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

and much needed. It's long but AWW is complicated, especially since it feeds four different outlets.

Comments:

"Writers who respect their own work will welcome welcome constructive comments" it shouldn't be possible to be too welcoming, should it...

"If there is no 'Submit for Review' button, that's because you can't put that entry into a Review Forum; it might ..." etc. Or because it's a journal entry. I've come across one contributor to the post who post their work to journals. Gaston's first pieces seemed to be in forum posts too.

"Once you've read the entry, don't click the 'Discuss this entry' - Instead, click the 'Currently in the Alternative Writing Workshop' link on the right-hand side of the entry" Worth adding unless you wish to make a more personal comment to the author than you feel happy making on the general AWW thread?

A brief mention of minesweeping might be a good idea to establish that it's part of keeping the forum manageable and not necessarily a comment on the value of the entry.

"2 Submit an entry - If you've written something that you think is too good not to share, or ..." The "too good not to share" might inhibit some people. Wording it is difficult though; of reasonable quality, basically sound, not too bad... and that you'd like to share... I don't know. Anyway, it leads on to

"We still ask for entries that are basically finished," and the suggestion that if they are not they should go to the Writing Workshop. The problem with that is that the Writing Workshop page says "Welcome to the Writing Workshop. If you've written a Guide Entry that's not quite ready for Peer Review" At present it doesn't appear to cater for fiction, poetry etc.

So yes, I agree AWW is intended for pieces that are in some sense finished. I.e. they have a start, a middle and an end. But I'm not sure about excluding pieces that authors want help with. It's still called a workshop...

The other problem with the Writing Workshop is, I believe, there's not a great deal of activity there. I don't know how thin we can spread the people who are interested in commenting and helping authors with non EG pieces.



That was the last bus. The big issue is whether AWW is a workshop or a review forum. I think, ideally, it needs to move to being a review forum but I don't see how it can without refocusing and revitalising WW. In the short term I think we need to work around AWW being both. If it gets unmanageably busy that way, someone, someday, can address the WW issue.

Mostly the work of GTB and myself, so I'll respond to the silly errors.



>>"Writers who respect their own work will welcome welcome constructive comments" it shouldn't be possible to be too welcoming, should it...

<ish-grin> My fault.

>>So yes, I agree AWW is intended for pieces that are in some sense finished. I.e. they have a start, a middle and an end. But I'm not sure about excluding pieces that authors want help with. It's still called a workshop...

Good point.

>>That was the last bus. The big issue is whether AWW is a workshop or a review forum. I think, ideally, it needs to move to being a review forum but I don't see how it can without refocusing and revitalising WW. In the short term I think we need to work around AWW being both. If it gets unmanageably busy that way, someone, someday, can address the WW issue.

This page was originally written when we were calling the New-AWW the APR, so it was intended to be a review forum for a while. Ben changed all the self reference back to AWW though, which is good.

All busses met, Waz. Thanks.

Actually, that is not quite true, because obviously I cannot do anything about the Writing Workshop page. I guess when we ask Jimster if he will use this as a basis for a new version of <./>RF5</.> we should ask him to change <./>RF2</.> too.

Thanks for reading it so thoroughly.

Ben

You're welcome.
Asking Jimster is worth a try - one thing that would do is have one place, the starting place for many, where there isn't the UG/EG divide. I like the idea of that.

Brilliant!

Finally some order out of the chaos that has surrounded any h2g2 creativity outside the walls of the EG.

The opening paragraph and the description of the four alternative potential markets are well written, entertaining and give much impetus for the creative writer to pursue the workshop.

But the section that follows, the instructions on how to 'comment' or 'submit' do seem to get a bit ahead of a newbie's grasp of things. If I may suggest:

The small header line that reads 'how to contribute' might be better as how to "participate" in the AWW. Then as you have, continue to separate the two ways - writing a comment in a posting or creating and submitting a new entry. You have to allow the absolute newbie to grasp the difference between an entry and a posting. My biggest concern is that the attitude currently displayed in the 'how to comment' section is that of a well-seasoned researcher. Newer researchers need a little more spoonfeeding. I have re-written that paragraph with suggested changes.

YOU CAN COMMENT ON ANY AWW ENTRY:
By offering your thoughts and comments on any entry currently in the AWW you can help to produce the best possible entries. You are invited to make comments on any entry by posting to the conversation threads below. Feel free to express opinions, relate impressions, or otherwise riff off whatever entry you've read and thought about. If comments on an entry are generally positive, and the writer takes advice and criticism well (possibly making some changes), the entry may eventually be chosen for inclusion in one of the alternative publications described above. You can see more information on 'commenting' in The Alternative Writing Workshop further down this page.

YOU CAN SUBMIT AN ENTRY FOR REVIEW IN AWW:
(...well you get the idea by now - just keep these basic instructions basic)

Again, great work folks. You have finally nailed down the four corners of the universe. Maybe now the AWW will become what it was meant to be and what AGG and UG and SOG have said we needed all along.


~jwf~

Thanks John. I have incorporated most of your changes. I still think it is far too long, but on the other hand there is a lot to write about, I guess.

I may have a go at it with a ruthless eye on Wednesday or so.

By the way - I have added you to the list of credits.

Ben

>> ..added you to the list of credits. <<



>> ..still think it is far too long.. <<

Yes but it's inevitable that clear and concise directions to something as complex as the idea of AWW must be more than a few words of glossy invitation. Most 'help' pages round here scare people off with 'too much information, too soon' and a tone of assumption that readers can read minds as well be familiar with all sorts of esoteric references.

There is usually not enough description of what something is all about or why it should be of interest. Not enough sizzle and too much geekspeek. Your friendly style is quite inviting, readable and informative.

Because AWW is one of the first pages a researcher will find from the official site links available, it must inform, direct and instruct in language simple enough not to overload a newbie but with a tantalising hint of the good things to come. You have done that.

That's why I like the way your first six paragraphs sum up the basics. You say what the AWW is and does, invite the readers' participation and offer the potential 'reward' of being 'published'. You also suggest that 'more information' is available further down the page. The devil is in those details.

By then they will be interested enough to read more or not, but at least they will have an immediately clear general idea of what it's all about, will appreciate that the AWW is open to everyone and will have been encouraged to pursue it further by the example of your obvious enthusiasm.

peace
jwf

You give me credit for other peoples' work, ~jwf~. I have added barely more than you have, though I have cut a lot. This piece is like a limestone cliff, or a teenager's bedroom, layer upon layer of acreted stuff. It was based on the original PR page, then changed by GTB, then by GTB and Jodan, and then by me.

However, you are right about the fact that each section is necessary.

I personally think it over-emphasises that is is for creative writing, it must spell it out in detail four or five times.

Hey - everyone - what is the mood of the meeting on that subject?

Also should we mention http:/www.bbc.co.uk/dna/getwriting/ as a place were writers who hope for external publication gather and write? I am wary of losing people to that site, but the AWW and GW are totally different in tone and purpose.

B

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/getwriting/