Early questions

[Kelley]

David:
> > 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?

David, can you give me a few post numbers as examples (examples of 
what you're rejecting under this criterion, I mean)?  Are they OT, 
are they glorified fluff one-liners, etc.?
 
> > 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.

To explain, my reservation on that is more when it comes to a given 
topic that keeps getting rehashed (number of students is the example 
that springs to mind); it's a legitimate topic, one that keeps 
resurfacing, and little, if anything, added is ever 'new'.  I'd had 
the thought that each time the topic is brought back up it would be 
identified as such (wave 1, wave 2, etc.), though.
 
> 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. >>>

Yep, those were definitely pointless.
 
> 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'. >>>

I think, in my mind, the phrase "adds nothing new" is rather more 
narrow -- it makes me think of a legitimate post, but one that's 
already been said, if that makes sense.  Similar to just after GoF 
came out and we kept getting all the "Did anyone notice that gleam in 
Dumbledore's eye?" question -- it had come up a hundred (or thousand) 
times of course, but someone new who'd not seen all the discussions 
would think they'd caught some subtle clue that the rest of the world 
missed.  Legitimate topic, but rarely was anything 'new' ever added 
(same as the above re number of students, wave 1, etc., too, really).
 
> 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.

Certainly the percentage of OT posts should decline soon, yes?  
Carolyn, I know I already asked this (didn't I?), but the rejected 
posts -- they're not categorized in any way aside from 'adds nothing 
new', is that correct?  There's not a "Reject -- OT" or "Reject --
 'me too'" and so on, right?

--Kelley