I think we should agree on a format before we all get started. I think we agreed to the obvious organization of sections for specific areas (i.e. Fungi, Viruses...) with sub-sections within those areas (Cryptococcus, Aspergillus...).

To number what do you say they get numbered beginning with '1' for each sub-section and include the year.

For example:
Microbiology - Fungi
Aspergilli
00-1. Blah...
99-2. Which blah...
99,98-3. What blah...
98,97,96-4. Blah...

I don't really like this setup, but I'm having trouble being creative.

What are the other ideas? Oh, and we'd have the last page be the key.

Well, we could stick to the way they numbered it in the past. It's basically what you were saying, except you keep the original question number.

For instance, for question 34 on the block 3 exam in 98, we would write 983-34 (or 98-34 if we eliminate the block). For multiple, just write them out. Usually, the exact same question isn't used more than a couple of times (except maybe in Path). So, you could write 98-34/99-41.

This keeps the source straight, so if you have any question regarding the original, you can go back and reference it.

Just an idea... If y'all think that's writing too much, then I think Erin's idea will work.

Michael

Although that would make keying it harder if we kept the original question numbers. I don't know...

I like your idea of 99-41/98-34. Do you want to use the 3 for block three - I feel like it's redundant info, especially the way the PT website it organized. I was also thinking that using the original test number would not be very useful because who will want to reference it to look at an old test when the compilation is there - unless there's a mistake in the question by the person who makes it?

So, what do you think the final should be (I wish more folks would give some insight on what's the most user-friendly method)?

A. 003-27 (Repeated questions: 003-27/993-40)
B. 00-27 (00-27/99-40)
C. 003-x (Where x is the numerical sequence in the
subheading) (003/993-x)
D. 00-x (00/99-x)

Does that even make any sense?

-Erin

I suppose I was thinking in case there was some sort of error. If we check over them carefully, there wouldn't be a need. I like idea "D" So far, I had been putting the Micro test in B just in case, but I'll start using D if that's alright.

= Keep It Simple, Silly.
Guys, the reason I dropped the original cataloging/numbering system is that it just caused visual clutter.
My thought: peer tutoring receives the "near final" copy of the compilation, complete with the year, test/block #, and original question number (i.e., 972-21 = 1997, block 2 test, q 21). We also keep double checked keys of the original tests as well as the tests themselves (archive and reference). BUT--cut all but "97" out. Once people know the answers are trustworthy (offer a small link explaining the peer review process), no one will want to check them nor will they care.
Whaddya think?
Alison

I agree that we should drop the oringinal # once it's confirmed correct, etc. But I do think they shold be numbered, as Erin has indicated, because we want to make a key.