Quick review of Death Eater topic 2.10 (only)

[snow15145]

Talisman:

Hi Snow.

I'm not sure I would move the Morsmordre Spell to symbolism. I can 
see how you would want to put it there, after all it produces 
a "symbol" that is used to indicate that the DE's have struck again, 
but I think it is still primarily a spell, and one that has 
(apparently) exclusive DE meaning. 

It's magic, it's a spell, it's likely a Dark Art, it definitely 
sends a message, but, all in all, it seems to be a DE artifact, so 
closely related to them as to belong as a DE subgroup. 

Snow:

True enough. I also thought of adding the Morsmordre to the spell 
list, which as you explain it, would be satisfactory for such posts. 
  
Talisman:

I don't think there is any problem with one post being coded to 
DE's, Morsmordre, and the Dark Mark, if it actually pertains to all 
categories, which wouldn't be unlikely.  There is going to be 
overlap in a cross-indexed catalogue.

Actually, I'd rather each topic have its own category (DE's/Dark 
Mark/Morsmordre)

The problem would be if people were checking the DE category just 
because it's a DE spell, when the post is confined to discussion of 
a discrete topic, such as how the symbolism of the snake coming out 
of the mouth relates to parsletongue; how long the spell lasts; 
whether Muggles can see it; or other topics where any mention of 
either DE's or, in the later cases, the Dark Mark, is incidental.

Snow:
Agreed. That is exactly what I am finding, incidental mention between 
the two topics. If the post is discussing the death eaters but also 
makes a mere mention of the dark mark, should the post be ticked to 
both subjects? I had one post that was a one-liner suggesting 
McGonagall as a possible death eater. Now to me, if I were to keep 
the post at all, the subject matter is McGonagall and that would be 
the box I would tick unless the death eater subject was explored in 
relation to her, I would not tick the death eater category. 

  

Talisman:
 
I'm tempted to say the same with the Dark Mark question.  Many posts 
may deal with both the Dark Mark and DE's, they are so closely 
related, but all posts regarding DE's do not involve the Dark Mark. 

The effect of combining the groups is that someone researching the 
Dark Mark has to wade through all DE-related posts, rather than 
pulling up the specific subgroup. 

And we all know how individual subject lines clarify everything. 
>snip<

Also, regarding your review showing that 95% of posts involving DE's 
also involve the Dark Mark (which text I snipped before deciding to 
add this) Did you find that 95% of the posts were appropriately 
coded to both?

I guess I'm surprised, either that or I think this trend won't 
hold.  The reason I lean toward separate codes is my sense that I've 
read a lot of posts regarding DE's (their attitudes, their origins, 
what they did after LV was vaporized, etc.) that do not include 
probative--or even any--discussion of the Dark Mark.

Snow:

Yes, you are right and continuing to read on there are definite posts 
that only speak of the death eaters. Jumped the gun a bit when I 
reviewed the first 40 seeing basically posts that referred to either 
category. I agree to keep the topics separated but I think it best to 
define the heading use. A mere mention of a death eater in regards to 
the dark mark does not necessitate that it belongs in the death eater 
category, at least to me, does that make sense? 


Thank you very much for the input, Talisman, it is greatly 
appreciated and useful.