass fit of enthusiasm, no less than 9 people found some time, and as a consequence, we completed 2111 posts, compared to the measly 500-odd last week! Thanks. Ahem, just one person (who knows who they are!) has about 60 posts to finish waaay back at the beginning of the group posts..can you do them, as its just *ruining* my nice little line of ticks...?! ADMIN I still have to summarise about the reject categories for Kelley/MEG, in particular about the 'adds nothing new' category: anyone want to make any more comments about this? At the back of Kelley's concern is that she thought all the posts would be in the catalogue, but the way its going, it looks like only 30% will be indexed for member's use. This seems a *very* good thing to me, but I have to explain it more fully so that it doesn't come across that the catalogue is just a highly subjective selection of past posts. Paul, here's a tech query for you from Kelly, who is still on the high seas (but managed to see POA when she docked in a port recently): Twice, when attempting to bring up posts, I've received the following message: Fatal error: Call to undefined function: recode_string() in C:\www\paracelsus\contrib\pear\Mail\mimeDecode.php on line 535. This occurs with posts 1660 and 1761. I glanced at the code; recode_string seems to be a subroutine to convert utf8 numbers, but I didn't investigate any further. Does this occur in the real database, or just mine? Any idea why? CATEGORY CHANGES NEW CATEGORIES 2.12.11 (1059) FB&WTFT 3.6.3 (1060) QTTA 3.8.4.11 (1058) Accio CATEGORY AMENDMENTS 1.4.3 (55) Portrayal of males/females (add): /gays 3.8.6.6 (438) Philosopher's Stone (add): & Elixir of Life From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Jul 11 16:46:39 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 16:46:39 -0000 Subject: Questions for JKR & Schafer book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sigune asked: > > What about posts like 3738, with lists of other possible questions, some of which are still relevant? I originally replied: > What do other people think? We could have a new category for posts > like this (which is a list of questions to ask JKR should anyone ever get a chance). I have been a bit cavalier and rejected a lot of this to 'admin' up to now, certainly not coded to subject matter. (It > always seemed to be a task that Penny was masterminding). > > Thoughts? I've now had a look at this again, and think that we probably do need an extra category. The posts are basically endless lists of short questions for submitting to JKR either online or at other interview opportunities. Should it go as a subset to 'JKR interviews' down in section 4 do you think? But then people start replying to these questions anyway, so you get millions of short little replies in long strings. A nightmare, but I think they need to be coded up in the normal way, rather than dumped into the new category? Yes/no? Kelly has this query: I've come across a rather lengthy thread discussing Schafer's Harry Potter guidebook (I think that was the Beachum one). Several different ideas are discussed here (her ideas on the possible symbolism, origins of names, dating the books, etc.) as well as much evaluation of the book itself (does she present new ideas or just the same stuff list readers have already discussed, are her ideas valid or is she just an academic trying to present as many classic connections as possible, is the book worth buying, etc.). Perhaps this topic could use it's own category? For discussion of published analyses of the series? My thoughts were: As I remember, everyone thinks the book is a load of rubbish, don't they? I believe she made a lot of mistakes (?). We could add a code under 'Controversies' perhaps, like we have for Stouffer? Or would it be more appropriate somewhere under literary criticism in section 1? What does anyone else think? Carolyn From paul-groups at wibbles.org Sun Jul 11 17:01:41 2004 From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 12:01:41 -0500 Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] UPDATE Sunday 11th July In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: She doesn't have the software to handle the conversion (the recode_string function). I thought I made special provisions to get around such problems, but clearly I missed. The posts will still be readable without the conversion. Some characters may look odd but actually no different than what you'd see in Yahoo. (Yahoo doesn't bother with the conversion.) She can either skip the post or make the following change in the mimeDecode.php file: Change on line 534: if (strtolower($charset) == 'utf-8') To: if (function_exists('recode_string') && strtolower($charset) == 'utf-8') ----- Original Message ----- From: a_reader2003 Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 16:19:00 -0000 Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] UPDATE Sunday 11th July To: hpfgu-catalogue at yahoogroups.com PROGRESS As of today, 15115 posts have been allocated for coding/or coded. Of the 15115, 13799 have actually been done, and of the 13799, 9695 have been rejected (hooray)- a continuing rate of 70%. This week, in a mass fit of enthusiasm, no less than 9 people found some time, and as a consequence, we completed 2111 posts, compared to the measly 500-odd last week! Thanks. Ahem, just one person (who knows who they are!) has about 60 posts to finish waaay back at the beginning of the group posts..can you do them, as its just *ruining* my nice little line of ticks...?! ADMIN I still have to summarise about the reject categories for Kelley/MEG, in particular about the 'adds nothing new' category: anyone want to make any more comments about this? At the back of Kelley's concern is that she thought all the posts would be in the catalogue, but the way its going, it looks like only 30% will be indexed for member's use. This seems a *very* good thing to me, but I have to explain it more fully so that it doesn't come across that the catalogue is just a highly subjective selection of past posts. Paul, here's a tech query for you from Kelly, who is still on the high seas (but managed to see POA when she docked in a port recently): Twice, when attempting to bring up posts, I've received the following message: Fatal error: Call to undefined function: recode_string() in C:\www\paracelsus\contrib\pear\Mail\mimeDecode.php on line 535. This occurs with posts 1660 and 1761. I glanced at the code; recode_string seems to be a subroutine to convert utf8 numbers, but I didn't investigate any further. Does this occur in the real database, or just mine? Any idea why? CATEGORY CHANGES NEW CATEGORIES 2.12.11 (1059) FB&WTFT 3.6.3 (1060) QTTA 3.8.4.11 (1058) Accio CATEGORY AMENDMENTS 1.4.3 (55) Portrayal of males/females (add): /gays 3.8.6.6 (438) Philosopher's Stone (add): & Elixir of Life 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 annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Jul 11 21:23:14 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 21:23:14 -0000 Subject: Questions for JKR & Schafer book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" wrote: > Kelly has this query: > > I've come across a rather lengthy thread discussing Schafer's Harry > Potter guidebook (I think that was the Beachum one). Several > different ideas are discussed here (her ideas on the possible > symbolism, origins of names, dating the books, etc.) as well as much > evaluation of the book itself (does she present new ideas or just the > same stuff list readers have already discussed, are her ideas valid > or is she just an academic trying to present as many classic > connections as possible, is the book worth buying, etc.). Perhaps > this topic could use it's own category? For discussion of published > analyses of the series? > > My thoughts were: > > As I remember, everyone thinks the book is a load of rubbish, don't > they? I believe she made a lot of mistakes (?). We could add a code > under 'Controversies' perhaps, like we have for Stouffer? Or would it > be more appropriate somewhere under literary criticism in section 1? > > What does anyone else think? > > Carolyn I would have happily coded it into the new Reader Response category, I'm sure. By the way, those orphan Club posts you mentioned aren't mine, are they? I believe I accepted your offer to kill them off after my...hiatus...but I'm suddenly unsure of my memory. Anne From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Mon Jul 12 00:27:29 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 00:27:29 -0000 Subject: Finally reporting for duty Message-ID: I have read all the instructions and got access (after some difficulty) to the database. It will take me a little while to get familiar with the categories, but I think there's no alternative to just getting on with it. I do have some questions, and thoughts on topics that have been raised recently, but I'd rather get some proper experience before weighing in. Where should I start? By way of introduction, you'll see my posts start to appear soon after 18,000. I have been known to post on SHIP discussions, and I'm pretty sure I've responded to Hans, too. (To people who think Hans a nuisance, I merely point out that we are missing a category called 'Abanes'. Come April 2001, it will be necessary.) Finally, a small warning. Once I've got the categories properly assimilated, it will be a natural task for me to devise valid canon related main list posts which defy the categorisation. David From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Jul 12 08:37:29 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 08:37:29 -0000 Subject: Finally reporting for duty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > I have read all the instructions and got access (after some > difficulty) to the database. > > It will take me a little while to get familiar with the categories, > but I think there's no alternative to just getting on with it. I do > have some questions, and thoughts on topics that have been raised > recently, but I'd rather get some proper experience before weighing > in. Where should I start? Right here: 7501-7600 on the main list. Just a few to get you started. They are almost certainly still on about Christmas pudding.. > > By way of introduction, you'll see my posts start to appear soon > after 18,000. I have been known to post on SHIP discussions, and > I'm pretty sure I've responded to Hans, too. (To people who think > Hans a nuisance, I merely point out that we are missing a category > called 'Abanes'. Come April 2001, it will be necessary.) Ah, a hidden SHIPPER..well, I suppose we need one to redress the balance! Actually, I found my first ever intelligent SHIP post the other day - 7284. Didn't think it was possible . You mean there is Hans+ still to come ? Must take a look.. > > Finally, a small warning. Once I've got the categories properly > assimilated, it will be a natural task for me to devise valid canon > related main list posts which defy the categorisation. > > David Yes, I can see I've got another troublemaker in the group.. but Darry and Bave doesn't have quite the same ring to it does it? However, your detention is still pending.. From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Mon Jul 12 14:33:40 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:33:40 -0000 Subject: Finally reporting for duty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn: > Right here: 7501-7600 on the main list. Just a few to get you > started. They are almost certainly still on about Christmas pudding.. > You mean there is Hans+ still to come ? Must take a look.. The magic number is 17513. Asbestos underwear is recommended. > Yes, I can see I've got another troublemaker in the group.. but Darry > and Bave doesn't have quite the same ring to it does it? However, > your detention is still pending.. Aaargh! Not Pendings Duty in the Forbidden Elflist with Professor Dicey! Anything but that! David From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Jul 12 19:22:14 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:22:14 -0000 Subject: Abanes (was Finally reporting for duty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > Carolyn: > > > You mean there is Hans+ still to come ? Must take a look.. > The magic number is 17513. Asbestos underwear is recommended. > >> David You're right... its bad, very bad. But more Mr Beckhorn than Hans methinks... From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Jul 13 14:27:59 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:27:59 -0000 Subject: FAQs? Message-ID: Looking through the posts flagged as FAQs in the reject category, I noticed some that didn't seem to correspond to the VFAQs of the HBigfile (which I accessed through the main list homepage). Am I working from the wrong list of FAQs? I finally came across a FILK, though it wasn't called that -- it was one of CMC's earlier efforts, I think. And David, I'm hereby resolved to shove any post of yours into the handiest available categories. "Pound it to fit, and paint it to match," that's my motto! Anne From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Jul 13 14:50:07 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:50:07 +0100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] FAQs? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 13 Jul 2004, at 15:27, annemehr wrote: > Looking through the posts flagged as FAQs in the reject category, I > noticed some that didn't seem to correspond to the VFAQs of the > HBigfile (which I accessed through the main list homepage). Am I > working from the wrong list of FAQs? > > I finally came across a FILK, though it wasn't called that -- it was > one of CMC's earlier efforts, I think. > > And David, I'm hereby resolved to shove any post of yours into the > handiest available categories. "Pound it to fit, and paint it to > match," that's my motto! > > Anne > > You're in? I've been trying to get onto the site without success this afternoon - some rubbish about servers keeps popping up on my screen. Is this fair? Trying to do a bit of categorizing (bloody horrible word) before settling down to some heavyweight golf watching on TV Thurs-Fri-Sat-Sun. (Ah! Royal Troon! Where the Atlantic gales drive the rain horizontally at the over-paid practitioners of yet another sport I'm no good at. I admit to getting a warm glow watching multi-millionaires failing miserably. It's my innate compassion that does it.) Be that as it may, I feel that I ought to make an effort, if only to stop Carolyn jumping all over me (I bruise easily). Anyone got any suggestions? Paul? Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1470 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Jul 13 15:37:55 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:37:55 -0000 Subject: FAQs? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > I'm no good at. I admit to getting a warm glow watching > multi-millionaires failing miserably. It's my innate compassion that > does it.) > > Be that as it may, I feel that I ought to make an effort, if only to > stop Carolyn jumping all over me (I bruise easily). > > Anyone got any suggestions? Paul? > > Barry Only a little light whipping occasionally.. you know you enjoy it. And I can't believe you watch golf..now that is a punishable offence. Anyway, the site's fixed now and you should be able to get in. Can I persuade you to download Yahoo IM? More technology I know, but its free, reaches Paul real fast and allows multi-person chats. I'm dead impressed with it myself. Carolyn From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Jul 13 15:40:16 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:40:16 -0000 Subject: FAQs? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > > > > You're in? > > I've been trying to get onto the site without success this afternoon - > some rubbish about servers keeps popping up on my screen. I wasn't in; I'd been categorising last night. But I just tried now, and it worked fine. Sorry! > > Is this fair? Trying to do a bit of categorizing (bloody horrible word) > before settling down to some heavyweight golf watching on TV > Thurs-Fri-Sat-Sun. (Ah! Royal Troon! Where the Atlantic gales drive the > rain horizontally at the over-paid practitioners of yet another sport > I'm no good at. I admit to getting a warm glow watching > multi-millionaires failing miserably. It's my innate compassion that > does it.) The British Open? I saw an ad for that yesterday -- I love watching golf, I'll watch it with you! Well, sort of -- I bet it's tape delayed here. Come to think of it, I thought you spelled categorizing with an S? Even I do, because it's easier than reaching the Z on the keyboard. On the other hand, though, American spelling is more fun in Scrabble... Time for my whinge: I just got my UK editions, and I've been using them to check chapters, and they're a pain! The US editions have chapter number at the tops of the left pages and chapter title at the tops of the right pages -- very convenient. But Bloomsbury has put "Harry Potter" on the left pages instead, so you only see the chapter numbers on their first pages. *grumble* I *know* I'm reading Harry Potter, for heaven's sake! Anne From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Jul 13 15:44:26 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:44:26 -0000 Subject: FAQs? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: > Looking through the posts flagged as FAQs in the reject category, I > noticed some that didn't seem to correspond to the VFAQs of the > HBigfile (which I accessed through the main list homepage). Am I > working from the wrong list of FAQs? Erm, no..probably we should review this section and tidy it up a bit. Probably things have got in there which don't correspond with the HB, and I am probably as guilty on that as anyone. I'll take a look. > > And David, I'm hereby resolved to shove any post of yours into the > handiest available categories. "Pound it to fit, and paint it to > match," that's my motto! > > Anne Personally, I'm working hard on Cataloguing Decree Number Four Hundred and Thirteen specially to deal with him, but have currently mislaid my Kafka which I was going to rely on for the wording. