'adds nothing new' (was Use of reject codes)

[a_reader2003]

--- 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.
> 

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