Interim replies/Paul are you around??

[carolynwhite2]

Some interim replies, but Paul if you catch this, could you get back 
to me about putting posts in date order etc (see email)? Thanks!

Ginger:
Can you just uncode that one part (and add a new code if necessary), 
or do you have to recode the whole post?  

Carolyn:
I think the principle would have to be only correct the category you 
were dealing with, or we'd go nuts. Eg, if you thought that 20 posts 
under 'Hippogriffs', were not about hippogriffs at all, you would 
make a list of them, and go and take that code off the post, but 
leave whatever else codes were there.

Ginger:
As for the SHIPs, don't hesitate to send them my way.
Perhaps the newer ones could take on the more straight-forward 
categories, and leave the more subjective categories to you'uns 
who've been around a bit. 

Carolyn:
I am all for people working on the categories they feel most 
comfortable with, because that way the posts will receive proper 
consideration, rather than being treated impatiently by people who 
don't care much for a subject. And in that respect, a big thanks for 
being prepared to take on the SHIP category - there's not many here 
who are that kindly disposed, and it's been worrying me (really! I 
can be fair-minded, honest).
  
 
Carolyn:
> 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.

Jen: Good idea.
...quite pleased we've been a bad influence on Carolyn no matter
how she spelled it ;).

Kelly:
I think it would be a good idea to run throught the catalogue by
category and purge, to get rid of the obviously-wrong posts. Perhaps
we should start with the straightforward ones (characters, chapters,
etc.) and debate the meta-themes later?

..Well, let's get the full story, shall we? All you never wanted to
know about English second person pronouns ...

Carolyn:
Right, so that's you two volunteering is it? (...waving white 
flag...I don't mind how you spell it..!).

Potioncat:
I'm happy to oblige in any way. I can continued coding, or I can go 
to reviewing, but I can't do both. I'm already trying to code the 
main list and respond to the archives...

Carolyn:
Suggest reverting to coding for now, whilst I try and think of an 
efficient and methodical way of tackling this review. 


Debbie:
Reporting on Authorial Intent, 1.3.1:

There were 427 posts in this category, and I read the first 120.  The 
first 30 or so included a surprising number of posts I would have 
rejected, as they did little more than direct the reader to one or 
another JKR interview transcript.  There were also a couple of canon-
free predictions.  A much greater number of the early posts were 
almost entirely about other issues (such as whether JKR has or would 
write a gay character, her treatment of women) that have their own 
headings.

It appears we got better at coding to the category, though.  By the 
100th post, most all of them seemed to fit the category.  I stopped 
at 120, pending a final decision whether to go back and fix now.

Laurasia:
I've now read through about 165 of the 237 "Morality vs
Immorality" posts. My initial reaction was somewhat
exaggerated, but the posts in the category stretch far
and wide. Morality is a subjective category because
there is no consensus on whose morals we should use to
judge incidents by. God's? The law's? The reader's?
How many people would read an entire category like this,
anyway? I think that my discomfort is something that very
few catalogue users would ever experience.

Carolyn:
These are just the kind of problems I found when I looked through 
these sections briefly the other day. It worried me.. especially that 
I might have done some of the mis-coding early on as we began this 
task.

However, I think we should bear in mind that some people are likely 
to do just that - read right through an entire collection. Having all 
the posts in date order will be a big help, because it is interesting 
to see how ideas evolved as the books were published. However, there 
is also no doubt that we need to split things up, so people can 
follow themes more easily.

Laurasia:
If we do decide to go back and review existing posts, I'd
prefer to be on the team of people who just continued to
code posts. I prefer believing that any mistakes or dodgy
decisions I may make will be corrected by another person
later on.

Whinge, whinge, whinge. The Poms are meant to be the
bloody whingers, not the Aussies. But I've finished my batch,
so all this moaning and complaining is compensated for.

Carolyn:
This is a pity - you show a great understanding of the problem. Maybe 
I can tempt you do a section closer to your own interests - maybe 
plot development or narrative style for instance?? Anyway, here's 
some more posts: 42301-42400.

Eva:
I just came across a Pip!Squeak post proposing a (great) theory
saying Snape was in Godric's Hollow when the Potters were murdered,
#42 211. Is this an 'official' theory? It is not really an acronym,
but in subsequent posts "It wuz Snape" is used like one. It's not in
the Snape list. Shall I just code it under Snape and Godric's Hollow,
with a dash of LOLLIPOPS?

Carolyn:
Now Eva, this is exactly the sort of coding problem that has caused 
the diversity we are looking at. Yes, I would put it under 'Godric's 
Hollow', and no, we don't have an official theory code, but it could 
easily become a sub-category there. When we come to look at that 
bunch of posts, it will probably be helpful to sort them into groups 
as there are already 421 of them.

Further, there is an argument that maybe it should also be coded to 
Snape. However, I could easily be argued out of this, because it's 
the reason there are 1000s of hits on Snape already. Sorting out the 
Snape category is really a major undertaking (looks at queue which 
immediately forms, headed by Talisman, still twirling bat shapes in 
her hair after all these years..will the ladies duel for the 
pleasure...??).