The review plan ...

[carolynwhite2]

Ok, peoples. Have spent rather a lot of time thinking how to do this -
 see what you think.

I have just uploaded a new Word file to the file section - 'Current 
categories for 1st Review', which replaces the one I put up the other 
day. I was going to try and post it here, but I think it is too long, 
and might get snipped by Yahoo!Mort (which is lashing its tail 
dangerously at this daring attempt to thwart its domination over us). 
(Apologies to Mac users who may have to fiddle with the tabs to fix 
the layout when you convert - but it's not a table, just straight 
text, so hopefully you will win in the end).

This new file is not ranked in order of the number of hits on 
categories like the last version, but is more recognisably in the 
order of the categories we are using every day (although not quite). 

What I have done is to try and organise the categories into sub-
groups which can be tackled by individuals, or groups of people. They 
are not all exactly the same size - I have tried to pursue an 
association of ideas in each case. The number of hits in each group 
range in size from as low as 1 (Grindylows, Katie Bell), to the 
largest category of all, the magnificent Snape at 2787.  In short, I 
have reduced the overall list of about 1000 individual topics to 
several hundred smaller groups.

This is still very large and daunting. If we are not to go mad, I 
think the way we should go about a systematic review is as follows.

1. Allocating groups.
Although I hear the screams of protest from various people, I have to 
say that the task is too big if we don't all muck in to a certain 
extent. To ease the pain, could you each look through the list and 
decide on the kind of topics which you wouldn't mind doing. There are 
many which should be fairly straightforward anyway - the book 
chapters, various beings and beasties, minor characters, aspects of 
the WW etc. Once the bids are in, I'll compile a list of who is doing 
what, try and even up the size of the allocations between people. 
Then we'll deal with the problem of who does the inevitable few 
ghastly topics which no one wants to touch with a barge pole...

I think that despite this, some topics are still too big for one 
person on their own to tackle. This is where the Difficult Subjects 
Committee comes in - which is open to anyone who *really* enjoys 
semantics..... (the office is filled with pops and bangs as 
cataloguers apparate like no tomorrow..).

2.Deciding on definitions
Once we have divvied up the sections, then we have to agree on 
definitions for what goes in them. The way I suggest we do this is to 
start from the definitions which already exist for each category, 
then dip in and review what is coming up in the sections you are 
tackling (much as we have done in this initial look-see). It is then 
up to the person doing the section to question whether the definition 
is right in the first place, or alternatively whether the right 
things have been coded there, and to propose an alternative layout. 
It is for this reason that I think it is important we work on groups 
of topics at a time rather than individual post categories. 

For example, it clearly makes no sense to review one section of Snape 
at a time (no matter how pleasant). You have to look at everything 
under all his sub-codes, and decide whether the structure of the 
Snape section makes sense or not before sorting out the posts. 
Similarly, the good vs evil category has to be reviewed alongside the 
morality vs immorality sections and the sins & virtues codes, but the 
freewill/prophecy discussions could be looked at separately.

Once someone has reviewed a section, their recommendations should be 
posted to us in the group before changing things, both for comment 
and to make sure we are all on the same page on different topics. I 
am very aware that the categories at the moment very much reflect my 
logic when I devised them, and this might not be immediately apparent 
to everyone else (!). By the time we have finished this exercise, 
everyone should have a much clearer idea of what belongs where. I 
will also update my definitions list to reflect our discussions, so 
it is less a redundant document and more something that is useful to 
refer to.

3. Reviewing & correcting posts
Once the definition is collectively agreed, then it is time to go 
ahead and sort through the section, removing posts that don't fit the 
spec, and also probably removing posts that 'add nothing new' *to 
that topic*. This may mean the post gets ditched altogether if that 
is the only thing it is coded to, but if there are other codes on a 
post, then leave it for the review that takes place against that 
other code. Does that make sense?

Then there is the question of posts which don't have the right codes 
on because they were done early on in the process before some 
categories were invented. I am really not sure what to do about this, 
because if we just go ahead and add the codes, it mucks up what 
someone else may be doing on another category.  The same problem 
arises if people carry on cataloguing whilst we do the review. Any 
ideas?

4. Timing
I don't know how long this will take - maybe a couple of weeks. Is 
that ok, can you stand it?

Carolyn

PS Categories
You will notice when you look through the list of categories that I 
have moved around a few sections. I have not done this in reality on 
the catalogue proper, but I would like some input on whether these 
changes make sense. The main changes proposed are:

-moving some genre sections up into the lit crit group
-moving some acronyms into the reader response section (I am posting 
separately on the discussion that has gone on about this)
-moving some extra sections into narrative style
-proposed re-apportioning of war & military strategy section

Finally, not all categories need sorting out - these are marked. And 
some categories (main heads) should not have posts coded to them.