h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The average "life expectancy" of the average researcher, before leaving H2G2 and not returning, seems to be about 10 weeks. Any thoughts as to why..

Dr Goof Lithium

* link to random article >> http://www.h2g2.com/A81488 *

Is it? I've been around for nine months and so,seemingly has the author of that random article or do you mean s/he sloped off immediatly after writing it?

If you take a look at that researchers home pahe you'll find that they haven't posted anything for "over a year". So many researchers lose interest very quickly. I was wondering why and what we can do about it (not that it makes much differance to me). I was also wondering why the POST gets so few offers of articles and information and what we can do to stop it dying.

If you have any thoughts (relevant or not ) then reply here...

I think it could be something to do with the length of a typical university term?

Maybe, or could it be the length of the long term memory of a university student after a a typical university term...

Given that the researcher in question wrote almost exclusively about magic mushrooms it is quite possible that he/she dismissed their participation here as a halucination.
However, some researchers have been here an awful long time and it can take you several hours to look through their stuff.

I wasn't refering to that researcher in particular. Their article juts amused me. If you look round and click on enough home pages you'll find that a supprising number of people lose interest after just a few weeks. I was wondering why, when H2G2 is constantly changing and there's always something new to read or new people to meet. It's curious.

Expense? I work for a university that pays for my on-line time, but were I in England I couldn't afford this on BT rates

Unmetered phone calls are now easy to come by. Anyway, thrifty use of dia-lup time shouldn't run up much of a bill.

*Looks at phone bill for last month, WHAT! £78!!!*

The following is not intended as criticism. I'm just brainstorming reasons people might leave h2g2.


* It takes longer than expected to get an entry approved. This can be frustrating.

New users assume their first entry will be approved sooner than it probably will because the Don't Panic page specifically says, 'Currently the queue length is a number of weeks...' It is actually more like a number of *months*. I think new users are set up for a dissapointment, and perhaps they leave because they feel their contributions aren't appreciated. Everyone wants their minute of fame, and the lengthy approval process makes it hard to wait.

Possible solutions:
1) Change the info on the Don't Panic page.
2) Take drastic measures to reduce the queue.
3) Send an automatic email thanking users each time they submit an entry for approval.


* It is not immediately clear how to interact with h2g2 users.

Much of the fun on h2g2 takes place on various message boards. New users quickly understand this is going on, but often they can't figure out where everyone is having these great conversations. They may feel unwanted here as a result. Nobody wants to join a club when they feel they aren't welcome.

Possible solutions:
1) Provide a handy link (at least on Alabaster skin) to a smattering of popular forums.
I would recommend the Quick Reference Guide at http://www.h2g2.com/A344756
2) ACEs and Guardian Angels could reference the page above as a standard practice when greeting new users.


* Some users who find this page are just testing the waters, and aren't really interested in joining h2g2 longterm.

The h2g2 site prompts people to register at every turn, but many people browsing the Guide merely want information. Some probably register, and later abandon their pages after they discuss the one topic they came here to learn about. Not everyone who visits really wants to read daily updates, chat with other users, or contribute. Some are just browsing.

Possible solutions:
1) Don't barrage new users with messagages entreating them to register. Just lay out the benefits fairly.
2) Remove all users who haven't contributed any entries (ever) or posted in any forums (in the past six months). This would at least make the "number of registered users" touted by h2g2 press releases somewhat accurate.

Wow! Thanks for all the ideas Fragilis, and for the link to the Quick referance guide.

I don't know if removing users after a set period of time is a good idea. I, for one, often leave my home for far off lands for up to a year. I don't think I'd like to return from 10 months in South America to find I'd been deleted. Maybe tagging then as "Retired" would be better. That way they could spring back into life again.

I'd also like to see the Post play more of a part in things. I know combining it with the h2g2 front page would have as many pros as cons but many users skip over it without a second thought, which is a shame (I'm as guilty as anyone else). It could have so much more impact and should be advertised more. Maybe it should replace the front page and have the present front page as one section, maybe not. They just both seem to be doing half a job each.

The fact that the link to my only submitted entry has vanished from my page is worrying (Although I have the link bookmerked so I can still check that it is there). I understand that removing the "edit" link is necessary once it has been edited ready for approval by the powers that be, but removing the link completely makes it look as though it has been deleted and makes me feel rejected.

