Predictions

[a_reader2003]

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "boyd_smythe" 
<boyd.t.smythe at f...> wrote:
> boyd:
> As promised, I've been thinking about predictions and how to handle 
> them, and I have a few *somewhat* leading questions. <g>

> 
> * 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... <g>


> * 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..