A Snape Suggestion

[annemehr]

> > Anne:
> > Actually, we still will have to play secretary, because while this
> > preliminary review is going on, no one can uncode any of the posts. 
> > The reason for this is, say you are reviewing Snape posts 500 - 600,
> > and someone starts uncoding posts before yours -- then suddenly, 
> what had been the 500th Snape post becomes the 400-and-somethingth 
> one and you will lose your place.
> > 
> > Ginger again:
> >    
> >   Good preemptive strike, Anne.  
> >   It could still be done if we assign it by message #s instead of 
> post numbers.  For example, rather than saying "you do the first 100" 
> say "you do 233CLUB through 5433CLUB" and the next person takes 
> 5439CLUB through 234GROUP".  I'm pulling numbers out of the air here, 
> but you get the idea.
> 
> 
> Miss H, head bound up and full of flu agrees, alas. The only way 
> would be to download all the Snape numbers onto a spreadsheet, and 
> then issue batches of them, 100 or 500 at a time, whatever.
> 

Anne:
There are 2648 Snape posts (under the main heading).

How many people do we have volunteering?  I know people have expressed
a willingness in the past, but things may have changed for some in the
meantime.

Anyway, suppose we have five people.  If we divvy them all up at once,
that means assigning over 500 posts each.  If we have, say, eight
people, that becomes about 330 posts each.

*Is* there a reasonable easy way to cull all the post numbers from the
post listing you get when you click the [p] next to the Snape category?


If we cannot easily cull a list of all the Snape post numbers (or even
if we can), then I think it might be much easier to assign 100 posts
at a time.  We could use Ginger's suggestion, and assign the first
person post 2886(club) to post 3111(group), etc.  People would sort
their allocations into temp categories and empty them out of main
Snape.  Then they would come back to be assigned the next free 100 posts. 

For one thing, it makes it a much smaller task to copy and paste the
post numbers from the [p] screen into a post on this group to assign
them to people, if that's how we have to do it.  

For another thing, this will eat away at the beginning of the list, so
that the post numbers farther along become more easily accessible
without clicking on "posts 41 and above," "posts 81 and above," etc,
etc, all the way up to 2*** (it takes forever, you know).  

For a third thing, people are going to sort at different speeds, so
this will get the whole thing done more efficiently without waiting
for the slowest person to get done.  

For a fourth thing, with a smaller task, people might be inclined to
sort faster because it doesn't seem so daunting.


Now, about whether to sort them into "pro" and "anti," I can see
Talisman's wish to read only one side at a time, sometimes.  I'm not
sure keeping threads together is all *that* important, because with
these huge categories the threads are heavily chopped in order to keep
only the most relevant and original posts anyway.  That's what
happened with the Harry category.  Threads were ruthlessly divvied up.
 If users want to see a whole thread, they will just have to use our
catalogue to find the post on the main list and read the thread there.
 However, I'm still not sure it is much use sorting them into pro and
anti, because each post is sure to quote heavily from the other side,
so 99% of the posts will contain arguments from both sides anyway.

Anne