HBfile/The Canon Rule/Combining

[elfundeb2]

I've been wanting to jump into some of the discussions here, but 
every time I look at this list, the number of things I want to 
comment on gets longer and longer.  That's a good thing, of course. 
;-)  Thanks for everyone's thoughts and ideas.

First, the disclaimer:  I'm a member of list admin, but this message 
reflects only my personal opinions.

Second, some background:  A lot of the things that have been 
discussed here over the last week are things that the list 
administrators have discussed many times.  With many of these issues, 
there are pros and cons to all the alternatives.  Usually no 
alternative is perfect, and the admin team must weigh the pros and 
cons of each option.  Sometimes, the right answer for one point in 
time is not the right answer six months later; other times, the only 
way to know what's best is to experiment in an effort to hit 
the "sweet spot" that provides maximum benefit for members with a 
minimum of burden or frustration.  As a result, the rules have 
evolved over time to reflect the sense of the community at that 
particular time, and they will undoubtedly continue to evolve.  

The revision of the HBfile is a case in point (and you can blame me 
for this one, since I was one of the principal drafters of the new 
HBfile).  As the group became larger, the rules became more 
formalized and the HBfile grew in length and degree of detail until 
it was a *very* daunting exercise to attempt to read and synthesize 
all the important information in it, and there was evidence that a 
substantial number of members had not made a serious attempt to read 
it before posting.  There was also concern that the HBfile was 
written in an in terrorem style that presented HPFGU as too 
forbidding and unfriendly a place for most posters.  We also heard 
from new members on moderated status who *did* read it and found that 
it was unhelpful in spite of the long and detailed examples.  This 
especially occurred with newbies whose posts were rejected for 
snipping; we found that many were more concerned with taking a quote 
out of context and erred on the side of caution in their snipping 
habits.  

For all these reasons, a concerted effort was made to slim down the 
document, to make it more friendly as well as more user-friendly, and 
to move more tangential material to other documents that could be 
reached via links, in order to improve the likelihood that a new 
member would actually read far enough into the document to get to the 
posting guidelines.

Experience over the last several months has shown us that in some 
cases members are confused about things where there used to be 
specific guidance.  As a result, a number of additions have been 
made, and we're continuing to consider where additional guidance is 
needed.  

In order to keep the HBfile from mushrooming back into its old 
unwieldy self, one possibility is that that guidance may take the 
form of a separate document that's included in the Admin folder in 
the file section, so instead of rummaging through the HBfile for the 
specific information you're looking for, there will be a standalone 
document with specific guidelines for, for example, TBAY or message 
formatting issues.  Using a separate document for discrete forms of 
advice would also help (I think) in giving advice to members; instead 
of referring them to the HBfile as a whole, they can be referred to a 
specific document that addresses a particular area.

We've also discovered that some members have a lingering fondness for 
the detail in the old HBfile, though I think the jury's still out on 
whether the changes to the HBfile have negatively impacted post 
quality.  I think one of the best teachers is to read good posts; 
therefore, one of the biggest things that affects post quality, IMO, 
is the tenor of the board itself.  When it is dominated by 
experienced, thoughtful posters, post quality is high.  Over the 
summer (and the new HBfile was issued only a week before OOP was 
released) the list was dominated by newcomers.  Many old members 
hesitated to post at all, assuming that their posts would be buried 
quickly by the posts of excited newcomers, and post quality 
inevitably suffered from their absence.  I think that trend has 
reversed itself and list quality has improved.  (Not that we didn't 
have good posters among the newcomers; we did, and those are the ones 
that have stayed and are contributing to the improvement in overall 
list quality.)  