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Jul 13 15:54:51 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:54:51 +0100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: FAQs? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Only a little light whipping occasionally.. you know you enjoy it. > And I can't believe you watch golf..now that is a punishable offence. Barbarian. You've missed one of the great joys in life if you haven't read P.G.Wodehouse's golf stories. Plucky work with a mashie-niblick, etc. Great stuff from a self-confessed golf failure. Start with "The Clicking of Cuthbert" and get hooked. > Anyway, the site's fixed now and you should be able to get in. Can I > persuade you to download Yahoo IM? More technology I know, but its > free, reaches Paul real fast and allows multi-person chats. I'm dead > impressed with it myself. > Yahoo IM? Never heard of it. Does it work on proper computers - like Macs? And you're asking me to put my trust in something labelled Yahoo? Sounds like a triumph of hope over experience to me. Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 978 bytes Desc: not available URL: From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Jul 13 16:05:36 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:05:36 +0100 Subject: *SPAM?* [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: FAQs? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7A6A1D60-D4E6-11D8-8392-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> > > The British Open? I saw an ad for that yesterday -- I love watching > golf, I'll watch it with you! Well, sort of -- I bet it's tape delayed > here. > Poor thing. We get it live non-stop from 9am to 7.30pm with no commercial breaks. It's a hard day's work not missing a stroke. > Come to think of it, I thought you spelled categorizing with an S? > Even I do, because it's easier than reaching the Z on the keyboard. On > the other hand, though, American spelling is more fun in Scrabble... > Yes, I do normally, but I like to maintain the whinging stance I took way back at the start of this board, complaining about trans-atlantic verbal neologisms. > Time for my whinge: I just got my UK editions, and I've been using > them to check chapters, and they're a pain!? The US editions have > chapter number at the tops of the left pages and chapter title at the > tops of the right pages -- very convenient. But Bloomsbury has put > "Harry Potter" on the left pages instead, so you only see the chapter > numbers on their first pages. *grumble* I *know* I'm reading Harry > Potter, for heaven's sake! > But Anne! This is the right way to do it! You're supposed to memorise the index before you start. Deary me, can't make life to easy for the reader, now can we? Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1546 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Jul 13 16:37:14 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:37:14 -0000 Subject: FAQs? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > > > > Only a little light whipping occasionally.. you know you enjoy it. > > And I can't believe you watch golf..now that is a punishable offence. > > Barbarian. You've missed one of the great joys in life if you haven't > read P.G.Wodehouse's golf stories. Plucky work with a mashie- niblick, > etc. Great stuff from a self-confessed golf failure. > Start with "The Clicking of Cuthbert" and get hooked. > > Just jealous really of you with your feet up all day, no doubt sipping a whisky & soda whilst some of us poor sods are still working. Now *reading* about golf, if its Wodehouse, now you're talking... > > Anyway, the site's fixed now and you should be able to get in. Can I > > persuade you to download Yahoo IM? More technology I know, but its > > free, reaches Paul real fast and allows multi-person chats. I'm dead > > impressed with it myself. > > > > Yahoo IM? Never heard of it. Does it work on proper computers - like > Macs? And you're asking me to put my trust in something labelled Yahoo? > Sounds like a triumph of hope over experience to me. > > Barry Yes, Yahoo Instant Messenger - should be ok on Mac (famous last words). Follow one of the ads on the Yahoo home page and see what they offer to download. Basically its like email but much, much faster and enables you to chat in real time with one or more people. I've found it so useful for doing this project. You can also use it send messages offline, but email is probably just as efficient for that. Carolyn From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Jul 13 16:46:17 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:46:17 +0100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: FAQs? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2927E492-D4EC-11D8-8392-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> > Just jealous really of you with your feet up all day, no doubt > sipping a whisky & soda whilst some of us poor sods are still > working. Now *reading* about golf, if its Wodehouse, now you're > talking... > No whisky and soda .....just a pile of sandwiches, a crate of light ale, a portable commode and I'm ready. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 403 bytes Desc: not available URL: From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Jul 13 16:55:57 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:55:57 -0000 Subject: Safe Place to Vent Message-ID: Part of message #23209 on HPfGU-OTC---------------------------------- If I'm still in the HP fandom by next year, it'll be a miracle. I enjoy the books and movies, but some fans leave more to be desired--it's not necessarily age because I've seen some smart kids. And don't tell me none of y'all have never had a moment of thinking 'your stupidity pains me'. I have my stupid moments but some folk go for records. Dina ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm thinking it right now... Anne From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Jul 13 17:08:20 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:08:20 -0000 Subject: Safe Place to Vent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: > Part of message #23209 on HPfGU-OTC--------------------------------- - > If I'm still in the HP fandom by next year, it'll be a miracle. I enjoy > the books and movies, but some fans leave more to be desired--it's not > necessarily age because I've seen some smart kids. And don't tell me none > of y'all have never had a moment of thinking 'your stupidity pains me'. I > have my stupid moments but some folk go for records. > > Dina > -------------------------------------------------------------------- --- > > I'm thinking it right now... > > Anne Wonder what Dina's thinking of, exactly... Carolyn Who admits to losing it big time with the list the other night, but only ended up telling the cats.. who didn't care From jdr0918 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 13 20:10:52 2004 From: jdr0918 at hotmail.com (jayne reed) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:10:52 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Safe Place to Vent Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Jul 13 20:36:05 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 21:36:05 +0100 Subject: *SPAM?* [HPFGU-Catalogue] Safe Place to Vent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <432BDBE2-D50C-11D8-A801-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> On 13 Jul 2004, at 17:55, annemehr wrote: > Part of message #23209 on HPfGU-OTC---------------------------------- > If I'm still in the HP fandom by next year, it'll be a miracle. I > enjoy > the books and movies, but some fans leave more to be desired--it's not > necessarily age because I've seen some smart kids. And don't tell me > none > of y'all have never had a moment of thinking 'your stupidity pains > me'. I > have my stupid moments but some folk go for records. > > Dina > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I'm thinking it right now... > > Anne Why be coy? Stupidity I can ignore (occasionally) but it's obvious that some of the newer bunch haven't read the books, or not properly. Glaring errors; unfamiliarity with characters and plot; facile arguments; dumb theories. And so bloody PC! Nobody can be nasty under any circumstances. Bollocks. If someone is a brain-dead cretin who's talking out of their anal aperture they need to be told. This is what I was afraid would happen after so many of the best posters transferred to Admin last summer. A dilution of standards. Said so to Admin, too. There aren't enough high quality posters to set and maintain the standard we'd all like to see. Can we get Amanda back on site to whip 'em into line? They'd either improve or leave, whining about how unfair it all is. I fear that the site membership is splitting and that there'll be break-away groups forming. Sad, but probably inevitable. If it happens, for God's sake don't leave me with this lot! I'd prefer merciful oblivion. Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1769 bytes Desc: not available URL: From silmariel at telefonica.net Tue Jul 13 21:33:07 2004 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (a_silmariel) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 21:33:07 -0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Safe Place to Vent In-Reply-To: <432BDBE2-D50C-11D8-A801-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > > On 13 Jul 2004, at 17:55, annemehr wrote: > > > I'm thinking it right now... > > > > Anne > > > Why be coy? > Stupidity I can ignore (occasionally) but it's obvious that some of the newer bunch haven't read the books, or not properly. > Glaring errors; unfamiliarity with characters and plot; facile > arguments; dumb theories. And so bloody PC! Nobody can be nasty under any circumstances. Bollocks. If someone is a brain-dead cretin who's talking out of their anal aperture they need to be told. And I have the chills when they require the same PC from the characters of the books, but more when they require other posters to agree with that or be labeled in ethic terms... when the discussions reach that level I don't know if they ever permit subversive reading and I think nothing useful can come out of it. > > This is what I was afraid would happen after so many of the best > posters transferred to Admin last summer. A dilution of standards. Said so to Admin, too. There aren't enough high quality posters to set and maintain the standard we'd all like to see. Can we get Amanda back on site to whip 'em into line? They'd either improve or leave, whining about how unfair it all is. I was once under her fire. I survived (barely). Can we convince her? Does she accept bribes? > > I fear that the site membership is splitting and that there'll be > break-away groups forming. Sad, but probably inevitable. If it happens, for God's sake don't leave me with this lot! I'd prefer merciful oblivion. > > Barry I'd also. Great news. I've joined the masses who have internet access at home, so hopefully in the future I won't be collapsed by some hundred hpfgu posts each time I connect. I'll give a try and post. I consider myself a newbie (though you categorized me in the 'naive theoriser's section' in a recent post) but as things are now on list, I appear to be brilliant in comparison. Carolina From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Wed Jul 14 08:56:12 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:56:12 -0000 Subject: Off topic question Message-ID: Just read the venting re the main list. With a posting rate of nearly 200 a day I don't have a clue what you are talking about - I'm reading about 5-10 a day and I select by author and subject line (what else?). The people here are uniquely qualified to answer one question, though: is it really any worse than it was in the past, especially at this time of year? In August 2001 there was a huge ill-tempered thread on OTC, started by Naama G (not Amanar), about poor posting quality. In 2002 the kvetching was mostly off-list and on MEG. Last year, OTC was again the venue, the problem being compounded by the OOP surge. I think probably the onset of the academic vacation in the USA has something to do with an (apparent) increase in vacuous posting. Some of the complainants may also find they have more time to get hot under the collar about posts that at other times they would have skipped. I still think Hermione is our best guide: "Ignore, ignore..." I didn't understand the FAQ category, either, BTW - it's nothing to do with the FAQs/FPs, then? David From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Jul 14 09:07:58 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:07:58 -0000 Subject: Safe Place to Vent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_silmariel" wrote: > --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith > wrote: > > > > On 13 Jul 2004, at 17:55, annemehr wrote: > > > > > > I'm thinking it right now... > > > > > > Anne > > > > > > > I fear that the site membership is splitting and that there'll be > > break-away groups forming. Sad, but probably inevitable. If it > happens, for God's sake don't leave me with this lot! I'd prefer > merciful oblivion. > > > > Barry > > > I consider myself a newbie (though you categorized me in the 'naive > theoriser's section' in a recent post) but as things are now on list, > I appear to be brilliant in comparison. > > Carolina Well, I've said it before, I think I'd have drifted away until book 6 if it wasn't for this project. If Dicey hadn't stepped in on Friday, for instance, and pulled them up short on the gay thread, I think I'd have sent out some pretty nasty stuff .. talk about juvenile, narrow- minded, plain stupid, dull etc..and, of course, not discussing canon in any useful way. On the other hand, it is instructive reading through these old posts and seeing exactly the same arguments rehearsed on many topics. The difficulty is that you have to trade off a smaller group of people getting to know each other, discussing things, then running out of inspiration, vs the new ideas that flow in from a bigger group with lots of new members. The approach that I think might work to improve quality is some way of enforcing new members to either not post for a few months initially, or read up a lot before they do. For instance, I think the Hogs Head's attitude is quite good - anyone can read, but only relatively few are members and can post. New HPfGU members could be made to just read the group for a bit in the same way. And, of course, this catalogue could be a vital part of their education. And on the subversive readings..clambers on to soap box.. really, can you begin to think about how the catalogued posts might be presented? Take delicious Snape, think of provocative headings to group his posts under. I can't begin to describe my glee when I first read through 'Hypothetic Alley'. I just buried myself in the site for weeks on end, following through the links. I guess what this catalogue does is bring that up to date on a massive scale, but its all in the presentation.. And Arrowsmith, don't you dare go off to another group without telling us where you are going. You know perfectly well you are, yet again, in line for the annual Witch Weekly's Peeves award for Mischief Managed. And I have heard rumour that you are being considered for Chief Mugwump..(well, lets face it, you can't do worse than Dumbledore). Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Jul 14 09:49:42 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:49:42 -0000 Subject: FAQs/FPs (was Off topic question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > I still think Hermione is our best guide: "Ignore, ignore..." Yes, but the difficulty is deciding which to ignore..I do try and sample most new people's posts to see what they are like.. And I'm also conscious that my early posts were also complete rubbish (and I'm still scared of Talisman..she flamed me in my first week..gulp). > > I didn't understand the FAQ category, either, BTW - it's nothing to > do with the FAQs/FPs, then? > > David No, only tangentially related, in that the FAQ group might like to browse this category sometime to confirm how many people are still asking these questions. However, as I said to Anne, we probably need to tighten up what goes in there. Strictly,it should be posts related to the current list of FAQ questions in the HB, but I know I may have put other stuff in there without double-checking that list. Also, its a moot point when to code up an apparent FAQ, and when to just put it in the FAQ bin. If it sets off on a new and more interesting take on what is basically a FAQ, then I code it up. The FPs are more straightforward. Just click this category whenever you come across something that you think is fantastic. We'll have a bun fight later arguing about them. This section is also unrelated to whatever the FP group choose to write about, though I hope they find it useful as a discussion point. Are the FAQ and FP groups still going? I am unclear.. Carolyn From annemehr at yahoo.com Wed Jul 14 12:13:57 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:13:57 -0000 Subject: FAQs/FPs (was Off topic question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" wrote: > --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" > wrote: > > > I still think Hermione is our best guide: "Ignore, ignore..." > > Yes, but the difficulty is deciding which to ignore..I do try and > sample most new people's posts to see what they are like.. *peeks in guiltily* Actually, it was *Dina's* post that I thought was stupid -- and infuriatingly patronising. > And I'm also conscious that my early posts were also complete rubbish > (and I'm still scared of Talisman..she flamed me in my first > week..gulp). > Exactly -- my first posts were rubbish, too. The only 'problem' is, as David points out, a large influx of new people because of school being out, and the fact that the list size means that's a *lot* of people. Of course, that makes it very difficult to find the good stuff for a while. I'm in four groups with Talisman, and unfortunately she doesn't seem to be posting anywhere. I think I made her angry by arguing with her before (not that that's why she's so quiet now). > > > > I didn't understand the FAQ category, either, BTW - it's nothing to > > do with the FAQs/FPs, then? > > > > David > > No, only tangentially related, in that the FAQ group might like to > browse this category sometime to confirm how many people are still > asking these questions. However, as I said to Anne, we probably need > to tighten up what goes in there. Strictly,it should be posts related > to the current list of FAQ questions in the HB, but I know I may have > put other stuff in there without double-checking that list. > > Also, its a moot point when to code up an apparent FAQ, and when to > just put it in the FAQ bin. If it sets off on a new and more > interesting take on what is basically a FAQ, then I code it up. Actually, I had trouble with that category, too, and almost wrote to ask you before I realised what the instructions meant. Simply put, that FAQ category is a *rejection* category. You ignore it if you're coding up a post normally. If you are rejecting a post because it 'adds nothing new,' *but* its subject is also one of the VFAQs from the HBigfile, you check the FAQ box too. So, a post that merely states "You know, I think Snape could be a vampire" would get rejected as "adds nothing new" and you'd also check FAQ. On the other hand, if you're coding up a decent vampire post under "Snape" and "vampires" you ignore the FAQ box. Back to HPfGU -- I'm up to last Friday now... Anne From dicentra at xmission.com Wed Jul 14 20:31:49 2004 From: dicentra at xmission.com (Dicentra spectabilis) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:31:49 -0000 Subject: Safe Place to Vent / List Volume In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_silmariel" wrote: > > This is what I was afraid would happen after so many of the best > > posters transferred to Admin last summer. A dilution of standards. > Said so to Admin, too. There aren't enough high quality posters to set > and maintain the standard we'd all like to see. Hee! Yeah, that's a phenomenon we MEGs have all observed and understand all too well, especially after seeing so many good members run away screaming into the night after being immolated by list politics. That's why we issued a call for volunteers last time, so we could get the involvement of lurkers who don't much like to post but still have good enough admin skills. That way, we wouldn't be effecting a brain drain on the list. Or as much as usual. > Can we get Amanda back on site to whip 'em into line? They'd either > improve or leave, whining about how unfair it all is. > > I was once under her fire. I survived (barely). Can we convince her? > Does she accept bribes? Amanda's absence is mostly a function of a heavy work schedule (people quit or got fired and she was left holding the bag). She'd be involved if she weren't buried in a heap of documents to edit. Take it from me: when you write and edit for a living, even if you have the *time* to participate on the list, you don't have the brain cells to do so. I think that given her druthers, she'd be on HPfGU. As for the problems caused by the upsurge (and it has been *really* high -- on Jun 29-30 we acquired 123 new members, when 20 is a normal two-day take), we're hashing it out on MEG right now. Just FYI, during the first two weeks of July, only 14% of the newbies who joined during July also started to post. That's 54 new posters. About 65% of all posts came from unmoderated members. We thought about making it so that people can't post right after they join (to make them read up for a bit), but the only way we can do that is make the archives viewable to the entire Internet (including the Google bots) and then requiring approval before joining. The consensus on Feedback was that people don't want potential employers Googling their ID and producing HPfGU posts. There are also the myriad legal entanglements of exposing posts of people who posted under the assumption that the archives would *not* be public. Yahoo allows you to set members to "cannot post" (they can read), but you have to do it manually: you can't automatically set new members to "cannot post." We're hashing out a way to get newbies to read the posting guidelines before posting. Stay tuned... So, we can't do what Hogs_Head did because they set up the site with public archives from the get-go; we didn't. Anyway, school being out isn't the only factor in the upsurge: there's the PoA movie, and the new canon from JKR's site is bringing back lots of oldbies. Then she gave the Fan Site Award to the Lexicon, which sent a lot of people our way because of the numerous mentions of and links to HPfGU. Heaven help us if HPfGU ever gets the FSA! --Dicentra From pip at etchells0.demon.co.uk Wed Jul 14 21:02:43 2004 From: pip at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:02:43 -0000 Subject: Safe Place to Vent / List Volume In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dicey wrote: > Anyway, school being out isn't the only factor in the upsurge: > there's the PoA movie, and the new canon from JKR's site is > bringing back lots of oldbies. Then she gave the Fan Site Award > to the Lexicon, which sent a lot of people our way because of the > numerous mentions of and links to HPfGU. Heaven help us if HPfGU > ever gets the FSA! > --Dicentra Pip [popping in briefly between dealing with builders and church roofs]: Tin hats will be called for if we get the FSA. Emergency special elves [grin]. All that. Summers are dreadful for list quality. Release of a new movie is dreadful for list quality. Put the two together and add it to a heavily linked and popular site and - you've got now [grin]. It noticeably dies down around September. Plus by then, we're well over one year since publication-of-latest-volume, which for previous books was the time when the genuinely original theories started to appear [no *not* mine!]. People seemed to have had time to really think about stuff. In the meantime, I wander off with merry thoughts of scaffolding, lockable containers, security, noise during funerals (undesirability of) ... ;-) Pip From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu Jul 15 10:03:34 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:03:34 -0000 Subject: Early questions Message-ID: I have coded 40 posts now. Most were quite quick rejects - if my period is typical I'm not surprised at the 70% rate. However, I realised that I was falling into a pattern and I wanted to check. It may need a list-elf or ex-elf to answer. In effect, I have been treating the posts as if they were in the Pending Messages queue, rejecting those that would not have made it to the list if that system were in place, and categorising the others. The criterion for pendings, when I was doing it, was 'does the post make a valid canon point?' Is that sensible? Dicey, Phyllis, Pip, Masha, Dan? I'd be interested to know, too, if something of the sort underlies Kelley's reservations about the 'adds nothing new' category as there is not usually a reason to reject these for posting to the list. David From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Jul 15 11:00:27 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:00:27 -0000 Subject: Early questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > I have coded 40 posts now. Most were quite quick rejects - if my > period is typical I'm not surprised at the 70% rate. > > However, I realised that I was falling into a pattern and I wanted > to check. It may need a list-elf or ex-elf to answer. In effect, I > have been treating the posts as if they were in the Pending Messages > queue, rejecting those that would not have made it to the list if > that system were in place, and categorising the others. > > The criterion for pendings, when I was doing it, was 'does the post > make a valid canon point?' Is that sensible? Dicey, Phyllis, Pip, > Masha, Dan? > > I'd be interested to know, too, if something of the sort underlies > Kelley's reservations about the 'adds nothing new' category as there > is not usually a reason to reject these for posting to the list. > > David All I can suggest Dave is that you take a quick look at what has already been coded to the 'adds nothing new' category (click 'p' next to the category). I showed this to Kelley the other night and she agreed with me that the stuff there added zilch to any debate. I would personally be unhappy about having to code up such stuff. I suppose my adjustment to the pending rule in this respect might be 'does the post make a valid [and substantive] canon point'. BTW, the major reject category at present is OT, accounting for nearly 60% of all rejects. But as I have pointed out, the 'adds nothing new' might become more important in the future, so it is important to agree on what goes in it. Carolyn From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Jul 15 14:04:31 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:04:31 -0000 Subject: Early questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn recommended: > All I can suggest Dave is that you take a quick look at what has > already been coded to the 'adds nothing new' category (click 'p' next > to the category). That reminds me to ask: in the 'p' screen, at the end of the batch of posts it shows you, it has 'dump these posts' or something similar. Is that how you get to the next batch of posts? I was afraid to try it, in case it did something dire! Anne probably over-cautious, but safe P.S. I may owe it to Dina, so: did you see her post on OTC with links to a story about someone who caused a lot of trouble in LOTR fandom, and is apparently moving on to HP? Creepy. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Jul 15 15:43:09 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:43:09 -0000 Subject: Early questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: > Carolyn recommended: > > All I can suggest Dave is that you take a quick look at what has > > already been coded to the 'adds nothing new' category (click 'p' next > > to the category). > > That reminds me to ask: in the 'p' screen, at the end of the batch of > posts it shows you, it has 'dump these posts' or something similar. Is > that how you get to the next batch of posts? I was afraid to try it, > in case it did something dire! > > Anne > probably over-cautious, but safe > > P.S. I may owe it to Dina, so: did you see her post on OTC with links > to a story about someone who caused a lot of trouble in LOTR fandom, > and is apparently moving on to HP? Creepy. Carolyn: Yes, I think that clicking 'dump these posts' might be a disaster, tempting though it is. We should ask Paul to put a large red notice next to it! Mm..I read that article too..really worrying obsession. And I think I read somewhere else about another, different, fan who started stalking JKR, claimed she was in love with her or something. From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu Jul 15 16:08:27 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 16:08:27 -0000 Subject: Dumping (was Early questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Anne: > That reminds me to ask: in the 'p' screen, at the end of the batch of > posts it shows you, it has 'dump these posts' or something similar. Is > that how you get to the next batch of posts? I was afraid to try it, > in case it did something dire! Um, I found this command line at the end of the 's' screen the other night and clicked it, assuming it would take me to the 'p' screen, which is what I think it did. I'm at work so can't check now (different IP address) but I will check tonight at home. 'Dump' usually means 'extract from the database', often for the purpose of printing, and deletion is not usually inferred. I hope. > P.S. I may owe it to Dina, so: did you see her post on OTC with links > to a story about someone who caused a lot of trouble in LOTR fandom, > and is apparently moving on to HP? Creepy. Creepy? I thought Amy Player made a fine figure of a wizard myself. :D From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Jul 15 17:23:55 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:23:55 -0000 Subject: Panic over, its ok (was Dumping) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > Anne: > > > That reminds me to ask: in the 'p' screen, at the end of the batch > of > > posts it shows you, it has 'dump these posts' or something > similar. Is > > that how you get to the next batch of posts? I was afraid to try > it, > > in case it did something dire! > > Um, I found this command line at the end of the 's' screen the other > night and clicked it, assuming it would take me to the 'p' screen, > which is what I think it did. I'm at work so can't check now > (different IP address) but I will check tonight at home. > > 'Dump' usually means 'extract from the database', often for the > purpose of printing, and deletion is not usually inferred. I hope. > Carolyn: Just asked Paul, Dave's right. Panic over.. it just dumps to screen apparently. Phew.. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Jul 15 22:13:47 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 22:13:47 -0000 Subject: Misc arbitrary decisions, please read.. Message-ID: A couple of points have been raised by Eva (Sigune) and Kelly (Corinthum) which need resolving, so I have made the following decisions. Please post if you object. ?1. Elizabeth Schafer/Exploring Harry Potter (Beacham Sourcebooks) Kelly: I've come across a rather lengthy thread discussing Schafer's Harry Potter guidebook (I think that was the Beachum one).? Several different ideas are discussed here (her ideas on the possible symbolism, origins of names, dating the books, etc.) as well as much evaluation of the book itself (does she present new ideas or just the same stuff list readers have already discussed, are her ideas valid or is she just an academic trying to present as many classic connections as possible, is the book worth buying, etc.).? Perhaps this topic could use it's own category?? For discussion of published analyses of the series?? CW: As I remember, everyone thinks the book is a load of rubbish, don't they? I believe she made a lot of mistakes (?). We could add a code under 'Controversies' perhaps, like we have for Stouffer? Or would it be more appropriate somewhere under literary criticism in section 1? I'll ask the group and see what they think. ? Anne: I would have happily coded it into the new Reader Response category, I'm sure. ? Kelly: She didn't make mistakes so much as she tried too hard to make connections with classical literature and mythology, and took a rather arrogant attitude, assuming she was the first to make many observations that the list had already discussed repetitively.? The overall conclusion was that many of the book's suggestions were vaguely possible at best, or already considered?pseudo-fact by listmembers (dates, for example).? However, there was what I consider substantial discussion to reach this conclusion.? I'm not sure it really falls into the same category?as the Stouffer case.? Did anyone in the group have any suggestions? I remember occasional discussion of the Galadriel Waters book and theories, which I thought might go under the same sort of category.? I really think it could be a useful category; for discussion not of the specific theories (those already have plenty of categories to take care of them) but rather for the presentation of the theories.? Are they presented as fact or just hypotheses, are they presented well or just haphazardly mentioned, etc.? It might be useful for future users who are thinking of buying the books and?want to browse posts discussing what others thought about them. CW DECISION: Change heading 1.3 Literary criticism to: 1.3 Literary criticism & books about Harry Potter 2. Chamber of secrets Kelly: Another category dilemma... Where would suggest putting posts which discuss the Chamber of Secrets (the room, not the book)?? I've been placing them under Salazar Slytherin and the basilisk where appropriate, but some don't really fit here (e.g. a post discussing when the chamber was built and for what purpose).? Any thoughts? ? CW DECISION: new back history category: 1.3.5.3 Chamber of Secrets 3. Questions for JKR Eva: > What about posts like 3738, with lists of other possible questions, > some of which are still relevant? Carolyn: What do other people think? We could have a new category for posts like this (which is a list of questions to ask JKR should anyone ever get a chance). I have been a bit cavalier and rejected a lot of this to 'admin' up to now, certainly not coded to subject matter. (It always seemed to be a task that Penny was masterminding). Carolyn: I've now had a look at this again, and think that we probably do need an extra category. The posts are basically endless lists of short questions for submitting to JKR either online or at other interview opportunities. Should it go as a subset to 'JKR interviews' down in section 4 do you think? But then people start replying to these questions anyway, so you get millions of short little replies in long strings. A nightmare, but I think they need to be coded up in the normal way, rather than dumped into the new category? Yes/no? CW DECISION: New category: 4.5.1 Interview questions for JKR 4. Richard Abanes, 'Harry Potter and the Bible' Dave drew attention to this debate, which raged on for a long time (see post 17513). I seem to remember discussion of the book got banned from then on as a result. CW DECISION: New heading: 4.1.3.1 Abanes/Harry Potter & the Bible From