P.S.: If I could fill in Mitsubishi's subsidiaries (I shouldn't since it's a hierarchy) I would have so many points right now :) http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/67088/000119312513297023/d564083d20f.htm
Just flagging that one as Mitsubishi has a very interesting corporate network, even if Japan is not yet in OpenCorporates. On 2013-10-04, at 10:57 AM, James McKinney wrote: > To clarify my "no subsidiary information" question: I don't know if a > document has no subsidiary information without carefully reading its 50+ > pages. All I do when playing the game is search for "subsidiar" and enter in > data if some is found, click "no subsidiary information" if the document > explicitly states that there are no subsidiaries, and I do nothing otherwise. > > I figure it's easy for OpenCorporates to check if the term "subsidiar" occurs > in a document and answer that question itself, so I assume that there may be > other terms for referring to subsidiaries (terms that I am unaware of), and > that I would have to read 50+ pages to (possibly) find those alternative > terms. > > This is the common situation I could use more instructions for as a regular > participant. > > James > > On 2013-10-04, at 10:51 AM, James McKinney wrote: > >> Hey Seb, >> >> My message was less about feedback and more about learning what is the best >> thing for me to do as a participant when I hit a situation where I don't >> know what to do. My options right now are: >> >> A. Refresh Step 1 to get a new URL >> B. Proceed to Step 2 and click either "It's complicated" or "No subsidiaries" >> >> So far I've been doing A. Before doing B (which gives you more information >> than A), I wanted to confirm in which situations of those I mentioned it >> makes sense to do B. I could still use some direction on that, and I'm sure >> I'm not the only person who is confused as to what to do. In fact, I didn't >> know what to do with the first several documents I tried (or whether I would >> ever get a document where I knew what to do), and that's not a good >> experience for beginners. >> >> The most common "I don't know what to do" is when the term "subsidiary" is >> never (or barely) mentioned. I happen to know that, if subsidiaries are not >> mentioned, it doesn't mean the company has no subsidiaries. However, should >> I nonetheless click the "No subsidiaries" button? What's most useful to >> OpenCorporates? >> >> I understand the issues around adding more buttons - they were questions, >> not requests :) - but I am still wondering whether it would be useful to >> OpenCorporates to allow partially filled-in forms, for example, where >> jurisdiction info is not available. In the cases where I've seen this, it >> seems to be assumed that the subsidiaries are incorporated in the same >> jurisdiction, but that's never stated. >> >> I still think a list of key phrases/search terms could be useful, so I've >> started a gist. If anyone wants to contribute, just reply with a comment on >> the gist: https://gist.github.com/jpmckinney/6826932 >> >> Cheers, >> >> James >> >> On 2013-10-04, at 2:59 AM, Seb Bacon wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the detailed feedback. >>> >>> Yes, there actually is a standard place to list subsidiaries - >>> "exhibit 21a". However, in pretty much all cases in this crowdsourcing >>> game, the reason they're in the game is because we couldn't scrape >>> them, and that's usually because there's no exhibit 21a. >>> >>> Your other points (varieties, I think, of "it's more complicated than >>> the form allows me to report") illustrate a real problem with >>> crowdsourcing like this. Do we add a button for "It explicitly states >>> there are no subsidiaries", and another for "It doesn't mention >>> subsidiaries"? How about a separate confidence level for jurisdiction >>> as well as name? >>> >>> Eventually we end up with a forest of buttons and options, and we >>> quickly end up with a game that only people who are detailed and >>> dedicated are going to be able to consider playing. It stops being a >>> game, and just becomes a "relationship editing tool" (which we are >>> developing at the same time, but trying to work out how we induct >>> people into using it -- volunteers / ideas welcome!) >>> >>> There should be a place for crowdsourcing for lower quality, higher >>> quantity data extraction, but the only way I can think of removing >>> these grey areas / cognitive blocks would be to decompose the task >>> into much smaller parts (maybe "draw a box around any sentence >>> mentioning subsidiaries", "click boxes mentioning subsidiaries and >>> jurisdictions" or something like that). Even then I wonder if a >>> crowdsourcing game is even going to much good at this kind of natural >>> language parsing. And it would take vast amounts of work to get right >>> for reducing returns. >>> >>> On the other hand, I hope we can tweak the current game so it's clear >>> that if you're not sure, or you hit any block at all, it's OK just to >>> continue. I think that should work OK, but haven't yet found a way to >>> make it really clear in the UI. >>> >>> Seb >>> >>> >>> On 3 October 2013 19:21, James McKinney <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I continued playing until I found a document with relevant info near the >>>> search term "subsidiar", and it seems there is no standard place to >>>> disclose subsidiaries. For example, the following document has a single >>>> phrase at the start of Part 1 mentioning the company's two wholly owned >>>> subsidiaries (I didn't check the document to see if it discloses any >>>> non-wholly-owned subsidiaries). >>>> >>>> http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1349976/000114420413044838/v350454_10k.htm >>>> >>>> I've found a document where in Item 15 it lists "Active Subsidiaries of >>>> the Registrant", which can then be searched for in the document to >>>> determine ownership %. Another document calls it "List of Subsidiaries" in >>>> Item 