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

Hmmm... Rather interesting lot there.... Wondering what my rejections will say... I shall post them both, since both of mine were opinion pieces.... I'm sure you can't wait.

I am still working on this page, but feel free to post comments. Sporkulious Eglon, if you want me to include your rejection slips, with links to the rejected articles, email them to me at [email protected]

My keyboard awaits the day when I can send you such!

I posted my comments and they farted off somewhere else.
Oh well, I see you know about it Looney so I'll leave it in your capable paws.
- TWF

Hi TWF, the rejection slip text editor links to my Fun Run entry Comic Heroes. Trying to kill two birds with one stone. If it proves too confusing I will change it.

I think it's amusing.
A nice way to get a lot of off-then-on-thready things going.
I'm all for anarchy me

Should be working properly now

Small suggestion: You might want to link page 2 back to page one as well.

Other small things. Mice.

Ok, good idea, will do

Yes, Pinky, but one day we -will- take over the world!

Geez Brain! What're we gonna do tonight?

I've had one entry accepted in a few days, but that was by strategially shuffling aroung my entries, which Mark Moxon later said was a no-no.

Here were the coments on rejections I've recieved:

"Just doing as you asked!" (I left a note saying 'ignore please')
"This one made us laugh, but it needs more explanation, perhaps with a note on shopping channels?!" (on Paid Commercial Advertisments)
"You obviously have had a unique experience! To make it into the Official guide, though, entries should be topics that visitors can relate to or be explained in a lot more detail." (about Tuna Fish Flogging incedents)

-Fenny

And what exactly did you do?

I also have thought of the strategic shuffling option Fenny but havn't used it.

It is probably rampant.

Did you explain what you did to Mark?

Thanks for the rejection samples.

I finally got rejected! I feel like a part of the family now. Here's the text of the message:

Dear GargleBlaster,

Thank you ever so much for submitting your h2g2 Guide Entry entitled "Ska Music: Another Idea Stolen from Britain and Refined in America" for the approval of the Editors.

Unfortunately it hasn't quite managed to gain the approval of the Editorial team, but perhaps the following comments from the Editor concerned will help you to understand why.

"I would suggest you take another shot at this. You have a good start, but some additional research would really help this entry. I suggest you round it out a bit, perhaps direct people toward the entry from your home page and ask for some trivia/feedback - maybe make it a bit more balanced- at the moment it is a bit one sided. A good subject though - so please do take another look at it."

Don't forget, though, that your Guide Entry will still come up in search results and that it is still very much a part of the Guide. And don't be put off from submitting more Entries for our approval: in the meantime you might find it useful to read our Submissions Guide at
http://www.h2g2.com/A53209

Best wishes,
Mark Moxon
Editor, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Earth Editio

My own comments: This was a very early work for me, when I was still feeling my way around this place and trying to figure out what it was all about. Incidentally, I thought this was crap, but if Mark thinks there is something salvageable here, I guess I'll make it my next entrant into vegi's Fun Run.

Thanks GargleBlaster. I think a lot of us had similar experiences with our early masterpieces.

I told him that I shuffled them around in order to get the ones I thought were the best and most complete in first, and give myself more time to work on the rest, but he said that it could cause the editors to completely overlook some, move some that have been edited and are wainting for acceptance, etc. Ahh well... guess I'll have to wait

I guess it is about time I participate. This was my second rejection:

Dear TV's Frink,

Thank you ever so much for submitting your h2g2 Guide Entry entitled
"Floor Jumping" for the approval of the Editors.

Unfortunately it hasn't quite managed to gain the approval of the Editorial team, but perhaps the following comments from the Editor concerned will help you to understand why.

"Nice stuff, but bordering on the fictional. You should include more
background information about the people who play, where they play, where
spectators sit."

I disagreed with this when I got it - I was pretty happy with my work and felt it was very similar to a previous article that I got accepted. However, I accidentally found myself in a conversation with the sub-ed who worked on it, and after some further discussion, I resubmitted a new version that addresses the sub-ed's concerns (naturally, you can read both versions at my home page )

This got me thinking - wouldn't it be good if we knew which sub-ed did the rejecting, so we could *politely* discuss how to revise our articles? I have been discussing this topic with Peta and some of the sub-eds here:

http://www.h2g2.com/forumframe.cgi?forum=647&thread=25053

That is a good idea

Twice I have had articles pulled by sub-editors, and twice I've given them feedback on their editing (unsolicited, of course). Any effective editing process HAS to involve the writer...otherwise, the editor is gonna make huge mistakes. In the case of my part of the huge football entry, I looked at the changes, and he made a separate paragraph out of a simple statement about the Super Bowl. It made the whole section seem like it was incomplete, so I expanded on that point in my user page, then directed the editor to my changes, which he eventually aprroved and updated.

The junst recently, Jimi X was credited with an editing of my Samuel Clemens piece. I looked over the changes, and found one that was absolutely horrible. The line began: "one of the greatest descriptions of his life can be found in "A Private History of a Campaign That Failed." Not only was that "greatest" thing a horrible literary device that I refuse to have my name assosciated with, but it was also horribly inaccurate, since it is a very short story. A quick message to Jimi, he checked it out, made the adjustments, and I'm happy with it. But there has to be an easier way for researchers to participate in the editing process besides bugging editors on their homepages.