silmariel at telefonica.net Wed Jul 14 22:23:38 2004 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (silmariel) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:23:38 +0200 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Panic over, its ok (was Dumping) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200407150023.38242.silmariel@telefonica.net> El Jue 15 Jul 2004 19:23, a_reader2003 escribi?: > > 'Dump' usually means 'extract from the database', often for the > > purpose of printing, and deletion is not usually inferred. I hope. > > > > Carolyn: > > Just asked Paul, Dave's right. Panic over.. it just dumps to screen > apparently. Phew.. Carolina: That's how I check if something has been already included in a category (in case it goes to 'adds nothing new') or not. Dump and read, at least till the number of dumped post are unmanageable. Glad I haven't been deleting in the process. Just a question. How were you checking without using that? From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Jul 15 22:18:50 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 22:18:50 -0000 Subject: An idea for improving post quality on the main list.. Message-ID: Carolina made this suggestion off-list to me, which I really like. Its nicely subversive and hopefully would do wonders to improve posting quality. I wouldn't think of trying to manage the posts in the sense of issuing subjects to people or anything like that, but it would be great if people in this group felt inspired to use the results of our cataloguing in this way as the mood takes them. Can I just reiterate that if you do, *don't mention the catalogue* as the source. The project is not a state secret, but until we have agreed all sorts of things about its content, legality and appearance, and not least when it will eventually appear, it is probably best not to start talking about it too widely outside the group. Carolina: > > Do you think it would help a periodic post just to bring some threads to > > light? With subject 'Have you read this?' and some fantastic posts or > > theories as the body. Not as an admin iniciative, just as anyone could do > > it, > > only that we are coding the posts so that we already have to read them. I > > think some posters are not aware of what's been witten in the group, and > > Yahoomort is pure hell after a 20000 posts search. With the uncontroled > > volume of the last period, everything is buried. > Carolyn: > I think this is just a great idea.... It would be slightly like the 'Fantastic > post' essays, but more work-in-progress. I really love the idea of this > mysterious group of people keep putting up threads like this, getting > people thinking again. Carolina: How was that phrase? 'If you control 3% of the energy of the system, you control the system' I read it in a ecology text book, and applied to ecosystems, but ilustrates nicely how subtle changes can have wider impacts.? Well, I think there's a good number of lurkers or posters that are not interested in current dicussions but don't have easy acces to good material. If we feed the list, we may resurge themes that don't get debated as steadily as R/H? Snape/Sirius etc or haven't been debated with new canon. Bluesqueak suggested the list will calm and then we'll be able to think, but if there is people who wants to think but don't have enough input to do so, let's help them (and us) in the meantime. Barry also made a related point in connection with the 'adds nothing new' discussion (422): >>>One point that bothers me; posters join, post, drift away and are replaced. The Yahoo search facility is crap; very few browse through past posts, they usually only enter the infernal pit when directed to specific posts. Anything posted 6 months ago is ancient history. So it's reasonable to assume that earlier posts are not much read and probably never read if the subject matter has lain dormant for a while. So there are likely to be lots of examples of independent 'discoveries' - restatements of previously posted theories that are not derived or copied from the originals.<<<< >>>Do they deserve a mention? My instinct is to say yes. But it'd be up to the team member to decide if it was a continuation of an existing thread or fortuitous serendipity. Not easy, I know. <<<< Carolyn: It seems to me that trying to write a coherent post based on gleanings from these old threads might have the additional benefit of helping clear our minds somewhat on what should and should not go in this reject category. Anyway, hope people are inspired. Carolyn From kelleythompson at gbronline.com Fri Jul 16 02:34:01 2004 From: kelleythompson at gbronline.com (Kelley) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 02:34:01 -0000 Subject: Early questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David: > > I have coded 40 posts now. Most were quite quick rejects - if my > > period is typical I'm not surprised at the 70% rate. > > > > However, I realised that I was falling into a pattern and I > > wanted to check. It may need a list-elf or ex-elf to answer. > > In effect, I have been treating the posts as if they were in the > > Pending Messages queue, rejecting those that would not have made > > it to the list if that system were in place, and categorising the > > others. > > > > The criterion for pendings, when I was doing it, was 'does the > > post make a valid canon point?' Is that sensible? Dicey, > > Phyllis, Pip, Masha, Dan? David, can you give me a few post numbers as examples (examples of what you're rejecting under this criterion, I mean)? Are they OT, are they glorified fluff one-liners, etc.? > > I'd be interested to know, too, if something of the sort > > underlies Kelley's reservations about the 'adds nothing new' > > category as there is not usually a reason to reject these for > > posting to the list. To explain, my reservation on that is more when it comes to a given topic that keeps getting rehashed (number of students is the example that springs to mind); it's a legitimate topic, one that keeps resurfacing, and little, if anything, added is ever 'new'. I'd had the thought that each time the topic is brought back up it would be identified as such (wave 1, wave 2, etc.), though. > All I can suggest Dave is that you take a quick look at what has > already been coded to the 'adds nothing new' category (click 'p' > next to the category). > > I showed this to Kelley the other night and she agreed with me that > the stuff there added zilch to any debate. >>> Yep, those were definitely pointless. > I would personally be unhappy about having to code up such stuff. I > suppose my adjustment to the pending rule in this respect might > be 'does the post make a valid [and substantive] canon point'. >>> I think, in my mind, the phrase "adds nothing new" is rather more narrow -- it makes me think of a legitimate post, but one that's already been said, if that makes sense. Similar to just after GoF came out and we kept getting all the "Did anyone notice that gleam in Dumbledore's eye?" question -- it had come up a hundred (or thousand) times of course, but someone new who'd not seen all the discussions would think they'd caught some subtle clue that the rest of the world missed. Legitimate topic, but rarely was anything 'new' ever added (same as the above re number of students, wave 1, etc., too, really). > BTW, the major reject category at present is OT, accounting for > nearly 60% of all rejects. But as I have pointed out, the 'adds > nothing new' might become more important in the future, so it is > important to agree on what goes in it. Certainly the percentage of OT posts should decline soon, yes? Carolyn, I know I already asked this (didn't I?), but the rejected posts -- they're not categorized in any way aside from 'adds nothing new', is that correct? There's not a "Reject -- OT" or "Reject -- 'me too'" and so on, right? --Kelley From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri Jul 16 09:20:13 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:20:13 -0000 Subject: Misc arbitrary decisions, please read.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn wrote: > But then people start replying to these questions anyway, so you get > millions of short little replies in long strings. A nightmare, but I > think they need to be coded up in the normal way, rather than dumped > into the new category? Yes/no? > > CW DECISION: > New category: > 4.5.1 Interview questions for JKR And I take it that the answer to 'Yes/no?' was 'Yes'? In response to Kelley, I had been thinking of listing those posts which I thought were borderline code/reject, on either side, but it will have to wait till I can access the database tonight or tomorrow (I have the kids tonight and their mother no longer has internet access, so I will let them have first call - my backstory for those who are interested is intermittently at http://www.livejournal.com/users/sageofgodalming ). David From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Jul 16 21:55:09 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:55:09 -0000 Subject: 'Adds nothing new' reject category Message-ID: I started responding to Kelley's post point-by-point, but thought it might be clearer if I re-arranged it a bit, put the issues under headings, and brought in some points that other people have made so far. Hope this helps focus the discussion; we must sort this out soon. HOW REJECT CATEGORIES WORK Carolyn commented: > BTW, the major reject category at present is OT, accounting for > nearly 60% of all rejects. But as I have pointed out, the 'adds > nothing new' might become more important in the future, so it is > important to agree on what goes in it. Kelley responded: Certainly the percentage of OT posts should decline soon, yes? Carolyn, I know I already asked this (didn't I?), but the rejected posts -- they're not categorized in any way aside from 'adds nothing new', is that correct? There's not a "Reject -- OT" or "Reject -- 'me too'" and so on, right? Carolyn again: Yes, the percentage of OT rejects should decline when the separate OT list comes into being. Also the movie posts should reduce. Your second assumption is closer - rejected posts get coded reject- OT, reject-movie, reject-adds nothing new, whichever is most appropriate (there are 11 reject categories). Rejected posts don't get any other coding except sometimes 'Just for a laugh', if a post has to be regretfully rejected as not making any kind of canon point but is nevertheless amusing. As I said in my paper, posts which have been coded to any of the 11 reject categories would not be offered to members for searching, but they are obviously still there for Admin or whoever to have a look through if they want to. [Hopefully we will make 'Just for a laugh' available though - which is not a reject category, but an Admin category in section 4]. HOW SHOULD THE 'ADDS NOTHING NEW' REJECT CATEGORY BE INTERPRETED? Kelly (Corinthum) in post 434 described the reject dilemma very well (paraphrasing): 'Try to look at it from the future user's perspective - if a post is coherent and elaborates even a little, then keep it. Try to think if the post would be helpful if you were looking for opinions on something.' Anne (posts 385/425) asked pertinently 'how picky are we?' and suggested that this reject category should be used for: - v.short, obviously minor posts - longer posts which still added little to the discussion - mainly personal opinion without much reference to canon Carolyn suggested it should also be used for: - initial questions which are subsequently repeated in later answers - borderline FAQs - very simple freqently-stated ideas with no new viewpoint ['I think Snape is a vampire..'] David, however, queried whether we should use a tighter definition: In effect, I have been treating the posts as if they were in the Pending Messages queue, rejecting those that would not have made it to the list if that system were in place, and categorising the others. The criterion for pendings, when I was doing it, was 'does the post make a valid canon point?' Is that sensible? Kelley (Elf) responded: David, can you give me a few post numbers as examples (examples of what you're rejecting under this criterion, I mean)? Are they OT, are they glorified fluff one-liners, etc.? Carolyn also commented: I showed this to Kelley the other night and she agreed with me that the stuff there added zilch to any debate. Kelley agreed & explained: Yep, those were definitely pointless. I think, in my mind, the phrase "adds nothing new" is rather more narrow -- it makes me think of a legitimate post, but one that's already been said, if that makes sense. Similar to just after GoF came out and we kept getting all the "Did anyone notice that gleam in Dumbledore's eye?" question -- it had come up a hundred (or thousand) times of course, but someone new who'd not seen all the discussions would think they'd caught some subtle clue that the rest of the world missed. Legitimate topic, but rarely was anything 'new' ever added (same as the above re number of students, wave 1, etc., too, really). Carolyn: So, to summarise, there will be posts which make a valid canon point within the HPfGU rules, but which can nevertheless still be rejected because it is such a slight point, and/or one which has been repeated so often that it adds absolutely nothing to include it again. PRACTICAL ISSUES IN USING THE CATEGORY Barry said (422): 'It is easy to use - too easy sometimes - need to stop and think whether it is a new take. Boyd said (423): Hard to remember what went in before when in the middle of coding Anne said (425): Tends to be fairly liberal in giving people benefit of the doubt Kelly said (offlist): Has tended to be more generous as get further in to posts and points become more complex. Carolyn: There isn't an easy answer to this. Either stop and check the posts previously coded to 'adds nothing new' (not practical when there are thousands of them), or, err on the side of doubt and code a post up to the main catalogue rather than reject. There is also the relationship between this reject category and the 'FAQ' reject category. Anne defined this very accurately recently - only click 'FAQ' if the post is not only nothing new, but also features on the HB list of FAQs. SECOND EDIT & FINAL PRESENTATION TO MEMBERS Dave commented: I'd be interested to know, too, if something of the sort underlies Kelley's reservations about the 'adds nothing new' category as there is not usually a reason to reject these for posting to the list. Kelley responded: To explain, my reservation on that is more when it comes to a given topic that keeps getting rehashed (number of students is the example that springs to mind); it's a legitimate topic, one that keeps resurfacing, and little, if anything, added is ever 'new'. I'd had the thought that each time the topic is brought back up it would be identified as such (wave 1, wave 2, etc.), though. Carolyn: Kelley is referring here to something that was in my original idea for the catalogue presentation to the members. I had envisaged repeated debates being presented as 'wave 1', 'wave 2' under the various category headings (eg 'school population'). This concept is still there in the current version of the proposal (MEG paper). Although using the 'adds nothing new' reject code will remove a certain layer of fluff, repeated one-liners etc, it is unlikely to remove anything substantive that has been posted. I know for sure that I have already coded up at least two major 'waves' of argument about the Hogwart's school population, for instance, maybe more. These waves will simply consist of more on-focus posts than otherwise. In the MEG paper, I suggested one way of presenting the posts eg: Snape posts xx-xx posts xx-xx where the xx's could be dates. This idea corresponds to the original 'wave' idea, but there are probably other more interesting ways of doing it. Presentation is the part of the project I am keen to get on to asap, but feel we can't start to tackle it until the legal issues are resolved. So, says C, limping exhausted to the end of this... - are there any further views on how we should use this reject category? - Kelley, is this explanation suitable for MEG, or do you want some additional words or for me to re-draft part of the paper?? Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Jul 16 21:59:18 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:59:18 -0000 Subject: Panic over, its ok (was Dumping) In-Reply-To: <200407150023.38242.silmariel@telefonica.net> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, silmariel wrote: > Carolina: > > That's how I check if something has been already included in a category (in > case it goes to 'adds nothing new') or not. Dump and read, at least till the > number of dumped post are unmanageable. Glad I haven't been deleting in the > process. > > Just a question. How were you checking without using that? Carolyn: I just scroll through online, clicking 'next' for the next 40 posts. I very rarely download anything to read offline. From kelleythompson at gbronline.com Fri Jul 16 23:22:21 2004 From: kelleythompson at gbronline.com (Kelley) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 23:22:21 -0000 Subject: An idea for improving post quality on the main list.