[HPFGU-Catalogue] Use of reject codes

[Barry Arrowsmith]

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: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040707/6ebfef77/attachment.bin>