Use of reject codes

[annemehr]

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