New & horrid task/replies & suggestions

[carolynwhite2]

Results of the review so far:

RELEVANCE OF POSTS

> 1.3.4 Foreshadowing - Potioncat
I've reviewed 75 out of 291 posts assigned to foreshawdowing. 45 are
in the right place. 30 did not seem to fit, but seemed to be
predictions of readers rather than foreshadowing on JKR's part.

>1.3.5.2: the Shreiking Shack (not POA) - Ginger

There are 142 posts in this category. Most are about the "Prank".
Several are about themes closely tied to the Prank, such as Snape's
lifedebt to James. Some found parallels between the Prank and the
Shreiking Shack scene in PoA, such as how the Prank effected Snape's
feelings towards Sirius and Remus, and how that played out in the PoA
scene.

There were, however, some which talked only about the Shack scene in
PoA with no reference to the Prank. I feel these were placed there
in error.

KathySnow:
The majority of the 307 posts placed under Narrative Style are
representative of the heading. There were a few posts that may have
been better served under Plot Development, Characterization or Effect
of POV Narration (but those boxes may have been ticked as well?) that
could also be seen as a technique that the author uses which is also
included under this heading.

> 1.6.8 Classic plot themes - Carolyn
My section turned out to have 54 posts. Of these, about 70% were on
what I expected - theories of archetypes like Joseph Campbell, and
other analyses of the role of the hero, baddies etc in literature.

> 1.1.1.5 Morality vs immorality - Laurasia

I have only read through the first few posts in this category because
there was absolutely no continuity in the posts being coded to it and
it was a truly arduous experience. I'll have to be faced with doing
some truly revolting task if I am to resort to this as a displacement
task... hehe. I can not imagine any HPfGU member reading this category
for entertainment...

The problem isn't that the posts *don't* deal with the theme, it's
just that the mere appearance of the word 'moral' in the text
somewhere is enough for this heading to be selected. You feel as
though you haven't got what you picked.


Carolyn: It does seem as though we have some problems, unfortunately. 
Not surprisingly, it seems to be with the more subjective categories. 
Laurasia made the following suggestion about allocating a primary 
code. I don't know if this would work or not. I am slightly more in 
favour of clarifying in our own minds what a category is supposed to 
be about, and being rather ruthless in pruning out posts that only 
tangentially refer to that particular topic. 



Laurasia:
>>I think the problem with perusing some posts according to a heading 
is
that there is no way of knowing if the posts will be *directly* about
that topic, or just *peripherally.*

It would be nice if we could pick 1 main heading to code something
under, and then a whole host of secondary headings. That way we
wouldn't mislead anyone into thinking they were getting a nice post
about Morality and Immorality when all they are really getting is one
throwaway reference to Lockhart casting a memory charm. It would also
make posts that have dozens of categories allocated to them are easier
to understand. MAGIC DISHWASHER is, essentially, about Dumbledore's
Agenda, no matter how many other categories it gets.

Would we end up with two sets of boxes next to each category, and
click the first row for the Main Subject, and then the second row for
everything else?<<

DEFINITIONS

Jen: 
I've read some posts in my category that I wouldn't immediately code 
under there, but once I attempted to understand why the post was
coded there, I realized the problem was my interpreting the category 
in a very narrow way, and someone else interpreting it broadly.

I would like to get consensus on how to interpret some of the more 
ambiguous categories. Like mine for Reader response/subversive 
reading. In my mind this category is for things like arguing over the 
canon interpretation of ESE!Lupin or wondering if there are clues for 
Draco's redemption. Theories that try to prove that
certain canon examples are not as they seem, or are leading the 
reader to false conclusions. How do other people view this category?

Carolyn:
I have said a couple of times that some topics need their main & sub-
category definitions reviewing. Things that seem jerky and disjointed 
jumbled together, when reviewed could be sorted into sensible groups, 
with their own sub-headings. We have tried to do that as we go along, 
but inevitably, stuff from the past won't fit the current headings 
etc etc. If we tried to do that with some of the problematic headings 
(like morality/immorality) it might help a lot.

ORDER OF POSTS

KathySnow:
I did have one concern looking at the catalogue threads as a member 
attempting to utilize the site efficiently. I noticed that the post 
numbers were not in sequence, which could be frustrating if you are 
following a thread from the club and intermittently you have a group 
response to a different topic. In one instance the newer post came
before the older one. Is there a program that can arrange the numbers 
of the posts in numerical order, like arranging desktop icons by name?

Laurasia:
It would also be less painful if each post's complete category list 
was displayed with it, but I pressume that's what will happen in the 
published version of the catalogue.

Carolyn:
Glad to say we can solve this one quite easily. I spoke to Paul about 
this last week, and have just sent him an email about it. I don't 
know why the posts are not currently in date order within the 
categories, but it is quite easy to make them so.

I have also asked him to display all the categories a post is coded 
to when you are reading the full text (having clicked 'p'), in the 
same way that you can see them when you are coding up. 

These two improvements will be a big help when reviewing I think.


CORRECTING MISTAKES/PROCESS
Carolyn:
> Once we have reviewed the categories, if we then went to correct a
> post - ie remove a code, by doing this you replace the name of the
> original reviewer with your own. Does this matter? Does anyone
> mind?

Jen: I don't mind. I do think it's a good idea to review the early
posts when the Catalogue was in draft form because the categories
changed pretty drastically from then until now. As for later posts,
would it really make a big difference? There will definitely be
subjectivity in the coding since there are so many people involved.

Ginger:
I had understood that in the second go-round, each topic would be 
pruned.  Would we be wise to wait and see what topics we end up with 
in the end or should we do periodic reviews which would make that 
task easier when we get to it? 

Carolyn:
Whether to press on now, or pause and do an interim edit....

I think it would be fairly straightforward and quick to do some types 
of category - the more factual ones, as it will be obvious what 
should or shouldn't be there.

The more ambiguous ones will require a significant amount of work and 
thinking, and need to be done in groups of topics, rather than 
picking off one subject after another. 

Also, some people might be keener on sorting out some subjects than 
others (!). Is there anyone prepared to sort out the SHIP section for 
instance? I have suggested Barry as the ideal candidate a number of 
times, but unfortunately his responses so far, though entertaining, 
are quite unrepeatable, and everyone else I ask suddenly seems very 
busy...


One approach is that a sub-group does a review while the rest carry 
on coding - and share the results of the sort out with everyone, 
explaining new definitions and new sub-categories.

More input from y'all - ?

Carolyn