UPDATE, Sunday, May 1st

[carolynwhite2]

PROGRESS
We have currently coded 53027 posts, and rejected 29110 of these 
(54.8%) - note that our reject rate is dropping steadily week by week.

This week, with 7 people coding, we did 867 posts. We have also now 
completed 51 of the 106 review sections.

(LONG) DEFINITIONS FILES
I combed through our past posts today and brought the large revised 
definitions files up to date (the Word files in the file section, not 
the database tables). Although they are now quite long, could I ask 
people to have a read through them in order to refresh memories of 
the discussions and decisions we have made so far? It is quite easy 
to forget, and that would be a pity after all the review work that 
has been done.

QUERIES
As I went through our posts, I came across one or two points that we 
seem not to have settled. Thoughts please on:

(1) MWPP code
(see discussion in Revised Definitions, Section 1 Text Analysis 
file). Do we want this or not, and if so should it be a sub-head 
under 1.2.11 Group Dynamics?

(2) Alchemy/Rosicrucianism
I asked whether this should be under 1.1.1.1 Religious influences or 
1.2.13.8 Alchemy. I think it should be  under Alchemy - see this link:

http://www.amorc.org.uk/html/ancient_knowledge.html

I can't say I study Hans' posts in great detail, but they seem to be 
adapting bits of Christianity to his own POV rather than vice versa.

(3) Seventh son/missing Weasley child(ren)
I propose that all these theories go to the Weasley dynamics code 
1.2.11.1 for the time being, and then that category can be sorted out 
in one go.

********
Jen:
I guess we're coding Scabbers to Pettigrew? I do think of Scabbers as 
a separate animal because he was introduced that way, but 
realistically we wouldn't have a category for Padfoot or Prongs.I'm 
just coding a long thread on Scabbers/why he chose the Weasleys, and 
it reminded me I've wrestled with the question before.

Carolyn:
Yes, definitely code to Pettigrew.

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

Jen:
Ran across the first thread (?) on interviews referring to the COS 
movie: 

do you guys think we should have a special category under COS 
for 'Possible Clues in the Movie' or something similar? I'm not sure 
what to call it, but the definition could be "speculation related to 
interviews about which scenes in COS were significant for later books 
and therefore included in the movie.

Carolyn:
Since we have a movie reject category, I think we need to be really 
careful here to keep only stuff that has a book- or interview- canon 
basis. And I would tend to put that in the general COS review section 
and/or predictions, depending.