[r-t] Proportion of Surprise Methods

[Richard Smith]

Graham John wrote:

> True, but if one were to rethink classification, perhaps a 
> more useful distinction would have been between right and 
> wrong place methods.

I agree that right-place is an interesting property, and so 
I guess wrong-place is useful as the category for everything 
that isn't right-place.  But too much wrong-place stuff is 
uninterestingly wrong place.  Take Allendale S Minor: it's 
just a trivial variant of (right-place) Westminster.

Or Kent TB: probably a bit more than a 'trivial' variant of 
Oxford, but still not interestingly wrong place.  Even 
something like Adelaide S Major still has the feel of a 
right place method that's been shaken about a bit, although 
in fact it isn't a trivial variant of a right-place method.

Andrew Johnson wrote:

> Then you could subdivide wrong place treble-bob methods 
> into symmetric and asymmetric section methods.

Is that useful?  I would put London and Bristol firmly in 
the interestly-wrong-place category, though neither have any 
asymmetric sections.  Perhaps it's useful for distinguishing 
'hard' wrong-place methods from 'easy' ones; but even then, 
what makes the harder wrong place methods hard is more the 
frequent juxtaposition of asymmetric wrong-place sections 
and right-place sections, rather than just the presence of 
assymetric wrong-place sections.

RAS