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carolina: > Do you think it would help a periodic post just to bring some > threads to light? With subject 'Have you read this?' and some fantastic posts or theories as the body. Not as an admin iniciative, just as anyone could do it, only that we are coding the posts so that we already have to read them. I think some posters are not aware of what's been witten in the group, and Yahoomort is pure hell after a 20000 posts search. With the uncontroled volume of the last period, everything is buried. > > > Carolyn: > I think this is just a great idea.... It would be slightly like > the 'Fantastic post' essays, but more work-in-progress. I really love the idea of this mysterious group of people keep putting up threads like this, getting people thinking again. >>> Agreed, this is an excellent idea! We've had variations on this before, but none have really taken off or been properly implemented; just a couple weeks ago the elves were discussing the idea of having a weekly poll with categories for 'best post' of the week -- most creative, most stimulating, funniest, etc. Stemming from that discussion, I'd thought perhaps a database table for drawing attention to really standout posts. All list members will be able to enter any posts they like. Look in the Database section on main, it's entitled "Must-Read Posts". Perhaps this can be used in conjunction? E.g., when posting a message directing people to some really great old discussions, perhaps mentioning that the post in question will be added to the M-R P db table? I've not posted to main about the existence of the table yet, mainly as the elves are focused at the moment on what to do about the monumental volume, and because some months back the FAQ team created a db table on main so list members could add posts they thought were FAQ-worthy and not one post was ever entered. It could happen the same with this table, but if this table is given lots more publicity than the last, it could take off. I love if anyone here wanted to start adding posts there, please feel free! --Kelley From kelleythompson at gbronline.com Fri Jul 16 23:27:19 2004 From: kelleythompson at gbronline.com (Kelley) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 23:27:19 -0000 Subject: Misc arbitrary decisions, please read.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David: > In response to Kelley, I had been thinking of listing those posts > which I thought were borderline code/reject, on either side, but it > will have to wait till I can access the database tonight or > tomorrow (I have the kids tonight and their mother no longer has > internet access, so I will let them have first call - my backstory > for those who are interested is intermittently at > http://www.livejournal.com/users/sageofgodalming ). Okay, David, no trouble; I'll be around all through the weekend, so feel free to buzz me if you like. Everyone else here, too -- I'm kelleyscorpio on YM. Am often invisible, but usually around, so give me a yell if you need anything. --Kelley From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Sat Jul 17 01:57:14 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 01:57:14 -0000 Subject: Decisions, decisions... Message-ID: OK, promised 'case studies', if that's not too grand. 7503 - accept. Issue - I coded to Voldemort and Blood Protection (2.7.1, 3.5.4) but not Harry. Should I have checked Harry, too? See below for more on this. 7506 - accept, just, 2.14.7, HRH relationships. Issue - without going 'up thread' on the list itself it was virtually impossible to distinguish Yael's (the poster) from Jim's contributions. Should it be reject, too badly written (though it may have been an e-mail client formatting problem)? It also discussed Harry's (potential) propensity to withdraw from close relationships - do we have a category for that, other than 'Harry'? Perhaps 1.1.3.1 Trust/Mistrust? 7507 - accept, 1.3.1.2 Reader response & subversive readings. Issue - when do threads go OT? This one is about theories of interpretation and the category was not ideal. Not too much of a problem in itself but: 7508 - reject as OT, despite being interesting and still relevant to the thread. The reason being that 7507 was IMO still discussing ways to approach JKR's work, while 7508 was more generally about approaching literature. 7511 - a classic 'is this person saying something?' post. Accept, 1.3.1.2, Reader response. Issue - is this a 0.8 or 0.8.1? 7543 - rejected (OT, good job I checked this one as I'd inadvertently coded to 0 instead of 'reject'). Issue - this is a question about literary interpretation. Something I feel will be an ongoing issue is the categorisation of topics within the major characters (HRH, Neville, Draco, MWPP, Snape, Dumbledore, Hagrid). ATM we mainly have acronyms or the names of theories (e.g. Stoned!Harry). I understand there is a process for demoting these, but what should go in their place? For example, there was at one time a great deal of discussion of Neville and memory charms, which spawned a number of theories and, no doubt, acronyms. I feel the topic is 'memory charms', which might pull together a number of acronyms for theories involving the MOM, Neville's grandmother, DEs as perpetrators as well as Cindy's wilder Jobberknoll theories yet is, say, distinct from discussion of Neville as mirror to Harry, and distinct from discussion of memory charms in general. The trouble is, the acronyms might be OK if we knew from memory what they all stand for, but it's quite laborious to look them up (I have dumped the database, to coin a phrase, into an Excel spreadsheet and sorted alphabetically but, for example, suppose I wanted to put 7506 in a 'Harry's unresponsiveness' category or something similar, it means finding all Harry-related acronyms and seeing if one fits. This is only one example - we may need to brainstorm topics for each of the above characters. Finally, in my post earlier today (well, yesterday) I wasn't proposing changing the criteria for rejection, just trying to clarify in my own mind and verify the correctness of what I was doing. David From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Jul 17 11:14:28 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:14:28 -0000 Subject: Decisions, decisions... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > OK, promised 'case studies', if that's not too grand. > > 7503 - accept. Issue - I coded to Voldemort and Blood Protection > (2.7.1, 3.5.4) but not Harry. Should I have checked Harry, too? > See below for more on this. No, I would not code to Harry. This is a good example of where it is superfluous. As I said in my definition note on 'Harry' - use him sparingly, as otherwise nearly everything might go there. > > 7506 - accept, just, 2.14.7, HRH relationships. Issue - without > going 'up thread' on the list itself it was virtually impossible to > distinguish Yael's (the poster) from Jim's contributions. Should it > be reject, too badly written (though it may have been an e-mail > client formatting problem)? It also discussed Harry's (potential) > propensity to withdraw from close relationships - do we have a > category for that, other than 'Harry'? Perhaps 1.1.3.1 > Trust/Mistrust? I would code this also to Hermione if I were feeling charitable and maybe Krum (describing her 'intelligence and spirit' as 'sexy' mitigates against this, but hey, how would I know!). No, this one is not so badly written to be rejected on those grounds (pity). The difficulty in distinguishing the arguments isn't a reject ground either. We are not going to be able to do much about this in practice - the probably copyright issues will mean that we either display the posts as-is or don't show them at all. > > 7507 - accept, 1.3.1.2 Reader response & subversive readings. > Issue - when do threads go OT? This one is about theories of > interpretation and the category was not ideal. Not too much of a > problem in itself but: > > 7508 - reject as OT, despite being interesting and still relevant to > the thread. The reason being that 7507 was IMO still discussing > ways to approach JKR's work, while 7508 was more generally about > approaching literature. I think I would also have coded 7507 to the header code 1.3 as well. I also might have stretched a point and put 7508 there/possibly code to Hermione as well. They are talking about what types of analysis can legitimately used on the Potterverse, and just about make a canon point. Its a contentious area for debate, so worth capturing the discussion I think. If this is the same Naama as the one posting now, would be amusing to put these old comments up to ask why the sea change in approach. > > 7511 - a classic 'is this person saying something?' post. Accept, > 1.3.1.2, Reader response. Issue - is this a 0.8 or 0.8.1? Difficult - I think I would have veered towards reject as OT or personal opinion. If you want to keep it as a worthwhile reader response which adds something to the discussion, I think you should also click Narrative style or Plot development, or even characterisation, which is the underlying issue being addressed. > > 7543 - rejected (OT, good job I checked this one as I'd > inadvertently coded to 0 instead of 'reject'). Issue - this is a > question about literary interpretation. Yes, a reject, OT. > > Something I feel will be an ongoing issue is the categorisation of > topics within the major characters (HRH, Neville, Draco, MWPP, > Snape, Dumbledore, Hagrid). ATM we mainly have acronyms or the > names of theories (e.g. Stoned!Harry). I understand there is a > process for demoting these, but what should go in their place? > > For example, there was at one time a great deal of discussion of > Neville and memory charms, which spawned a number of theories and, > no doubt, acronyms. I feel the topic is 'memory charms', which > might pull together a number of acronyms for theories involving the > MOM, Neville's grandmother, DEs as perpetrators as well as Cindy's > wilder Jobberknoll theories yet is, say, distinct from discussion of > Neville as mirror to Harry, and distinct from discussion of memory > charms in general. I have asked people to think about this several times. When we come to the second review stage I think it will be very helpful to create sub-categories within the characters labelled with certain popular themes. Vampire!Snape is one example, MemoryCharmed!Neville is another. I think that will be a very helpful way of navigating bunches of posts. Some of these categories might be lead by certain theory acronymns, others will be headings which subsume less-popular acronyms. > > The trouble is, the acronyms might be OK if we knew from memory what > they all stand for, but it's quite laborious to look them up (I have > dumped the database, to coin a phrase, into an Excel spreadsheet and > sorted alphabetically but, for example, suppose I wanted to put 7506 > in a 'Harry's unresponsiveness' category or something similar, it > means finding all Harry-related acronyms and seeing if one fits. > > This is only one example - we may need to brainstorm topics for each > of the above characters. NO NO, please, this is a misapprehension. Please DO NOT code anything to a theory code except the posts mentioning that theory. As we have not got to any of them yet, we shouldn't be using the theory codes AT ALL. When we get to them, their status will stand or fall by the number of direct posts discussing that particular acronym. Dicey has pointed out that many lived for no longer than the post that coined them, and thus they will be gently folded back into the body of the categories. Only relatively few, like LOLLIPOPS, MAGIC DISHWASHER, FEATHERBOA etc have had longer lives. I have simply printed out Inish Alley and find that the easiest way to look them up. > > Finally, in my post earlier today (well, yesterday) I wasn't > proposing changing the criteria for rejection, just trying to > clarify in my own mind and verify the correctness of what I was > doing. > > David No, that's fine, its good to get it discussed. Its an important category, and tricksy to pin down. Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Jul 18 10:42:29 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 10:42:29 -0000 Subject: UPDATE, Sunday 18th July Message-ID: PROGRESS 16315 posts have now been coded or allocated for coding. Of the 16315, 14381 have actually been done, and of the 14381, 10230 have been rejected - 71%. This week, 6 people were working on the project and we managed to do 582 posts between us, not so good as last week. ADMIN I have had a chat with Kelley and she doesn't think the MEG document needs amending any further, and she is now clear about the use of the 'adds nothing new' category. Currently the paper is with Heidi and Debbie for some legal input into the copyright issues. More generally, apparently MEG is feeling very positive about this project, and keen to see it happen, which is good news. Suppose we'd better get on with it then ! Admin are also keen on our idea for bringing old posts to the attention of new readers, though nervous about anything which increases posting volume at present (...). However, if it means increasing the good quality posts, and celebrating great thinkers from the archives, they are all for it. CATEGORY CHANGES Only four this week, as mentioned in my 'Misc decisions' post: 1.3 Literary criticism (ID 6), becomes Literary criticism & books about Harry Potter NEW 1.3.5.3 (ID 1061) Chamber of Secrets 4.1.3.1 (ID 1063) Abanes/Harry Potter & the Bible 4.5.1 (ID 1062) Interview questions for JKR From jdr0918 at hotmail.com Sun Jul 18 18:51:56 2004 From: jdr0918 at hotmail.com (jdr0918) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 18:51:56 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter for Grownups? Message-ID: >From the Leaky Cauldron, so it's not just me... "In response to all of this, The Times of London has published an op- ed piece about the scholar's debate over the Harry Potter novels. 'It is a measure of Rowling's unprecedented success that Harry Potter has become so deeply embedded in the culture that adults feel obliged to find more in the books than meets the eye. When scholars, linguists, analysts, anti-racists, Jungians, Freudians, Jungian- Freudians, sociologists, lawyers, philosophers, psychologists and literary critics start clustering around a child's book, it is time to stop reading between the lines. Much of the "scholarship" surrounding Harry Potter is unintentionally hilarious, virtually incomprehensible, and perfectly pointless. Yet, the phenomenon is fascinating for the way it exposes our preoccupations: adults have projected their own concerns on to these books, and the results say far more about us than about Harry Potter.'" --jayne From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Jul 19 08:28:16 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:28:16 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter for Grownups? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "jdr0918" wrote: > From the Leaky Cauldron, so it's not just me... Out of curiosity, Jayne, are you objecting to the content/tone of the original French article, or agreeing with the UK article, or both? Both Iris and Del have subsequently put up rather fine defences of their nation's right to analyse as they please. Definitely more impressive than the childish US responses so far... vive la difference I say. From jdr0918 at hotmail.com Mon Jul 19 10:27:31 2004 From: jdr0918 at hotmail.com (jayne reed) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 06:27:31 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Is Harry Potter for Grownups? Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Jul 19 14:38:44 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:38:44 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter for Grownups? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "jayne reed" wrote: > As to the tone/content of the original article: as an American I have but two words -- Jerry Lewis. --jayne (currently active in a Yahoo group dedicated to dressing Barbie dolls in Harry Potter outfits) Never seen his films, so couldn't comment. But I am concerned about the dolls - last time I heard they were being issued with combat fatigues! Is this a new bunch of recruits you have rounded up on the dining room table? Are the other lot lying flat on the bookcases with sniper rifles? Is this Toy Story II with attitude? We need to know.. Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Jul 19 15:04:25 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:04:25 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter for Grownups? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" wrote: > --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "jayne reed" > wrote: > > As to the tone/content of the original article: as an American I > have but two words -- Jerry Lewis. > > > > Never seen his films, so couldn't comment. > > > Carolyn BTW, that was meant as a joke... Tiring,irritating, afternoon here in the UK From jdr0918 at hotmail.com Mon Jul 19 18:39:59 2004 From: jdr0918 at hotmail.com (jdr0918) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:39:59 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter for Grownups? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <<>> The Sergeant Majorette says Barbie's official slogan is "We girls can do anything!" Barbie is a fashion doll; she doesn't wear the same outfit two days in a row! So one of them is flying a wooden spoon broom, two of them are discussing roles in GoF (Danish Princess was offered Narcissa, but she's not interested) and yes, there are snipers posted around the living room... --jayne From paul-groups at wibbles.org Tue Jul 20 20:05:31 2004 From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (kippesp) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:05:31 -0000 Subject: Considering a slight improvement in process Message-ID: Boyd has talked with Carolyn about a method that he thought would help him move through the posts more quickly. I won't summarize his suggestion for fear of confusing two possible methods. But I thought I could use his idea in another way. Assume that you're at the start of a new Yahoo thread/discussion such that the upper right area of our Catalog tool lists several "related" Yahoo threads. You tick off 2 or 3 categories and submit them. As you move through the discussion thread, the categories you picked on the first one are lifted to the top of the category list panel. These categories won't be checked unless the particular post you are viewing has them assigned. But these categories are rearranged so that you don't need to scroll through to find them again. If this is confusing, just think of it as a sorting change. The categories of the discussion's first post are sorted to the top of the category list. No other activity is being done--strictly a display change. The other idea I've had would be to see if this could be made into a java application. I was thinking that by doing so, the category list wouldn't need to be reloaded each time. I think that panel is around 30K and probably is larger than most posts. I'm not a Java programmer, so that would give me a chance to figure something new out. