Dbase & other stuff

[carolynwhite2]

NEW DATABASE
To make it easier for you all to pick topics, I have summarised the 
available sections in a new database called 
(imaginatively) 'Allocation of review sections'. Please feel free to 
go in to the table and put your name down for whatever you would like 
to do. I have put in the names of some people who have contacted me 
already with definite choices.

BTW - sorry about the order of the database. I cannot understand why 
it won't organise itself in numerical order. If anyone else knows 
why, please suggest a solution. I mean, correct me if I am wrong 
here, but 1.1.1 is a lower value than either 1.2 or 4.7 is it not ?? 
Am I going mad?

Jen:
> First, I just have to say this is an impressive catalogue, Carolyn.
>Must be that Listo Organisio charm again.

You know, Jen..relatively few people have detected that charm factor; 
it's a constant mystery to me, but there you go...<g>

Jen:
>I'll be on the Difficult Subjects Committee, but I'm not very fond 
of Lit crit. Don't get it, don't >want to get it...might interfere 
with my enjoyment of Potterverse. 
Ginger:
>Please, pretty please, don't give me anything that takes a real 
strong literary mind. If I see a >post about the loquaciousness of 
post-Neo-modern Ferberism in the context of mass >hypnotic 
tranquility according to Van Hewertsingson, I will run into the hills 
screaming.

Carolyn:
You are neither the first nor the last to think this!  Never fear, I 
am going to ask Talisman to be my guide, and maybe Debbie, too, if 
she can bear it. There is a kind of point to this sort of analysis, 
but it is usually well-hidden in verbiage. We'll ruthlessly keep only 
the posts that make sense.

KathySnow:
My first thought when I read this was to make a temporary tick box 
for all posts that should not belong under a particular subject. When 
reviewing a category and you come across a post that is questionable 
you would tick the box; lets call it sorting mess, and write in the 
comment box at the bottom what subject code needs to be addressed 
along with the suggested proposal of where it should be placed. <snip>

Carolyn:
I will ask Paul how difficult this might be, and if he has any other 
technical suggestions that might help solve this problem. The only 
other way I could think of was to keep a written list of problem 
posts, compiled as everyone worked through sections, then go through 
them all in one fell swoop at the end of our review process. Clunky..

Ginger:
One query that sprang to mind: On those occasions where we are not 
supposed to code to the main heading, what do we do if the specific 
person isn't identified? If, for example, someone wrote about Ali 
Basheer (sp) but he wasn't under "Other Wizards".

Carolyn:
I think the reason that quite a few posts have just got coded to the 
main heads in a lot of categories is because we don't have 
a 'Miscellaneous' or 'General' category to click. I'm somewhat averse 
to creating such heads, because they can be too much of a bin to put 
things in. I guess we should just create more categories rather than 
try and dodge this issue?

Potioncat:
Also, are there some categories where you are supposed to 
click both? For example would you click Harry Potter and Stoned!
Harry? or Harry Potter and Harry's eyes?

Carolyn:
Now, actually the answer to this is a tad complicated. I discussed it 
with Paul and Tim a week or so ago, because I was concerned that 
sometimes this might have been done a bit randomly. Paul said it 
didn't matter because clicking any sub-category under any main head 
automatically meant that you were (technically-speaking) clicking the 
main head, even if you didn't actually do that. There are some search 
issues connected with this which I won't go into now, but the upshot 
of the discussion was that we were to focus on clicking relevant sub-
categories, and not worry about the main heads. I am going to email 
him to try and clarify this a bit more for everyone.

Potioncat:
I've come across several posts that refer to Lexicon or where Steve 
explains something in the Lexicon. So far I've been able to code to 
other headings. Does that sound right?

Carolyn: 
Frankly I just treat Steve's opinions in the same way as anyone 
else's. If he has made a contribution to some thread that you find 
helpful, then click it in to the subjects you are dealing with. IMO, 
there's plenty to disagree with in the Lexicon, it's not necessarily 
the be all and end all of arguments, though of course it is very 
useful for many things and more accurate that many sources.


My batch is done.
Kathy

Here you go: 42701-42800

Carolyn