Greetings, fellow underpaid explorers of the unknown!
Due to recent upper management and strategic vision changes, along with some… ah… unfortunate accidents, it looks like we’ve got a whole new crop of contributors — that would be you.
Now, the thing about company culture is that you kind of need people to pass it along, and that’s kind of hard to do when you consider the events of the past six months or so. Yes, you could say that the disappearances have been a little too convenient, but as you will note in the next few points below, it’s best not to dwell on those matters too much. So, please don’t.
In any case, in lieu of several years of working together and slowly gathering the assumptions that characterize our work, here is a semi-ooc and somewhat self-referential list of things to keep in mind when you key in the findings into the database:
- What we’re looking for, primarily, are fragments and abstracts. The company expects a 200-word precis of what you’re collecting, or an extract of the document that you’ve finally deciphered, or whatever you’ve got squeezed into, at minimum, 200 words. That’s a hard minimum, please; don’t go any lower.
- Saying that, if the document you’re cataloguing is a 150,000 word monster, please do not place it into this database, verbatim. Pass it along to Scanning and Deciphering for a full-style Google Books-style scan, and put in a 200-word minimum extract. You can put as much as you like, but seriously, we don’t have the bandwidth budget just yet. Yes, I know, cloud computing is the Wave of the Future, but we don’t have the budget. Ask me that question next year.
- Your KPI are, primarily, how many works you log into the system. Not, incidentally, how good your analyses are. You’re not disallowed to do them, they just don’t contribute to your year-end bonuses — yes! We have those! — and no one will read it, because we’re too damn busy. Do your analyses in your spare time, and don’t log it into the system. It doesn’t get counted, and it wastes precious hard drive space.
- You really have two voices when it comes to logging in works — as you, the researcher, or as the person who wrote the works themselves. Both are fine, use your discretion.
- Categorize the works properly. If it requires a new tag, inform any of the three Administrators: jhameia, nyarlathotep or frangipani.
- You know that talk about there being no real analyses in this database? Sometimes someone will do a “milestone” post, that work as a timeline and organize particular events in chronological order. These are about as much analyses we do, seriously.
- Yeah, you may have noticed that some of the documents contradict one another, and that the hardcopies of the timelines we’ve salvaged will contradict each other too! We don’t know why; some physics graduate that worked here in the late 90s speculated that it had something to do with the nature of “the quantum foam” or some gobbledegook like that. Don’t sweat it; if your work doesn’t fit the established timeline or contradicts multiple works, we’ll accommodate that, somehow.
- What we won’t accommodate are what look like transcription errors. We’ll correct those if we need to.
- Incidentally, as context, there will be entries that reference SPS S/B and its history. Those we’ve determined are necessary, but don’t go overboard in cataloguing those. The primary purpose of this repository is Steampunk Nusantara, not As The Sharekat Turns, or the Bold and the Samudera.
- Speaking of soap operas, articles that reference the events of the past six months are strongly discouraged. Don’t mention it too often (translation: make up something and Try Very Hard Not To Talk About It).
I think that covers all of it. Any questions?