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Jul 20 20:30:19 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:30:19 -0000 Subject: Old legal stuff Message-ID: Just thought people might be interested in post 9338, by Neil, dated Jan 16 2001, which in a general message to list members said: Legal stuff: In posting to this group, you grant the Moderators the right and license to use the content of your messages in other contexts. At this time, the Moderators intend to use this permission only for purposes of archiving and creating topical FAQs for the group, but reserve the right to use them for other purposes. If you have any concerns about infringement of your copyright, you are advised to contact the List Owner. Should you have any further questions, feel free to contact the List Owner. From paul-groups at wibbles.org Tue Jul 20 21:49:14 2004 From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:49:14 -0500 Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Old legal stuff In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: special category? ----- Original Message ----- From: a_reader2003 Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:30:19 -0000 Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Old legal stuff To: hpfgu-catalogue at yahoogroups.com Just thought people might be interested in post 9338, by Neil, dated Jan 16 2001, which in a general message to list members said: Legal stuff: In posting to this group, you grant the Moderators the right and license to use the content of your messages in other contexts. At this time, the Moderators intend to use this permission only for purposes of archiving and creating topical FAQs for the group, but reserve the right to use them for other purposes. If you have any concerns about infringement of your copyright, you are advised to contact the List Owner. Should you have any further questions, feel free to contact the List Owner. 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 boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com Tue Jul 20 23:02:09 2004 From: boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com (boyd_smythe) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:02:09 -0000 Subject: Considering a slight improvement in process In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Paul wrote: > Boyd has talked with Carolyn about a method that he thought would > help him move through the posts more quickly. > > I won't summarize his suggestion for fear of confusing two possible > methods. But I thought I could use his idea in another way. boyd: Don't want to leave y'all in the dark. In a nutshell, the idea is to add another button next to "Set Categories" that would Set Categories as marked, but for the rest of the thread instead of just the one post. We'd then read each post in the thread as usual, changing the categories of each post if necessary. But a thread that starts on wizarding money, for example, is likely to be more than half on that same topic, so we'd hit Set Category quite a bit less. In fact, if half of the posts are part of threads, and if a quarter of those posts are in the same categories as the first post in a thread, then in the next 100,000 posts we'd save 12,500 clicks on Set Category. That would mean less time waiting for the page to reload after we click it and less bandwidth for Paul's server, too. Especially handy for threads that start OT and stay that way for 20 posts. :) Paul, I also really liked your idea of sorting some categories to the top. A slight variation would be great under any circumstances: sort all of the CHECKED categories to the top. That way, if we need to go back and change how we sorted one, it's far easier. Imagine the benefits if we ever get to a phase II where we do a little advanced resorting! > The other idea I've had would be to see if this could be made into a > java application. I was thinking that by doing so, the category > list wouldn't need to be reloaded each time. I think that panel is > around 30K and probably is larger than most posts. I'm not a Java > programmer, so that would give me a chance to figure something new > out. That'd be absolutely great! Frankly, this would likely have more impact than anything else we could do. Paul, when it comes to computers, you're our Dumbledore. Now if we could only make some kind of Sorting, oh I don't know, Cap or something that would put the posts in the right categories, maybe even sing a FILK just before it started sorting, perhaps carry around the weapon of our founder (Jo's pen is mightier than the sword, after all).... Sorry, couldn't resist! --boyd From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Jul 21 18:43:07 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:43:07 -0000 Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Old legal stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Paul Kippes wrote: > special category? > > No, I posted it because I thought it was useful as an early confirmation that we could use posts from Jan 01 onwards in the catalogue as full text rather than links. Hopefully we can also do this with posts dated before Jan 01, but will wait to see the opinion of the legal eagles. Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Jul 21 18:51:05 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:51:05 -0000 Subject: Considering a slight improvement in process In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "kippesp" wrote: > Boyd has talked with Carolyn about a method that he thought would > help him move through the posts more quickly. > > I won't summarize his suggestion for fear of confusing two possible > methods. But I thought I could use his idea in another way. > > Assume that you're at the start of a new Yahoo thread/discussion > such that the upper right area of our Catalog tool lists > several "related" Yahoo threads. You tick off 2 or 3 categories and > submit them. As you move through the discussion thread, the > categories you picked on the first one are lifted to the top of the > category list panel. These categories won't be checked unless the > particular post you are viewing has them assigned. But these > categories are rearranged so that you don't need to scroll through > to find them again. > > If this is confusing, just think of it as a sorting change. The > categories of the discussion's first post are sorted to the top of > the category list. No other activity is being done--strictly a > display change. Yes, I understand what you mean. Willing to give it a go, but slightly suspect that the capacity of threads to wander off original subject will make this new feature less useful than you think. Official warning: I will shoot anyone who gets lazy and uses this as an excuse not to go find other, more correct categories! > > The other idea I've had would be to see if this could be made into a > java application. I was thinking that by doing so, the category > list wouldn't need to be reloaded each time. I think that panel is > around 30K and probably is larger than most posts. I'm not a Java > programmer, so that would give me a chance to figure something new > out. This sounds like a good idea. Waiting for the category list to re- load does waste time. Having to learn a new programming language to achieve this change sounds like hard work to me, but I'll take your word for it that it would be an interesting challenge.. Carolyn Wondering what we'd do without Paul. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Jul 22 16:48:58 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:48:58 -0000 Subject: Paul - corrupted posts Message-ID: Paul Just to let you know that I found 9451-9484 were corrupted and couldn't be coded. Carolyn From paul-groups at wibbles.org Fri Jul 23 03:41:13 2004 From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:41:13 -0500 Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Paul - corrupted posts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That was a glitch in eGroups. Actually, this was the main motivation for improving my archival abilities. From: "Simon" Date: Wed Jan 17, 2001 7:03 am Subject: messages going missing and books online ADVERTISEMENT Jim wrote: "I encountered a glitch in our message archive this morning and have sent the following message to eGroups support: ------------------------------------------------------- When I try to read any of the last 4 posted messages I get a screen that says, "Oops...The archive for HPforGrownups is empty." Is this a problem with eGroups data base? I hope it can be fixed soon. -Jim Flanagan Moderator, HPforGrownUps ------------------------------------------------------- I hope that this group doesn't start having the same problems that drove us from Yahoo originally." I have just been online and cannot access any message from 9452 upwards. I am not sure what the problem is, but these messages are making it through by e-mail. At the moment I am also experiencing delayed messages - I send a message and it takes up to an hour to get through (I need to check where the problem is (it may be at my end - I am not sure). ----- Original Message ----- From: a_reader2003 Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:48:58 -0000 Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Paul - corrupted posts To: hpfgu-catalogue at yahoogroups.com Paul Just to let you know that I found 9451-9484 were corrupted and couldn't be coded. 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 Fri Jul 23 07:59:11 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 07:59:11 -0000 Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Paul - corrupted posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Paul Kippes wrote: > That was a glitch in eGroups. Actually, this was the main motivation > for improving my archival abilities. > Carolyn: The posts affected were actually: 9451-9484 9486-9495 9497, 9499 I thought there may have been an additional reason, as the threads went on to discuss the hot issue of copyright on electronic editions of HP. It seemed some people had posted links to unauthorised versions, and I thought the posts may have been deleted later for legal reasons. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sat Jul 24 13:51:47 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 14:51:47 +0100 Subject: Elvis Lives! Message-ID: <9AD5F14C-DD78-11D8-B52B-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Post 6837. The French edition of CoS gives Tom's middle name as Elvis. The mind boggles. Post 6822 gives his name as expressed in half a dozen European languages. Fascinating. Barry From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Jul 24 20:37:32 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 20:37:32 -0000 Subject: UPDATE, Sunday 25th July Message-ID: PROGRESS We have now coded/allocated 17815 posts, and reached a new benchmark: post 10000 on the main list. Of the 17815, 16706 have actually been coded, and of these 11559 have been rejected - 69.1%. This week, with 5 people spending time on the project, we did 2325 posts, quite an improvement on last week. ADMIN Very pleased to welcome two new people to the group: Debbie from Admin and Entropy (Corinne). They are having a bemused look round and wondering what on earth they have got themselves into. Ahem, try to look positive and cheerful everyone; pretend you are enjoying yourselves... Also Kelly comes back to dry land shortly, and will be back with us in a week or so. She has done a great job working on her laptop with no Internet access for the last two months and me updating her by email direct to her ship. Now all Paul has to do is merge the two versions of the database. Actually, plenty to be cheerful about IMO. The copyright questions are actively being looked at by Heidi, and are probably not going to be a major problem. And if anyone needed any confirmation that this catalogue is desperately needed, go re-read the recent debate on OTC. Nearly every other person more or less demanded an improvement on Yahoo, and several suggested a similar project. I would have so liked to post something, but just couldn't until we have more details decided. NEW CATEGORIES 2.12.12 (1064) Dogs 2.12.12.1 (1065) Fluffy 2.12.13 (1068) Unicorns 2.12.14 (1069) Grindylows 2.13.5 (1066) The Grim 3.16.8.15 (1067) Ancient Runes From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Jul 26 15:38:05 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:38:05 -0000 Subject: Proposed changes to reject categories - pl. comment Message-ID: Now we have been using the reject codes for a while, what do people think about amalgamating some of the categories? Boyd wants just one reject button (!), but I think we do need to keep some sub-divisions in order to answer queries later about why some posts were rejected. Also, some reject categories may need some sorting out later, and that is easier to do if there are sub-sets rather than just one huge group of rejects. My proposal is: Put 0.1, 0.3 & 0.11 together: 0.1??ADMIN/list management related Posts about posting conventions, problems with connections, Yahoo, administrative projects like FAQs & FP 0.3??Discussing spoiler issues/problems Conventions to be used preceding the publication of a new book, in order not to spoil the enjoyment of other readers 0.11??Too illiterate, badly written This is for posts which are truly unreadable, even with allowances for English as a second language Put 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6 together: 0.4 ??Off-topic Chatter Anything which is not strictly about the book canon 0.5??Listings of personal favourite topics/characters etc Polls, quizzes, likes & dislikes, anything which has no substantive canon analysis attached to it but which is merely personal opinion 0.6??Fan-fic-related All fan-fiction discussion and comment Put 0.8 and 0.8.2 together 0.8??Adds nothing new Use this for first statement of questions, where the question is repeated in subsequent replies. Also use it selectively to ignore posts that repeat points that are frequently made. 0.8.2????FAQs & their answers Use selectively in conjunction with 0.8/adds nothing new, where it is also a FAQ (see HB for guide as to what is a FAQ). Don't use it when the post seems to be a new contribution to a FAQ (in your judgement), but code that kind of post up as normal Put 0.9 and 0.7 together 0.9??Correction of trivial mistake in past post For posts correcting spelling mistakes, mis-attribution or other minor errors 0.7??Repeated /duplicated post For where someone has posted something twice in error The following three stay as they are: 0.2??Movie-related Anything to do with the films that does not include a substantive discussion about the book canon 0.8.1????Mere agreement For posts which add nothing except agreement with a previous poster 0.10??Mistakes/perpetrating mistakes Use this when you know that the premise of a post is based on a mistake over canon ? including things we now know as a result of OOP, but which were not known at the time, eg who the `married couple' are that Sirius referred to in POA. If we did this, I would want to re-number them all in some logical way and alter the titles slightly. I'd also need Paul to merge the categories together as some of them are too big to move the posts one by one. Let me know what you think. Carolyn PS Paul - is there a way I can count the number of times the main reject button is ticked? At the moment I am adding up the numbers in each reject category to get the numbers each week, but I am aware that that number might be distorted if people have ticked more than one reject category when rejecting a post. From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Jul 26 18:14:43 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:14:43 -0000 Subject: Proposed changes to reject categories - pl. comment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" wrote: > My proposal is: > > > Put 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6 together: > 0.4 ??Off-topic Chatter > Anything which is not strictly about the book canon > 0.5??Listings of personal favourite topics/characters etc Polls, > quizzes, likes & dislikes, anything which has no substantive canon > analysis attached to it but which is merely personal opinion > 0.6??Fan-fic-related > All fan-fiction discussion and comment Anne: Wouldn't we want to keep 0.6 as a separate category because, like the Movie-related category, these posts might be quite interesting to somebody? On the other hand, there is so very much to the fanfic world that these may just be superfluous... > > Put 0.8 and 0.8.2 together > 0.8??Adds nothing new > Use this for first statement of questions, where the question is > repeated in subsequent replies. Also use it selectively to ignore > posts that repeat points that are frequently made. > 0.8.2????FAQs & their answers > Use selectively in conjunction with 0.8/adds nothing new, where it is > also a FAQ (see HB for guide as to what is a FAQ). Don't use it when > the post seems to be a new contribution to a FAQ (in your judgement), > but code that kind of post up as normal Anne: I'm confused. I thought 0.8.2 was for flagging these posts for the FAQ team. Does this mean they don't need these after all? > > Put 0.9 and 0.7 together > 0.9??Correction of trivial mistake in past post > For posts correcting spelling