Humungous update, Sunday 18th September

[carolynwhite2]

Well, I've spent the past week catching up on where we are with the 
reviews and bringing various files up to date. The job's not finished 
yet but I thought I'd update you on where I've got to.

REVISED DEFINITIONS FILES
The job that took the most time was combing back over our posts since 
last May and cutting and pasting our decisions into the three Word 
Definition files. However, that's done now and I've uploaded the new 
versions into the files section. They are getting very long, but 
record the whys and wherefores of the myriad decisions we have made, 
and often make entertaining reading. Do take a moment to scroll 
through them. I will try and keep these up to date on a weekly basis 
now so as not to get so behind again. Remember, they are called:

Revised Definitions, Section 1 Text Analysis
Revised Definitions, Section 2 Character Analysis
Revised Definitoins, Section 3 Wizarding World 

In passing, I would just like to record a huge vote of thanks to 
those of you who have patiently gone on with the work over the 
summer. We owe you. You know who are.

POSTS CODED/REJECTED
This hasn't changed much since July, but for the record 68602 posts 
have been coded, and we've rejected 40660 of them, a healthy 59.2%, 
or looked at another way, we are only keeping about 40% of the posts.


SECTIONS YET TO BE REVIEWED
Based on the decisions recorded in those Word files, I have brought 
my section-by-section crib sheet up to date, and compared it with 
the 'Review allocation database', and find that although we are 
showing 80 sections as finished in our database, in fact there are 
some sub-sections within those groups marked as done which may have 
been missed. I think this is because we've made changes to the 107 
sections that we initially sub-divide that list into, and bits have 
got left out. To follow my analysis listed below, please take a look 
at whichever of these files you can open:

Current Categories, Excel Sept 05
Current Categories, Word Sept 05

Section 1 1.1 - 1.1.1.5 Good vs Evil
Dicentra, were these four sub-sections also reviewed?
1.1.1.1 Religious Influences
1.1.1.2 Wicca
1.1.1.4 Redemption
1.1.1.5 LAMBASTING 

Section 1.1.5 - 1.1.5.1 Class system, bigotry & prejudice
Debbie - sub-section 1.1.5.1 needs to be emptied, then I can delete it

Section 1.2. - 1.2.2.2 Literary analysis
Talisman - was 1.2.2.2 NY Times Bestseller list reviewed?

Section 1.2.3 - 1.2.3.9 Literary sources and influences
Debbie - was 1.2.3.6 detective fiction reviewed?

Section 1.2.4 - 1.2.4.9 Authorial intent, reader response
Debbie - was 1.2.4.4 ESE! reviewed?

Section 1.2.6 - 1.2.6.8 Narrative style
Debbie - we agreed a new section 1.2.6.8 Grammar, capitalisation & 
punctuation, but I am not clear if things were put into it, or if it 
is still waiting to be populated.

Section 1.2.8 - 1.2.8.9 Back History
Barry/KathySnow were the following sections included in your reviews:
1.2.8.5 OOP members
1.2.8.8 Shrieking Shack II (POA)
1.2.8.9 Graveyard rebirth

Section 1.2.10 -1.2.10.10 Characterisation
Debbie/Jen, did these sub-sections get reviewed:
1.2.10.1 Originality & use of stereotypes
1.2.10.2 PACMAN (version 1)
1.2.10.3 HONDA
1.2.10.4 Character development
1.2.10.5 Generational parallels betwn characters
1.2.10.8 Psychological assessments

Section 1.5.8 - 2.5.16 Minor Gryffindor students
KathyW, did you include 2.5.5/2.5.5.1 Seamus Finnegan in this group? 
Otherwise, he seems to have been missed

Beyond these queries, there are some 20 sections yet to be done, some 
of them allocated to people who reserved them a while back but have 
not got around to them yet. I'll be in touch offlist to see what the 
situation is with each of you, and uncode names according to the 
responses I get. Talisman has already mentioned that she doesn't 
think she will get to Snape after all, so that's a big one still to 
be tackled. 

TECHIE STUFF
There is progress on building the user interface (UI), although 
admittedly it is slow. Paul has sent Tim another version of the whole 
database to play with, and Tim is also seeking the help of a 
webdesigner friend who might like to do some of the presentational 
aspects. In the meantime, he is making a start on the coding 
structure.

Paul is also making moves to buy a domain name to host the catalogue 
on.

However, we are very much in their hands so I can't put a time frame 
on it.

NEXT ACTIONS
My to do plan looks like this:

- implement Kelly's most recent coding decisions
- contact group members about reviews
- update the live catalogue with any re-written definitions which 
have emerged from the review processes
- get on with my Lord V section, much delayed

Hope most of you are happy to continue on with your reviews. I don't 
think it is sensible to start the next section of coding until our 
review is completed, and I would also like that to coincide with the 
launch of the user interface.

My idea would be that people could start using the database as far as 
we had done it (ie up to publication of OOP), and we would be 
confident that we had cleaned up all the sections sufficiently for it 
to be a sensible and useful tool

Then, on a second copy of the database, we could embark on the OOP 
posts, pausing for regular clean ups. Each time we finished a clean 
up, the enlarged database could be made available to the users.

Well, if anyone has a better idea..

Cheers
Carolyn