rejecting posts

[carolynwhite2]

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" 
<willsonkmom at m...> wrote:
> 
> Just a quick observation. I'm going slower than most of you. Once 
the database was tweeked to get posts in order, the numbers changed. 
For example, if you were already on post 50 when the change happened, 
the first 49 posts may not be the same. Mine were very different.

C - Kathy, I am sorry about this. I wondered if that would happen. 
Apologies.

> 
> Also, if you delete a post that affects someone else, it will 
change their numbers. Even if the post is flagged with the review 
code, it will affect the order of a list. Maybe this isn't as 
significant as I  think it might be. What do you think? I'm keeping a 
list of post-numbers as well as the number it was within the category.

C - Actually, no, it won't. Because the posts are now in date order, 
if you take the McGonagall code off a post you are dealing with, it 
won't affect the order in which that post appears under another 
category heading. If you take the McGonagall code off, and as a 
result the post has no other codes and is therefore coded to rejects, 
then it won't affect anyone else. Make sense?

> 
> So far if I've found a post that should be deleted, I've noted that 
> in the notes section at the bottom but have not deleted it yet. 
> (Except for one which only had one code to begin with.)

C - some people are doing all their changes in one fell swoop after 
reading all the posts in their category, some are doing some changes 
after reading a few hundred at a time. I think the first approach is 
a bit safer, because when you get to the end of the whole lot, you 
may want to consider the structure of the section before you do 
anything. However, the second approach is understandable when you are 
dealing with a section which has 1000s of posts in it.


> 
> In the opposite direction, I have a McGonagall post that should be 
> under relationship but isn't.  It's also very speculative and my 
> instinct would be to reject it. I'm not sure Ginger would agree.  
> Again, if I decided to add that code, it would affect Ginger's list.
> Would it make sense in that case to tag 5.6 for someone to look at 
it later with a note about recoding?

C -yes, this is a good example of why the 5.6 code is there, and the 
text box. Add the codes you think should be there, but by clicking 
5.6, it gives us a complete list of posts to check at the end of this 
process, in order to make a final decision. It's the only way really, 
short of discussing individual cases with other people who you know 
are dealing with a particular section.


> 
> What will the finished catalogue look like to the clients? Will 
they have a list of headings to click, sort of like we do? Or will 
they enter keywords?


C - Tim is devising search screens which give both options. On one 
screen there will be a way of browsing all the codes as we see them 
on our category list. This will be ideal for people wanting just to 
click and look-see what there is under various headings.

Another screen will give more directed search options, eg the 
possibility of combining various codes so that you can get just those 
posts which are coded to both. You will also be able to search on 
keywords, and for specific authors. So, to answer another question 
(was it Sean?), we will indeed be able to type in 'Elkins' and get 
all those marvellous posts in one place.

> 
> Kathy, who has to help her daughter make Victorian Sponge but would 
> rather go buy it like the character in "Calendar Girls" did.

Ah - all the weighing of the eggs to get their weight in flour and so 
on. You are making me feel peckish.