mistakes, mis-attribution or other > minor errors > 0.7??Repeated /duplicated post > For where someone has posted something twice in error > > > The following three stay as they are: > > > 0.2??Movie-related > Anything to do with the films that does not include a substantive > discussion about the book canon > > > 0.8.1????Mere agreement > For posts which add nothing except agreement with a previous poster > > > 0.10??Mistakes/perpetrating mistakes > Use this when you know that the premise of a post is based on a > mistake over canon ? including things we now know as a result of OOP, > but which were not known at the time, eg who the `married couple' are > that Sirius referred to in POA. Anne: Why not fold 0.8.1...Mere agreement into 0.8...Adds nothing new? Is it to keep the size of 0.8 manageable for review after we're done cataloguing? By the way, for more than a week now, I've had very little computer time, and have only kept up with HPfGU-OTC and TLC. The place I left off on the main list was post #105292, which is nearly 2,700 posts behind! Anyway, the point is, I did see Carolyn wanted some feedback a week ago, too -- I'll try hard to get to it! It just occurs to me that some of the suggestions in this post I'm responding to may refer back to that -- if so, no need to explain, I'll see it when I review the old ones. Anne From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Jul 26 19:48:36 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:48:36 -0000 Subject: Posts about SHIPPING for and against Message-ID: Here's a nice one for you all. I have encountered an early SHIPPING thread - love it/hate it etc [10101]. A further complication is that the thread wanders in and out of fic, with occasional frissons of excitement about Draco (or indeed, anyone) in leather (perplexingly, it apparently has to be warm leather..). The posts are not, strictly speaking, about who might do what to whom, but more of an argument between the fans about whether it is interesting to discuss it at all, with doses of legal stuff about ripping off other author's characters. I suppose this is 1.3.1.2 Reader Response & Subversive Readings, accompanied by 2.14 RelationSHIPPING ? I often want to click 0.6 as well, though (Fanfic), but this is a reject code. However, cataloguing rule #456098000 is you must not click reject and category codes on the same post. Thoughts? Carolyn From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Mon Jul 26 20:38:53 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:38:53 -0000 Subject: Posts about SHIPPING for and against In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn wrote: > Here's a nice one for you all. I have encountered an early SHIPPING > thread - love it/hate it etc [10101]. I have a related question. I went to the main list to look at this thread, and was puzzled because it seemed quite short and had no reference to Draco. Trying Paul's 'threading', I could see there were many more posts - so now I'm more puzzled: what is Paul's threading based on? I don't use it myself, because it just lists the posts sequentially, with no indication which is the 'up-thread' post (which is usually the reason for wanting to explore a thread - to know what a poster is responding to). David From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Mon Jul 26 20:54:36 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:54:36 -0000 Subject: Oh, and another thing Message-ID: How are people using the comment field? Is it for us to comment to each other (I have used it a couple of times to comment along the lines of "put in this general category because no category for this specific topic") for review purposes, or is it for the benefit of the eventual user? David From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Jul 26 21:06:41 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 21:06:41 -0000 Subject: Oh, and another thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > How are people using the comment field? Is it for us to comment to > each other (I have used it a couple of times to comment along the > lines of "put in this general category because no category for this > specific topic") for review purposes, or is it for the benefit of > the eventual user? > > David The comment field was originally introduced at Dicey's request, to enable people to draw attention to a post for the benefit of the FP and FAQ groups. Eg to say things like 'good, detailed analysis of events at Godric's Hollow' or some such. It would be better to post something here if you are not sure how to code a post, rather than make a note in the comment box, because the point at which these notes will be read is rather far down the line. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable category, we can always add one. The comments probably won't be seen by the eventual user. Carolyn From paul-groups at wibbles.org Mon Jul 26 21:18:41 2004 From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:18:41 -0500 Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Posts about SHIPPING for and against In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My threadding has an error. But if you're looking at post numbers > 7800, you won't see it. But those threads were generated based on how people replied to the YG message. The information is in the email headers and attempts to link the conversation. ----- Original Message ----- From: davewitley Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:38:53 -0000 Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Posts about SHIPPING for and against To: hpfgu-catalogue at yahoogroups.com Carolyn wrote: > Here's a nice one for you all. I have encountered an early SHIPPING > thread - love it/hate it etc [10101]. I have a related question. I went to the main list to look at this thread, and was puzzled because it seemed quite short and had no reference to Draco. Trying Paul's 'threading', I could see there were many more posts - so now I'm more puzzled: what is Paul's threading based on? I don't use it myself, because it just lists the posts sequentially, with no indication which is the 'up-thread' post (which is usually the reason for wanting to explore a thread - to know what a poster is responding to). David 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 Mon Jul 26 21:24:19 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 21:24:19 -0000 Subject: Oh, and another thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn wrote: > It would be better to post something here if you are not sure how to > code a post, rather than make a note in the comment box, because the > point at which these notes will be read is rather far down the line. > If there doesn't seem to be a suitable category, we can always add > one. Well, the posts that triggered this are in the 7570s. They are essentially shipping posts relating to the significance of the fact that Ron was Harry's 'most missed' thing, but they also stray onto the topic of how the triwizard organisers knew what the most-missed thing was. I coded one post to 'general properties and types of magic', but some posters think it was a non-magical process (e.g. vote by committee of professors). Over time there have been quite a few 'how does it work?' type of posts, e.g. Fidelius, magical genetics, why you can't trace owl post, how does the moon affect werewolves *exactly*, how does the Map work (these last two were huge topics for a while), and so on. Have I missed a category here? Another was to do with the 'Potter for President' badges, speculating that President might be a title in some British schools. I coded that to British govt and politics because that seemed marginally less inappropriate than Prefects and head boy/girl. The category, IMO, is - and once Shaun comes on the scene boy will we need it - British school traditions, part of 4.4. HTH David From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Mon Jul 26 21:30:01 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 21:30:01 -0000 Subject: Threading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul wrote: > My threadding has an error. But if you're looking at post numbers > > 7800, you won't see it. > > But those threads were generated based on how people replied to the YG > message. The information is in the email headers and attempts to link > the conversation. You have a program that looks for common slices of text, and puts posts together when it finds them? I'm impressed! David From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Mon Jul 26 21:53:31 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 21:53:31 -0000 Subject: Proposed changes to reject categories - pl. comment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" wrote: > Now we have been using the reject codes for a while, what do people > think about amalgamating some of the categories? I think the answer depends on how the reject category is used. Rejected posts are not, of course, actually deleted from the database. We have the choice as to whether they are visible to users. If they are to be completely hidden, then it matters very little, IMO, whether they are lumped together or not. An alternative, however, is to give users the option of looking at them. To my mind this has the advantage that we can then present the catalogue as a true alternative to the Yahoo search function: if a group member wants to call up *every* post with some property (the obvious property is that they - or a friend - are the author; in the days when the search went through 1500 posts at a go, I used to systematically look for posts by favoured posters, no matter how OT) then they can. Unless I'm much mistaken that could be set as a simple switch: the default value would be that searches would not show 'rejected' posts, but the user could have them too if they wished. In that case, there *is* some value in assigning other categories to rejected posts, though admittedly not much. 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. In a sense I think there are two different visions here: to have a high-quality selection (the 'present to JKR' vision) and to have a way to defeat Yahoomort's obstructionist 'search' facilities (I'm inclined to agree with Kelley that this is all about an eventual plan by Yahoo to 'incentivise' us to pay for a slightly-better-than- just-barely-acceptable service). I think both visions are great, and - aside from possibly competing for Paul's valuable time - are not at all in conflict. My feeling is that *technically* it's all quite doable. But, to return to your question: I'm inclined to agree with Anne that Movie and FF are in some way equivalent, though that might just as well be an argument for lumping them *both* with OT. David From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Jul 26 22:05:25 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:05:25 -0000 Subject: Oh, and another thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > > Well, the posts that triggered this are in the 7570s. They are > essentially shipping posts relating to the significance of the fact > that Ron was Harry's 'most missed' thing, but they also stray onto > the topic of how the triwizard organisers knew what the most-missed > thing was. I coded one post to 'general properties and types of > magic', but some posters think it was a non-magical process (e.g. > vote by committee of professors). I have added a new category 3.17.2 Triwizard Tournament, which might be a useful one to catch these discussions, but coding to 'General properties' etc, was fine. I probably would also have coded to the chapter on the second task in GOF. > > Over time there have been quite a few 'how does it work?' type of > posts, e.g. Fidelius, magical genetics, why you can't trace owl > post, how does the moon affect werewolves *exactly*, how does the > Map work (these last two were huge topics for a while), and so on. > Have I missed a category here? Fidelius category is 3.8.4.8 Magical genetics is 3.4.7 Owl post is 3.7.5 Werewolves/lycanthropy are: 3.4.4 and 2.11.6 Marauders Map is 3.8.6.1 Posts about how specific things work would be better in these type of categories rather than the general magic one. > > Another was to do with the 'Potter for President' badges, > speculating that President might be a title in some British > schools. I coded that to British govt and politics because that > seemed marginally less inappropriate than Prefects and head > boy/girl. The category, IMO, is - and once Shaun comes on the scene > boy will we need it - British school traditions, part of 4.4. > Potter for President I have put in 3.2.2 because the posts I have had were largely about the influence on the muggle world on what the Hogwarts kids were shouting, but no problem also coding into British govt and politics as well. I have added 4.4.5 British School Traditions to that section, to cater for all those posts Carolyn From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Mon Jul 26 22:59:05 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:59:05 -0000 Subject: Oh, and another thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thank you, that was helpful. I have only one outstanding question. Carolyn: > I have added a new category 3.17.2 Triwizard Tournament, which might > be a useful one to catch these discussions, but coding to 'General > properties' etc, was fine. I probably would also have coded to the > chapter on the second task in GOF. I thought we only used these chapter headings for the chapter discussion posts? David From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Jul 27 08:07:28 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 08:07:28 -0000 Subject: Oh, and another thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > > I thought we only used these chapter headings for the chapter > discussion posts? > > David No, you can use them more broadly than that. There is often heated discussion of events that occur in one particular chapter, outside of an organised chapter-discussion thread. Its quite ok, and a good idea, to code to chapter as much as you can. It means that the future reader of a thread on Chapter X will see all shades of opinions and discussion on things that happened there. For instance, I have just dealt with a long thread all about the nature of the blood protection that Voldie got by taking the blood from Harry in the graveyard. The main focus of the thread was whether the protection worked if the blood hadn't been forcibly taken, eg could Moody have taken the blood from Harry in the guise of a DADA experiment etc, and given it to Voldie. I was coding mainly to Voldie's agenda, Harry, Barty Crouch Jr, and blood protection, but I also added Ch 32 of GOF, Flesh, Blood and Bone quite often. In order to use the chapter codes successfully, though, you do need to know what's in the chapters very well. Advise having the books piled up next to your computer.. Carolyn From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Jul 27 14:58:12 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:58:12 +0100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Proposed changes to reject categories - pl. comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61AEAB51-DFDD-11D8-A156-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Apart from my instinct telling me to agree with Anne re keeping Fan-Fic as a separate recognisable category, folding the reject categories together seems reasonable. Does that mean we can invent some more? Like : Boring Whiner Pompous prig Self congratulatory More seriously, we have categories for DD's agenda, Voldy's agenda; would it be useful to have a category for Motivation/Suggested Motivations for use with all the other characters? OK - Fantastic Posts again. A possible contender - 6942. May be contentious for some - it's a FILK. (Never thought I'd consider one of those.) Nice and witty with a marked Tom Lehrer influence, IMO. (It gives a precis of the running plot in all four books to date.) Do we want to try and get FP examples from most/all categories of post? So we end up with the best FILKs, best TBAYs, best commentary, best analysis, best theorising - or do we pit each against the others by measuring against some objective standard? Also - I've now finished my current allocation. Barry From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Tue Jul 27 17:46:03 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:46:03 -0000 Subject: Filks In-Reply-To: <61AEAB51-DFDD-11D8-A156-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: Barry wrote: > OK - Fantastic Posts again. A possible contender - 6942. > May be contentious for some - it's a FILK. (Never thought I'd consider > one of those.) Oh, Caius sometimes makes original canon points in his filks that I haven't seen elsewhere. David From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Jul 27 19:35:15 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:35:15 -0000 Subject: Proposed changes to reject categories - pl. comment In-Reply-To: <61AEAB51-DFDD-11D8-A156-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > > Does that mean we can invent some more? Like : > Boring > Whiner > Pompous prig > Self congratulatory 'I am *not* going to be murdered,' Barry said out loud. 