Various responses

[carolynwhite2]

Kelly: 
> This first comment will apply to all symbolism categories. I'm 
> undecided what to do about Stoned!Harry posts.

Anne:
If a post is good discussion of S!H (i.e. more than just mentioning 
it in passing), go ahead and add the S!H code and also Review Coding.

Carolyn:
I've just worked through Kelly's colour section, implementing her 
suggested changes. I found that on all the posts which she had 
marked 'sh', these were already coded to Stoned!Harry. I decided to 
do nothing, but to leave the decision to Anne as to whether to leave 
that code on or not. Kelly had not suggested adding the code to any 
additional posts.

*********
Kelly:
> Many of the posts here disucssed the significance of Harry's green 
eyes. Because 2.5.1.0 Harry's eyes is a pretty recent creation, few 
of the posts I came across carried this category. I decided to keep 
those posts in 1.2.13.2.1 but also to add the 2.5.1.0 code.

Anne:
>from her comments I'm guessing Kelly has a
version of the catalogue from before we made all those new Harry
categories (she has Harry's Eyes as 2.5.1.0, which is now ANOTHER
HARRY)

Carolyn:
Yes, the code for Harry's eyes is now 2.5.1.5.1. When I looked at 
Kelly's suggested additions for that category, I decided it might be 
quicker to list them here, and for Anne to decide whether they added 
anything to her category. The post # are:

5565
30165
30167
33022
33067
43035

********
Anne:
I was thinking maybe we could use a few test subjects to give the 
catalogue a dry run -- people who have never worked on our catalogue 
before. Some of these people could be ones you'd asked to help 
catalogue who declined because of time constraints, and we could also 
ask members of TOC.

(and everyone who seconded this idea)

C - Never fear, this was always part of the plan. Our beta group is 
likely to be all the elves, and those that keep a watch on us here 
but don't do much <g>. It's about 20-30 people in all, which should 
be sufficient to de-bug it before we go public.

*********

> 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

Debbie:
Do I need to empty it? I think I've moved all the posts that need 
to be moved; the remaining posts just need the category deleted. Do I 
need to do it by hand?

Carolyn:
I could ask Paul to do it, but it takes him a while to get around to 
such requests. I'll email him tonight and see what happens.

*******

Ginger:
Clear as mud? Of course! That's how the section seems to be.

C- erm...I think we'll trust a veteran of the Lupin section to deal 
with any little problems Quidditch throws up..

*******
KathyW:
As I recall, as we completed a review, we were to update/change the 
definition of the section. At the moment, I can't find the site where 
we do that. And to be honest, I'm not sure I've kept my sections up 
to date. What's the best way to "review" that?

Carolyn:
This should be done in one of the four database sections entitled
1. Text analysis
2. Character analysis
3. Wizarding World
4. Other topics

Not many people have revised the old definitions within those 
databases, and we need to do that in order to paste the new 
definitions into the live database. When you do do some editing, 
could you highlight it by putting /EDITED after your name in the 
column far right. If you scroll through, you'll find some have been 
done, so follow that style.

KathyW:
In looking over your updated sections, I see that I'd once asked 
about the chance of lumping Gryffindors (Slytherins, etc) together 
when a post was about the gang rather than one specific student 
(although several students might be named.) Did we ever discuss that?

C- It depends what it's about. Most likely it would be a reference to 
characteristics of house Slytherin ?? In which case we'd use one of 
the House codes down in section 3.

*******
SNAPE:

Jen takes a suicidal leap, but as she runs over the edge remembers 
AmandaGeist, Pippin, erm, the entire old crowd:
>If no one steps forward on this one, I can do it after 
characterization...
>(I just checked the section and had second thoughts), 

The rest of the team rush forward to save her, and have the bright 
idea of giving the problem to me:

KathyW: Unless you're having fun with it, consider breaking it 
down and have Miss assign potions (that was supposed to be portions) 
to the rest of us.

Anne, who's been there, speaks words of reason:
So IF Carolyn doesn't mind breaking up the Snape category among
several reviewers, I suggest a two-stage process. First, several
people take bits of Snape and review them. Be very picky about which 
posts you keep. Then, after that first review, *one* person go 
through everything that's left and cull even more, making sure
everything makes sense.

C..
Um, I was going to offer to do him. I know there is no real escape. I 
figure if do Voldemort AND Snape I'll feel a bit better about all the 
other sections you are all ploughing through.

I've a pretty good idea of the sub categories, and will discuss 
further with Talisman to see if she had any other preliminary ideas. 
Maybe I will then plough through some 1000 or so posts, to see how 
they fit the sections. Once I am surer about the fit/definitions, we 
could possibly think about breaking up the task between consenting 
adults. Then, as Anne suggests, go back over the whole thing again 
once more.

Carolyn, sighing. 
Yeah, ok, the catalogue probably will be judged on the quality of the 
Snape category. Gulp.