Proposed changes to reject categories - pl. comment

[davewitley]

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" 
<carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
> Now we have been using the reject codes for a while, what do 
people 
> think about amalgamating some of the categories? 

I think the answer depends on how the reject category is used.

Rejected posts are not, of course, actually deleted from the 
database.  We have the choice as to whether they are visible to 
users.

If they are to be completely hidden, then it matters very little, 
IMO, whether they are lumped together or not.

An alternative, however, is to give users the option of looking at 
them.  To my mind this has the advantage that we can then present 
the catalogue as a true alternative to the Yahoo search function: if 
a group member wants to call up *every* post with some property (the 
obvious property is that they - or a friend - are the author; in the 
days when the search went through 1500 posts at a go, I used to 
systematically look for posts by favoured posters, no matter how OT) 
then they can.

Unless I'm much mistaken that could be set as a simple switch: the 
default value would be that searches would not show 'rejected' 
posts, but the user could have them too if they wished.

In that case, there *is* some value in assigning other categories to 
rejected posts, though admittedly not much.

I confess part of my thinking here is that, given we have a database 
of the entire list here, why not use it?  It would be great to be 
able to call up all posts that, say, include the text 
string 'Hermione' and are categorised as 'Snape'.  This would give a 
different (but overlapping) set to those categorised as 'Hermione' 
and including the string 'Snape'.  What about all posts 
categorised 'Snape' but *not* including the text string 'vampire'?  
Or all such posts whose author was Pippin, posted between GOF 
release and OOP release.  Really, I think you are sitting on 
something of a goldmine here, and to focus only on the categories is 
to miss out.

In a sense I think there are two different visions here: to have a 
high-quality selection (the 'present to JKR' vision) and to have a 
way to defeat Yahoomort's obstructionist 'search' facilities (I'm 
inclined to agree with Kelley that this is all about an eventual 
plan by Yahoo to 'incentivise' us to pay for a slightly-better-than-
just-barely-acceptable service).  I think both visions are great, 
and - aside from possibly competing for Paul's valuable time - are 
not at all in conflict.  My feeling is that *technically* it's all 
quite doable.

But, to return to your question: I'm inclined to agree with Anne 
that Movie and FF are in some way equivalent, though that might just 
as well be an argument for lumping them *both* with OT.

David