Catching up ...

[Talisman]

1413
From: "annemehr" <annemehr at y...> Date: Mon Mar 7, 2005 9:45 am 
Subject: Where am I?
>Carolyn, do you have a projected date for finishing this review and
>recommencing regular coding?
>Anne

Talisman: Do you recall when our fearless/semi-bionic leader 
established that the review would take about 2 weeks?  I snorted in 
my cocoa (and it wasn't pretty).  Please don't bait her anymore.



1415
From: "potioncat" <willsonkmom at m...> Date: Mon Mar 7, 2005 11:13 am 
Subject: T-Bay and characters
>After this review, we'll go back to coding. Will there be another
>review of coded posts? If so, will this section of posts be noted as
>reviewed or will there be another big review that looks at these
>again?
>Kathy W.

Talisman: 1.) Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof; 2.) don't 
give her any ideas; 3.) we could always throw an armed revolt. 




1411
From: "carolynwhite2" <carolynwhite2 at a...> Date: Mon Mar 7, 2005 
9:22 am 
Subject: Chapter summaries
>On the discussion of the smaller incidents, it is difficult to have
>one rule to fit them all. My definition as I have coded to chapter 
is
>if there was no other useful place to put it. Eg, discussions of the
>valentine in CoS - who sent it & why. Whilst that can be cross-coded
>to the various characters involved, in essence it is discussing an
>incident in Chapter 13. However, your JFF example should most
>probably go to the character, as you suggest.



Talisman: Perhaps we could *establish* the events that are *big* 
enough to be coded to chapter with an explicit list--or, whether you 
mean events as they pertain to certain theories.  

I can see MD events in the Shrieking Shack/Graveyard.  But, do you 
want every reference to these events coded to chapter? or just the 
ones that are directly responding to MD?

Obviously every event happens in chapter.  I'm concerned that these 
codes are susceptible to overuse and idiosyncratic use. 

In past, I have tended to use the chapter codes for  1) explicitly 
captioned summary discussions; 2) posts that explore the events in a 
given chapter fairly discretely AND have no other home. 

I don't mind adding major theories, in order to gain the retrieval 
option you suggest, but I'd prefer that we establish, rather than 
assume, which theories qualify. 
 



1418
From: "Kathy Willson" <willsonkmom at m...> Date: Mon Mar 7, 2005 2:02 
pm 
Subject: Re: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: When will we be through?

>But I've read a few posts that really could be rejected, yet three 
or four or more people >have to read the same post and decide on 
their topics before it happens. One today was >about 4 sentences 
long, with 4 codes. It seems a shame not to just wack away at it. 
>Unfortunately, you don't know if someone has looked at it and is 
coming back or if you >are the first to look at it. 

Talisman:  I vote: whack the suckers.  If it readily appears that 
the post is a reject, why make anyone else look at it again?  (You 
know that if YOU want to whack it, I want to whack it.)  

This is especially true of those one paragraph posts that have been 
coded to 16 headings and don't say anything.  If someone (and I want 
names) is "coming  back" (presumably to add codes?) let the perp 
resuscitate the corpse.  It will still be there.