'That's the spirit, dear,' said his mirror sleepily. > More seriously, we have categories for DD's agenda, Voldy's agenda; > would it be useful to have a category for Motivation/Suggested > Motivations for use with all the other characters? So, is this accepting that 'DD's agenda', 'Voldie's agenda' should be moved back into the character sections, as I have been suggesting for some time? We will have to agree some sub-sections for many of the characters. Eg, to date: Harry has 364 posts Snape has 277 posts DD has 186 posts Sirius has 122 posts It would be more helpful to users of the catalogue to break them up into sub-categories. Is it too early to start thinking about this, or should it be done on second review? > > OK - Fantastic Posts again. A possible contender - 6942. > May be contentious for some - it's a FILK. (Never thought I'd consider > one of those.) Nice and witty with a marked Tom Lehrer influence, IMO. > (It gives a precis of the running plot in all four books to date.) Do > we want to try and get FP examples from most/all categories of post? So > we end up with the best FILKs, best TBAYs, best commentary, best > analysis, best theorising - or do we pit each against the others by > measuring against some objective standard? I'm amazed you even read it; I never do myself, eyes glaze over, tick the FILK box and hasten onwards. This didn't do much for me I'm afraid - not half dark enough for Tom Lehrer. I like Caius' political posts though, I agree he's got a wicked sense of humour there, and always a promising sign when Admin has to call a halt to a thread. Erm, well other people can select FP FILKs if they like, but refuse point blank to even review them myself. Didn't we decide that Caius' site did the job for us? Is it possible to compare different styles of posts objectively ? What would be the criteria? > > Also - I've now finished my current allocation. > > Barry Good, here you go: 10251-10750, and I hope for your sake that they have finished that shippy/ficcy thread...got very slushy underfoot. Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Jul 28 19:42:20 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:42:20 -0000 Subject: Ginny vs Buckbeak Message-ID: I do commend to you all a spirited argument about whether Ginny is more interesting than (a) Aragog, (b)Buckbeak. 10874 refers. Where is John Walton now I want to know? Is he lost to the list forever.. Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Jul 28 20:13:37 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:13:37 -0000 Subject: Early TBAY? Message-ID: See post 10891. This is part of a very extensive thread that has been running on and off over the last 1500 posts or more. Essentially the SHIPPERS are having fun signing themselves up as crew onboard various SHIPs. Was this where all the TBAY shipping idea started? I have been coding a lot of it to 2.14.7 Trio ships, although sometimes you would be hard pressed to find any canon point in it. I just thought it would be useful because in defending their various SHIPs collectively, they are reflecting various group consensus positions on why R/H or H/H or some other combination. But there is also some questioning about whether SHIPPING is valid, as an activity, and these I am coding to 1.3.1.2 reader response as well. I think everyone is going to have to deal with this thread, it is so extensive, so thoughts on dealing with it would be welcomed. Carolyn From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Wed Jul 28 20:28:14 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:28:14 -0000 Subject: Ginny vs Buckbeak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn asked: > Where is > John Walton now I want to know? Apparently, he's in Britain. I thought he was in Beijing but, it seems, no more. http://www.livejournal.com/users/folk/78925.html > Is he lost to the list forever.. Yes. For reasons I don't wish to rehearse here. David From paul-groups at wibbles.org Thu Jul 29 04:05:13 2004 From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (kippesp) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 04:05:13 -0000 Subject: *** NEW IP address *** Message-ID: After 6 months with the same IP address, my ISP has changed mine. It's my own fault since things were acting up and my powering off everything triggered a new one. So, the new address is: http://24.0.253.65:8888 Be sure the Word doc is updated as well. From boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com Thu Jul 29 13:47:06 2004 From: boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com (boyd_smythe) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 13:47:06 -0000 Subject: Proposed changes to reject categories - pl. comment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carolyn wrote: > Harry has 364 posts > Snape has 277 posts > DD has 186 posts > Sirius has 122 posts > > It would be more helpful to users of the catalogue to break them up > into sub-categories. Is it too early to start thinking about this, or > should it be done on second review? It's not that bad, really, because many of these have checked the character and another box or two that, taken together, identify the real subject of discussion. For example, one post might have two checks: Snape and the Dark Mark. As long as we can search the finished product by multiple categories, any user who wants to look up posts on Snape's Dark Mark will find that one. This does call into question whether we have all of the appropriate subcategories listed *somewhere*, though. > Erm, well other people can select FP FILKs if they like, but refuse > point blank to even review them myself. Didn't we decide that Caius' > site did the job for us? Not much of a FILKer myself. (Of course, now that I've said it the demon of irony has probably plotted a course for me through neverending FILKs in my next allocation.) But if Caius does these well, and most make no new canon points, then why isn't FILK a reject category? --boyd From kkearney at students.miami.edu Fri Jul 30 03:30:01 2004 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 03:30:01 -0000 Subject: Proposed changes to reject categories - pl. comment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn wrote: > > It would be more helpful to users of the catalogue to break them up > > into sub-categories. Is it too early to start thinking about this, > or > > should it be done on second review? And Boyd replied: > It's not that bad, really, because many of these have checked the > character and another box or two that, taken together, identify the > real subject of discussion. I agree with Boyd on this one. I very rarely categorize posts into just one category, so the general topic of the post can be determined by the combination of categories used. Adding subcategories would be redundant, since all the subcategory ideas that I can think of are easily summarized with combos (person-person-SHIP, Neville-memory charms, Slytherin-good vs. evil, to name a few topics I've recently been working with). So, obviously, since I'm writing this, I'm back stateside. Hello to everyone who joined the group while I was gone. Moment of truth... Paul, I'm ready to try combining my database with the real one whenever you are. Also, Carolyn, I can start working again, so I'll need a new set of posts. -Kelly From paul-groups at wibbles.org Fri Jul 30 03:59:32 2004 From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:59:32 -0500 Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Proposed changes to reject categories - pl. comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Okay. Maybe by next week we can give it a go. ----- Original Message ----- From: corinthum Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 03:30:01 -0000 Subject: {groups} [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Proposed changes to reject categories - pl. comment To: hpfgu-catalogue at yahoogroups.com Carolyn wrote: > > It would be more helpful to users of the catalogue to break them up > > into sub-categories. Is it too early to start thinking about this, > or > > should it be done on second review? And Boyd replied: > It's not that bad, really, because many of these have checked the > character and another box or two that, taken together, identify the > real subject of discussion. I agree with Boyd on this one. I very rarely categorize posts into just one category, so the general topic of the post can be determined by the combination of categories used. Adding subcategories would be redundant, since all the subcategory ideas that I can think of are easily summarized with combos (person-person-SHIP, Neville-memory charms, Slytherin-good vs. evil, to name a few topics I've recently been working with). So, obviously, since I'm writing this, I'm back stateside. Hello to everyone who joined the group while I was gone. Moment of truth... Paul, I'm ready to try combining my database with the real one whenever you are. Also, Carolyn, I can start working again, so I'll need a new set of posts. -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 Fri Jul 30 11:52:22 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 11:52:22 -0000 Subject: Kelly/more posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "corinthum" wrote: > Also, Carolyn, I can start working again, so I'll need a new set of > posts. > > -Kelly Hi Kelly Can you take 11001-11250? See two posts from me this week about a very extensive SHIPPING post - verging on TBAY. The coding is problematic. Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Jul 30 13:57:55 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:57:55 -0000 Subject: Content of final catalogue Message-ID: Carolyn: Now we have been using the reject codes for a while, what do people think about amalgamating some of the categories? David: I think the answer depends on how the reject category is used. Rejected posts are not, of course, actually deleted from the database. We have the choice as to whether they are visible to users. If they are to be completely hidden, then it matters very little, IMO, whether they are lumped together or not. Carolyn: As mentioned before, I think we do need to have them sorted to some extent, for two reasons: - an 'audit trail', so we can find the reason a post was not included in the catalogue - 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 David: An alternative, however, is to give users the option of looking at them. To my mind this has the advantage that we can then present the catalogue as a true alternative to the Yahoo search function: if a group member wants to call up *every* post with some property (the obvious property is that they - or a friend - are the author; in the days when the search went through 1500 posts at a go, I used to systematically look for posts by favoured posters, no matter how OT) then they can. (snip) 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. David: 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. There is infinite flexibility to the search routines that we could devise to work on the categorised posts. David: In a sense I think there are two different visions here: to have a high-quality selection (the 'present to JKR' vision) and to have a way to defeat Yahoomort's obstructionist 'search' facilities (I'm inclined to agree with Kelley that this is all about an eventual plan by Yahoo to 'incentivise' us to pay for a slightly-better-than- just-barely-acceptable service). I think both visions are great, and - aside from possibly competing for Paul's valuable time - are not at all in conflict. My feeling is that *technically* it's all quite doable. 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. 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. Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Jul 30 13:56:38 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:56:38 -0000 Subject: Reject categories - final comments pl. Message-ID: OK, now that everyone has had a chance to comment, this seems to be the consensus: >>Put 0.1, 0.3 & 0.11 together: 0.1??ADMIN/list management related 0.3??Discussing spoiler issues/problems 0.11??Too illiterate, badly written Carolyn: No disagreement here, so we will implement this. >>Put 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6 together: 0.4 ??Off-topic Chatter 0.5??Listings of personal favourite topics/characters etc 0.6??Fan-fic-related Anne: Wouldn't we want to keep 0.6 as a separate category because, like the Movie-related category, these posts might be quite interesting to somebody? On the other hand, there is so very much to the fanfic world that these may just be superfluous... Barry: Apart from my instinct telling me to agree with Anne re keeping Fan- Fic as a separate recognisable category, folding the reject categories together seems reasonable. David: But, to return to your question: I'm inclined to agree with Anne that Movie and FF are in some way equivalent, though that might just as well be an argument for lumping them *both* with OT. Carolyn again: I am happy to keep 0.6 Fan-fic separate if people wish. I'll just merge 0.4 and 0.5 in this case. >>Put 0.8 and 0.8.2 together/ OR put 0.8 and 0.8.1 together leaving 0.8.2 on its own 0.8??Adds nothing new 0.8.1????Mere agreement 0.8.2????FAQs & their answers Anne: I'm confused. I thought 0.8.2 was for flagging these posts for the FAQ team. Does this mean they don't need these after all? Why not fold 0.8.1...Mere agreement into 0.8...Adds nothing new? Is it to keep the size of 0.8 manageable for review after we're done cataloguing? Carolyn again: I really don't know what the FAQ or FP teams are doing these days - not a lot, I think. Hopefully they will be galvanised into action again by the resource offered by this catalogue. But their requirements were not the reason for suggesting this merger. I just thought that so much of what goes in 0.8 was borderline FAQ very often, that it would be simpler to put all of it together. Perhaps what I am saying is that the current list of topics regarded as FAQs (in the HB) should eventually be reviewed against what goes into this merged category, since the stuff here will represent our collective view of things which have been discussed too often to even code up. But, if people prefer, we could just put 0.8 and 0.8.1 together, and leave 0.8.2 as a separate category for the time being. >>Put 0.9 and 0.7 together 0.9??Correction of trivial mistake in past post For posts correcting spelling mistakes, mis-attribution or other minor errors 0.7??Repeated /duplicated post For where someone has posted something twice in error Carolyn: Seems no disagreement here, so I will implement this. The following two stay as they are: 0.2??Movie-related Anything to do with the films that does not include a substantive discussion about the book canon 0.10??Mistakes/perpetrating mistakes Use this when you know that the premise of a post is based on a mistake over canon ? including things we now know as a result of OOP, but which were not known at the time, eg who the `married couple' are that Sirius referred to in POA. Any final thoughts? Carolyn From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Jul 30 17:23:50 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:23:50 -0000 Subject: Reject categories - final comments pl./Lists of Questions posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" wrote: > >>Put 0.8 and 0.8.2 together/ OR put 0.8 and 0.8.1 together leaving > 0.8.2 on its own > > 0.8??Adds nothing new > 0.8.1????Mere agreement > 0.8.2????FAQs & their answers > [...] Perhaps > what I am saying is that the current list of topics regarded as FAQs > (in the HB) should eventually be reviewed against what goes into this > merged category, since the stuff here will represent our collective > view of things which have been discussed too often to even code up. > > But, if people prefer, we could just put 0.8 and 0.8.1 together, and > leave 0.8.2 as a separate category for the time being. > Anne: I see your point. By all means, lump all of 0.8, 0.8.1, and 0.8.2 together if you like. As I code, I've noticed the old HBfile FAQ list doesn't seem to have been very comprehensive, anyway. On a completely separate note, you did bring up the subject of posts that are basically lists of questions for JKR which generate threads. Did you ever say how you code these? I'm thinking about it from the end-user's point of view. If a posts contains a few words on each of a dozen or so subjects, how useful is it to code it up to a dozen or more categories? Would a user want to wade through the thing to find the two lines on Snape he was looking for, when that one point is almost bound to be contained in a more "normal" Snape post? Perhaps a new category called "Lists of Questions/Ideas/Predictions" to handle this type of post would be useful, since they are interesting in themselves but not really useful for research. The lists of short predictions of things we would see in OoP just before its release would fit here, as well as lists of questions for JKR and even lists of favorite lines. On the other hand, a reply to one of these containing longer responses to one or three items would be coded up as a normal post. Anne From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Jul 30 19:11:04 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:11:04 -0000 Subject: Reject categories - final comments pl./Lists of Questions posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: > > On a completely separate note, you did bring up the subject of posts that are basically lists of questions for JKR which generate threads. Did you ever say how you code these? I created a code: 4.5.1 Interview questions for JKR Fan suggestions for questions to put to JKR when the opportunity arises This is for the actual questions. >>On the other hand, a reply to one of these containing longer responses to one or three items would be coded up as a normal post. Exactly - but if they are one-liner or otherwise not very useful replies, I have a tendency to ignore them and put them in 'adds nothing new' unless they exhibit some amazing insight. Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Jul 31 11:03:05 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 11:03:05 -0000 Subject: More TBAY alerts Message-ID: I have just picked up another thread on SHIPPING which originates in a post from FFA - 10310 [one of Barry's current assignment]. This is definite TBAY (see my previous posts 504/519 about these threads). Please remember to click 5.4 'TBAY' for these type of posts, as they won't have the prefix in the title. Carolyn Still giggling over post 11324, which suggests that teaching potions allows Snape to pursue his quest for the perfect shampoo..