Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="spyscribe" data-source="post: 2525436" data-attributes="member: 5808">Herremann, I like your qualitative measures for categories.&nbsp; Neat and easy to interpret.&nbsp; I have a couple comments I thought I'd throw in, mostly just trying to streamline.&nbsp; (I'm quoting from your post because I like the way you structured it, not because I'm trying to pick on your comments.)With the reader comment(s) section as an opportunity to show-off a &quot;back jacket&quot; quote or two, does this become gratuitous?&nbsp; Also, anyone can click on the &quot;number of replies&quot; link on the thread to see who has posted to the story hour and how many times.&nbsp; *shrug*I like your cut-off points for dormant and discontinued, but your scale sets a high bar with a lot of different &quot;grades&quot; for someone browsing to keep track of.&nbsp; I'd say regular updates on at least a weekly basis probably qualify as &quot;frequent.&quot;&nbsp; &quot;regular&quot; for threads updating 1-3 times a month, and &quot;irregular&quot; for threads that either update less than once a month, or that tend to go in fits and starts.As an aside, to try to make things easier on the indexers, what if certain statistics could be left for authors or a regular reader to submit if they choose?&nbsp; Things like number, average length, and even frequency of updates.&nbsp; I mean, those are nice things to know, but they also take a lot of time to figure out, especially if you're not already a regular reader of the thread.&nbsp; Outside indexers can fill in eventually for older threads whose authors might not be around the boards.&nbsp;Are you thinking 3rd person limited vs. 3rd person omniscient?The only thing I might add to the listing would be a place to note game system.&nbsp; I know that many readers scope through for modern, or science fiction, and finding those easily would seem to be useful.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="spyscribe, post: 2525436, member: 5808"] Herremann, I like your qualitative measures for categories. Neat and easy to interpret. I have a couple comments I thought I'd throw in, mostly just trying to streamline. (I'm quoting from your post because I like the way you structured it, not because I'm trying to pick on your comments.) With the reader comment(s) section as an opportunity to show-off a "back jacket" quote or two, does this become gratuitous? Also, anyone can click on the "number of replies" link on the thread to see who has posted to the story hour and how many times. *shrug* I like your cut-off points for dormant and discontinued, but your scale sets a high bar with a lot of different "grades" for someone browsing to keep track of. I'd say regular updates on at least a weekly basis probably qualify as "frequent." "regular" for threads updating 1-3 times a month, and "irregular" for threads that either update less than once a month, or that tend to go in fits and starts. As an aside, to try to make things easier on the indexers, what if certain statistics could be left for authors or a regular reader to submit if they choose? Things like number, average length, and even frequency of updates. I mean, those are nice things to know, but they also take a lot of time to figure out, especially if you're not already a regular reader of the thread. Outside indexers can fill in eventually for older threads whose authors might not be around the boards. Are you thinking 3rd person limited vs. 3rd person omniscient? The only thing I might add to the listing would be a place to note game system. I know that many readers scope through for modern, or science fiction, and finding those easily would seem to be useful. [/QUOTE]

Verification