Also, I would love to see edited articles put up for preliminary approval on the front page. Most of the articles I have read recently have had errors in them that have been pointed out by the first few people to have read them. If these errors were caught then corrections could be included in the "finished" article. Knowing that you have to read an article and then read all the posts to discover the faults really detrects from the guide ever becomming a serious referance of any kind.

Inacurate articles, links disapearing, and the lack of coherance in the Post and front page have all put me off at some time (as has, trying to find forums where I fit in, but that's my problem. Oh, and the fact that all this typing shows I can't spell.) I'll try to ride it out. I know this site could attract (and keep) so many more researchers. It just needs a bit of tweaking (not the software, just the actual layout)

You're welcome, Dr Goof Lithium.

I agree that "retiring" users would be a better solution. There should be a convenient button to reactivate your h2g2 account after a period of absence.

I would also like to see more coming from the Post. But since it is seeking staff right now, it would probably be better to wait until things are chugging along nicely again. I think a graphic and a prominent link on the front page will then be called for. Right now, the link is buried at the bottom of the page.

I don't think it's appropriate to combine the Post with the front page of h2g2. Putting content on the front page serves as an endorsement of sorts. This could be risky if a passing visitor fails to understand the difference, and takes a less-than-serious portion of the Post seriously or (worse) follows a link to a Post article where the facts are wrong. After all, the Post doesn't verify things the way h2g2 verifies entries. At least, they don't to my knowledge.

I also agree that a restructuring of volunteer editors is in order. I'd actually like to see two new types of editors added. The first type would read entries in their "final" form one to seven days before release (your idea). They would be the last line of defense for spelling and grammar. They would read every entry that has been approved and would ignore decisions on general content, thus balancing the sub-editors' tendency to concentrate on general content issues.

The other addition I want is volunteer editors who do nothing but comb the queue, removing entries that violate h2g2's most basic policies. They could remove the following:
1) Obviously incomplete entries
2) Entries where the subject matter is not defined or described.
3) Entries written from a first-person perspective that express opinions, but offer no facts whatsoever.
4) Entries that consist only of one-line jokes.
5) Entries that are purely fiction.
6) Entries written in a language other than English.
7) Entries without any content other than plagiarized text from Douglas Adams.

This would keep the regular sub-editors from wasting their time on entries that are completely without merit. Once these new helpers came on-board, they could get really speedy at rejecting pointless entries. Just browsing through the submitted entries told me hundreds could likely be removed from the process this way. Once the initial comb-through was done, they could check daily and remove meritless entries from the queue before the sub-editor sees them.

Would not tagging all entries with their place in the guide not help to. For exapmle tagging an entry on quantum string theory with a "Science" tag mean that it could be directed to an editor with a science background. "History", "Mythology", "Music", "IT" etc. This should help remove more of the errors that slip through the net.

Actually, I don't think that's a good idea. If numerous scientific entries are submitted at once, this means their authors will wait much longer than authors of other types of entries. Also, what do you do when the Science editor writes a scientific entry? There aren't enough editors to cover all the major subjects, much less have two or more for each.

And anyway, the sub-editors are volunteers. If they were being paid, you might be able to require expertise in certain areas. But I think this is perhaps asking too much of someone if they are volunteering their efforts.

To be honest, if I were to apply to be a sub-editor, I'd rather edit articles that were of interest to me than something that I knew nothing about. Maybe the subs could volenteer (to learn how to spell, only joking) to specialise (or type) if they wanted to. It just seems that some articles are written by someone who knows a bit about the subject, edited by someone who knows a little about the subject and then accepted. The preliminary acceptance period would also solve these problems, so that's probably a better idea.

*goof says sorry, he's had a couple of beers at a family barbecue and shouldn't be on-line at the moment*

Lots of the suggestions seem to have been taken up by the new look (which I think is great) and I have volunteered to be a spelling guru , although I don't think TPTB will be able to take this offer up, but I find it irritating to have smelling pistakes on the front page ot in thread titles.

When this thread started we were only on the first half of the new release. Now the update of th enew look is up and running there are more of these ideas are here but we did drift from the original subject and my question still stands (in a different form) "Why do people loose interest so quickly? Why does the novelty wear off so soon?"

Doc

I wish there were a way to track the life expectancy of new members before and after the latest changes. Unfortunately, the Guide doesn't have any way of marking people inactive. I guess you'd have to check each person's page.