15. A strange thing is that a subsidiary StarTrak Systems, LLC was >>>> sold to ORBCOMM Inc., yet it's also described as being a wholly-owned >>>> subsidiary - my understanding is that the deal has not yet been closed. >>>> >>>> http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/98618/000009861813000011/k10_063013.htm >>>> >>>> The same document lists subsidiaries under a "Principles of Consolidation" >>>> heading, in case that heading appears in other documents. Similar headings >>>> in further documents include "Basis of Presentation" and "Basis of >>>> Presentation and Consolidation". It may be worthwhile to compile a list of >>>> these. "Percentage of Ownership" seems to be a popular column heading. >>>> >>>> It may be worthwhile to add a field to the data collection form to express >>>> the user's certainty as to whether all wholly-owned subsidiaries mentioned >>>> in the document have been collected. For example, one document in the >>>> "forward looking statements" before Part 1 explicitly says that the >>>> company has five wholly-owned subsidiaries, which makes me certain that >>>> I've found all five: >>>> >>>> http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1425173/000101968713003726/novagen_10k-123112.htm >>>> >>>> Another document helpfully says "We do not have any subsidiaries." but it >>>> seems most are not so helpful. If there is no mention of subsidiaries, >>>> does that mean there are no subsidiaries? Should a button be added for >>>> cases where no info can be found, or should I just click the "it's >>>> complicated" button? In once case the list is described as "previously >>>> filed", with no other mention of subsidiaries. >>>> >>>> Similarly, this document says it has subsidiaries, but doesn't name them. >>>> Should a button be added to report these cases, or should I just click the >>>> "it's complicated" button? >>>> http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1435936/000143593613000153/f10k_20130531r5.htm >>>> >>>> Have you noticed cases where in one part of the document, a subsidiary is >>>> described as wholly-owned, but is later described as not wholly-owned? >>>> e.g. How much attention should be paid to verb tenses? >>>> >>>> Some documents don't give the jurisdiction of subsidiaries. What to do? I >>>> can't submit the form without filling in the jurisdiction, but I would >>>> expect that a partially filled form is better than no form? For example: >>>> >>>> http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1020477/000135448813004921/robk_10k.htm >>>> http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/825322/000121390013005438/f10k2013_mphase.htm >>>> http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/896429/000118811213002827/t77452_10k.htm >>>> >>>> The instructions should perhaps warn that some documents mention the >>>> subsidiaries of other companies, so it's important to check that you're >>>> reporting about the right company. Most confusingly, the following >>>> document starts talking about companies with entirely different names as >>>> though they are the subject of the document: >>>> >>>> http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1496741/000116169713000700/form_10-k.htm >>>> >>>> Lastly, I'd eliminate one click and put the "Step 1" content after the >>>> other content on "Step 3". >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> On 2013-10-03, at 1:09 PM, James McKinney wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Seb, >>>>> >>>>> I've tried the game, but I'm getting very long (50+ page) documents that >>>>> don't seem to have any relevant information near search terms like >>>>> "subsidiar", "own", "wholly", etc. It may be the case that these >>>>> documents have no subsidiary information. However, I also notice that the >>>>> two documents I've looked at so far have identical tables of contents. >>>>> Could you provide instructions as to which section(s) within this (at >>>>> least somewhat) standard table of contents would contain the relevant >>>>> information, to avoid having to carefully read 50+ pages? >>>>> >>>>> Examples: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50292/000091431713000879/form10k-131780_ieh.htm >>>>> http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/874710/000114420413052878/v355226_10k.htm >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> On 2013-10-03, at 7:39 AM, Seb Bacon wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all >>>>>> >>>>>> If you fancy helping turn unscrapeable info about corporate control >>>>>> networks into open data, consider having a go at our >>>>>> fun-for-all-the-family game! >>>>>> >>>>>> Background: >>>>>> http://blog.opencorporates.com/2013/10/02/help-uncover-corporate-networks/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Game: >>>>>> http://opencorporates.com/games/secfilings >>>>>> >>>>>> We know it's a bit rough around the edges, but our goal with this >>>>>> iteration was to make it good enough that 100 people could >>>>>> successfully use it to add relationships. If you can give it a go, >>>>>> ask your partner, your children, your grandparents, that would be >>>>>> great! >>>>>> >>>>>> Feedback to [email protected] please >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> Seb >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> skype: seb.bacon >>>>>> mobile: 07790 939224 >>>>>> land: 01531 671074 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> developers-public mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >>>>>> >>>>>> Unsubscribe: >>>>>> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/james%40opennorth.ca >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> skype: seb.bacon >>> mobile: 07790 939224 >>> land: 01531 671074 >> >
_______________________________________________ developers-public mailing list [email protected] https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public Unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/archive%40mail-archive.com
