|  |
 | | | Subject: A87715542 - Relational Guide Mechanics
Posted Oct 29, 2011 by Dmitri Gheorgheni
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
3
  | |  Well, that's the first answer to your idea - 'moved from Peer Review'. It's a hard sell. 
But I'm with you in saying that we need a broader approach to the way we handle our content. I think the first step might be to consider all our writing as part of the inclusive Guide - not only the factual entries.
There's a project afoot to label our content better with better tagging. That's a long-term goal.
Of course, in the meantime, there's the search function. If you stubbornly unclick 'Edited Entries Only', as I usually do, you'll find more on hedgehogs than just the Edited Guide.
|
| | | Subject: A87715542 - Relational Guide Mechanics
Posted Oct 29, 2011 by Nosebagbadger {Ace}
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
4
| | I already would consider all entries to be part of "the guide", whether they be EG UG or Post (or even none)
Nevertheless, I will mostly defend the status quo, things should remain separated as they are. I need to be able to navigate the EG and know what i hunt is purely factual
What i would say is a vital part, is we need as many entries coming into, and as many volunteers handling the Underguide as the edited guide. With equal precedence given to both on the front page (though whoever gets put in charge of classifyfing future and past UG entries should be given free meals for life)
Then the two "guides" can be considered separate but equal parts of the Guide
|
| |
| |
| | | Subject: A87715542 - Relational Guide Mechanics
Posted Oct 29, 2011 by Nosebagbadger {Ace}
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
13
| | We have multiple badges already concerning the UG - both miners and polishers, who fulfill similar roles to things like the Scouts and Sub-eds
We would however need a chief of each, and most importantly dozens of entries in AWW that are Active and fully fledged, as opposed to just a couple of lines dropped in randomly.
Sub-eds have to spend a lot of time on h2g2, and they have to be very good,
As such we always have a shortage of both them and scouts, as well as a perpetual worry that we might lack in entries (we used to have two new entries per weekday)
In an ideal world, just for the EG, we would have 6 or 7 sub eds, probably 8 scouts, who would have a varying allowance of entries they could pick depending on how much was wanted. We would have sufficent good entries that we could update 10 per week (with the attached icnrease in writers), all, of course, with an illustration.
For the UG, we would need a similar number of Miners and Polishers, an even larger number of entries in the AWW since the AWW would provide the entries for both the Post and the UG.
And my final suggestion (in an ideal world) would be that each weekday, we would have two EG entries and one UG entry, while not done atm, i don't think the CEs would mind having some UG entries put up alongside EG entries, as long as it was made clear which was which
Parity between EG and UG would be equal since alot of AWW entries would be in the Post, which already is a very active part of h2g2
In fact, I'm tempted to write up what would be an ideal layout of the EG/UG separation - do you think those who spend lots of time on this board (who i encourage to help here, since I don't have much experience outside PR/EGG) if several people put up possible ideas, even if they couldn't be enacted?
|
| |
| | | Subject: A87715542 - Relational Guide Mechanics
Posted Oct 30, 2011 by J
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
18
| | Hi.  I'm one of the proponents of the UGT, and was a long-serving editor and miner for the UG. So while I'm generally pretty open-minded about the Guide's future, I really do (respectfully) think you folks have the wrong idea.
"I already would consider all entries to be part of "the guide", whether they be EG UG or Post (or even none)"
This is a longstanding tradition on h2g2. That's why there's an "Edited Guide". When one refers to "The Guide", that's a reference to everything, not the "Edited Guide", otherwise the modified "Edited" would be unnecessary.
"I will mostly defend the status quo, things should remain separated as they are. I need to be able to navigate the EG and know what i hunt is purely factual"
First of all, I challenge the idea that EG as it stands now is "purely factual". Our best feature is not our ability to offer loads of accurate info. That's what wiki does.
Second, the distinction between "separate but equal" and "equal but identifiable" is a semantic one, but ultimately important in deciding how h2g2 wants to move forward. The UGT argues for "equal but identifiable". There's no reason that an EG entry can't be "tagged" as fiction in a clear, searchable and identifiable way.
I reject the hierarchy inherent to segregation. After all, if we're arguing that including fiction next to non-fiction would diminish or somehow taint non-fiction - yet we don't argue the reverse, that fiction would be tainted by proximity to non-fiction - aren't we subtly saying that one is more important? I don't meant to inject any undue emotional potency into the conversation (though to be fair I didn't introduce the "separate but equal" language), but ever since the UG was created, the EG/UG relationship has been rather Plessy v Ferguson-esque. After all, African-Americans didn't feel like they needed to be separated from whites, or that their lives would be tainted by proximity to whites. That's all a bit silly and conceptual, I know. But long experience has made me feel this way.
Mostly, I believe that the UGT offers a system that's better suited for h2g2's niche in Internet-land.
Also, I should think that discussions about h2g2 aren't what the review forums are for. Ask h2g2, The Post, the soapbox or the million other articles about h2g2's future would seem like more logical places. But then, who really cares? RF5 isn't exactly busy. 
|
| | | Subject: A87715542 - Relational Guide Mechanics
Posted Oct 30, 2011 by J
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
19
| | "BTW, due to my long adsence, i'm not so hot on the changes that have happened here recently, why has the underguide fallen into disrepair?"
Like many things on h2g2, the UG suffered from a certain malaise and lack of enthusiasm once the BBC stopped caring about the site. I am adamantly against the resurrection of the UG, as much as I love it, because I believe that its existence provides a place for the "non-fiction" only advocates to point to as a "separate but equal" alternative.
|
|
