Early questions

[a_reader2003]

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" 
<dfrankiswork at n...> 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