UPDATE, Sunday June 12th & sundry responses

[carolynwhite2]

PROGRESS
We have now coded 59624 posts and rejected 32881 (55.1%).

This week, with 7 people coding we did 1847 posts. We have 8898 posts 
to do by July 16th - an average of 1780 per week in order to reach 
the pre-OOP publication point.

Health warning:- 
I have some tedious tasks to do this week and to keep sane (?), I am 
going to intersperse them with heavy coding, the two play each other 
off quite nicely (eg I did 1000 posts in the last couple of days). I 
am trying to get the 8898 posts finished very quickly, so we can have 
a cut off point for the reviews we are doing. Any help in this 
assault would be much appreciated.

**************

Ginger:
If I recall, the months before the release of OoP were very heavy on 
rejectable posts. There were a lot of "what is your favourite..." 
threads, as well as unsubstantiated predictions (as opposed to the 
codable ones). I plan on rejecting heavily anything that doesn't have 
a healthy bit of solid canon and/or reasoning, preferably both.

Carolyn:
I am rejecting very heavily at present. The standard has plummetted 
abruptly apart from sundry Crouch Novenna follow-ups, and a very 
funny TBAY written as a spoof of Bilbo Baggins leaving Middle Earth, 
where Cindy is persuaded to stay on by Pip & Co promising her sundry 
Bangs and other explosions.

Boyd:
If we're looking for process validation here, we should be checking 
to see
how many boxes are ticked per post on average. THAT has got to be on 
the
decline with all of this reviewing eliminating extra ticks all over 
the
place. 
 
Carolyn:
Would be nice, I agree. I'll ask Paul if he can provide the 
technology. However, erm, having difficulty getting any responses out 
of the tech team at present. 

::glares around::

That'll be because they are working hard on the UI, of course...
 

***********

Carolyn:
> I don't think Debbie has yet reviewed the ESE! section (1.2.4.4), 
but 
> I suspect that it should be divested of posts about a specific 
> character being ESE, and only contain posts that talk about ESE as 
a 
> so-called subversive style of reading. In the same way, posts 
should 
> only be in the Faith section (1.2.4.2) when they are talking about 
> reading the series at face value, or believing the author.
> 
> This came up before when KathyW did ESE!McGonagall, and it worked 
> well to create a sub-category within the character, but de-check 
them 
> from the general ESE category.

Debbie:

I did review 1.2.4.4. back when I was doing Authorial 
Intent/Subversive 
Readings. I'm at work so I can't check right now, but I believe I 
concluded that the best use of the category was to code the initial 
ESE! posts for each allegedly ESE! character so we'd have them in one 
place. Unlike Lupin, most of them don't have their own subcategory, 
so 
it made sense to capture all the ESE! allegations someplace. But 
follow-up posts and rebuttals shouldn't be coded there.

Ginger:  
Um, so then since Lupin has his own ESE category under his name, he 
shouldn't be coded there, or perhaps just Pippin's ESE manifesto?  
I'm not quite sure what you meant there. 


Carolyn:
I checked our definitions files, and this was your comment when you 
had done, followed by my response. Basically, we didn't make a final 
decision:

Debbie (previously):
Only subcategory worth a mention is 1.2.4.4. ESE!  I cut it down from 
94 to 84, but the real problem with this category is not that it's 
too fat; it's too lean.  Lots of ESE Lupin, but Pippin's original 
post is missing.  Likewise Elkins' Minerva McGonagall Is Ever So 
Evil.  In fact, a high percentage of the posts are defenses which 
begin with "so many posters are claiming that [name any character] 
will turn out to be evil."  Yet the actual accusations are not 
there.  How do we fix this?  Should we try?  The category looks oddly 
incomplete.

Carolyn (previously):
Should we be putting the actual ESE! theories here? I have got 
Pippin's first post under ESE!Lupin (and indeed, many precursors to 
it - she had her teeth into him from waaaaaay back). Similarly we 
have ESE!McGonagall. It could get very big. Perhaps we should reserve 
it for the idea of suggesting various characters are ESE!, ie a 
subset of subversion. Or, simply have only one post there - the one 
that coined it (does 
that exist?)

Carolyn (now):
I would still prefer not to put the actual ESE! theories here, but 
leave them under an ESE! heading with the character.

Comments?

**************************
Ginger:
I just coded a post in which the poster provided a transcript of an 
entire JKR interview. Does copying the entire interview (as opposed 
to a bit of it) violate any copyright laws? It was copied from a 
website. Does this make a difference?

The original was not deleted, so I kind of assumed it was ok, but I 
just wanted to double check. If it is not, I have written the post 
number down and I will uncode it.

Carolyn:
I feel a bit uneasy about this. Admin might have missed it at the 
time. Better to be safe than sorry and reject this - after all, it 
can always be looked up on Quick Quotes or whatever, who have sorted 
out their copyright situation in each case.