And on some specific HBfile issues --

> Tom, in his first post to Feedback, wrote:

> When I first joined HPfGU in January 2003, I read through the 
HBfile 
> and was struck by the extensive explanations concerning canon: what 
> it is, when to use it, how to use it, and so forth. From my *first* 
> impression, canon was a Big Deal, and it was important to cite it 
> correctly and copiously. 
> 
Jen Reese:
> I've always interpreted the canon rule to mean you actually quote 
> from the book or an interview with JKR, and base an argument around 
> that (but then, I take things very literally <g>). 
> 
That's how I read the old rules.  I thought they meant that *every* 
canon reference required a specific citation.  However, I noticed 
that very few members actually did so, except in the longer, more 
well-thought-out posts.
> 
Tom again:
> Therefore, in order to not look like a buffoon in front of so many 
> prolific members, I made a concerted effort to buff up my own 
> knowledge of the books; I also took to carrying them around with me 
> so that I'd be able to cite the canon properly.

Oh, I can relate to this.  After being caught in a canon error in my 
second or third post, I went back and reread the books.  Twice.  And 
for awhile, I included cites for *everything*.

> When the HBfile was revised a little while ago, I noticed that - in 
> contrast to the old file - the new document gave canon almost no 
> attention. I mean, 'canon' was mentioned as a word, and it was used 
> in explanations of the prefixes we use on the boards, but a full-
out 
> description of canon and its various attendant uses wasn't to be 
> found anywhere in the new HBfile.

Yes, we realized that in this instance (and a couple of others) a 
little too much was cut, and have re-inserted the following into the 
HBfile:

<<All posts to the main list should discuss the "canon," that is, the 
works of JK Rowling. >>

What I think Tom and Amelia Goldfeesh are suggesting is that perhaps 
some of former section 2.7 (which discusses canon citations) be 
reinstated as well.  It's short, it's written in a user-friendly 
fashion, and it contains a useful reminder.  Good suggestion.

Annemehr on combining:
> 
> This is something I've always wondered about -- what exactly are all
> the advantages and disadvantages of combining posts?  Combining is
> presumably good for people who receive individual e-mails.  I don't
> see that it makes any difference to those who receive daily 
digests. 
> I read the list on webview by clicking message index and then expand
> messages, so combining makes no difference to me.
> 
> On the other hand, combining posts makes the threading function
> useless, which can sometimes be annoying, especially as the search
> function doesn't work very well either.  Still, I suppose the only 
way
> to have *all* the posts be threaded properly is for everyone to 
always
> reply from webview, which is impractical for many.

This is a very succinct explanation of the pros and cons of combining 
that the admin team has been discussing over the years.  The rule was 
intentionally softened in the HBfile revision, but this is one of 
those "no right answer" issues.  

I tend to think that combining works best for a series of short 
responses.  Because of the threading issue as well as the fact that 
the last topic in a long combined subject header might not even be 
visible (especially for those who get the list on email), I prefer 
that posters be selective about combining.  Also, some internet 
programs (like my old aol program) made combining difficult, if not 
impossible.  But that's my personal opinion.  I know other people are 
more irritated if they have to open too many short posts.
> 
> Do several short posts take up much more room on the server than
> combining them into one?  That might be a good reason to combine, 
even
> if the threading function is lost.

I am *not* an authority on this, but I think that because of all the 
source coding, combined posts unquestionably use less bandwith than 
multiple posts. 
> 
> I still have my copy [of the old HBfile] from when I joined in 
Sept. '02.  If anyone wants
> a copy of that version, just e-mail me (I'd just forward it to you, 
A
> Goldfeesh, but I have a vision of your inbox full of HB files people
> have sent, unbeknownst to me -- so you e-mail me too if you want 
mine,
> okay?).

Rather than besiege Annemehr with requests, just go to the Admin 
files at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/

and open oldhbfile.html

We never *really* got rid of it.
>  
A Goldfeesh:
> > I would also like to suggest that (instead of redoing all the HB 
> > again) the older version would be posted again for those who 
would 
> > like to look through it and get more specific tips.  It contained 
> > useful information that should not have just been trashed. The 
older 
> > version could be more like guidelines, than the actual rules, 
> > perhaps.

A lot of the information that used to be in the HBfile is still 
around; it was simply moved to separate files, which can be found in 
the Admin section of the files:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/

Most of them are already linked in the HBfile.

Debbie