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

Authors can't control how many posts appear on review threads, and even minor points can stimulate quite active discussions. I can't see any more than a tenuous link between the length of the review thread and the quality of the Entry.

If you'd wanted to get the Entry improved before the third page, Post 24 might have been a good spot.

You did not 'merely speculate'; you recommended a move, not merely to the Writing Workshop, but to the AWW.

Hi RFJS, must've been those voices in your head again.

I did say that I didn't yet see an EG entry there, and I did mention that I hadn't seen any significant shift, or suggestion to shift, the tenor of the piece to one more factual; but 'Perhaps AWW is a better place for it?' is merely a speculation.

Either way though, questions like this are common on the PR entries; they help keep us all on track. I am as guilty as anyone of not revisiting the EG guidelines before posting each piece I pen onto the PR thread.

There's no harm in selecting the wrong thread and correcting it, and I have no problem with entries being edited to 'work' better. (See the entry 'Red', and its thread.) But, if some of us didn't play devil's advocate, a lot of entries would have never made the EG, including some of mine.

Best Regards,

11/3/2004: FordsTowel makes a generally positive comment with a few suggestions.

11/6/2004: FordsTowel makes further criticisms, including an expression of not seeing 'much hope for the EG'. Suggests that the AWW would be 'a better place for it'.

Two hours later: I am told that FordsTowel had 'merely speculated' that the Entry lacked 'hope for the EG' and that the AWW would be 'a better place for it', and that now that Hussassan is on his third page of postings he 'either [isn't] listening, or... [isn't] going to get the kind of "review" that will get [him] into the EG'. (Objections to this last point have not been addressed in the response.)

Five hours after that:

'I did say that I didn't yet see an EG entry there'

More than that, you said you didn't see 'much hope'. There are two possible interpretations of this: you see little hope for the Entry in its current state, but think it could be improved; or you see no hope for it full stop. The first possibility is barely consistent with the suggestion that the AWW might be a better place for the Entry; hence my interpretation of Post 58 was the second. This interpretation is supported by Post 60: 'If you still have such glaringly unsupportable claims, you either aren't listening, or you aren't going to get the kind of 'review' that will get you to the EG.' The second disjunct explicitly states that, if the stated condition holds (as you hold that it does), then the Entry is unlikely to get into the EG. The first states that the author is not listening, i.e. that criticism is not being addressed (although this conflicts with the fact that my criticisms were met, and that some of your criticisms were at least partially taken up; this post was your soul contribution to the thread's length until your recent return, and so you didn't provide that much to listen to, or indicate much interest in the listening) -- and since an Entry is unlikely to be picked if criticism is not listened to, this disjunct also entails a strong probability of the Entry's never reaching the EG. Hence it is rational to infer strong doubt that the Entry will ever reach the EG.

'I did mention that I hadn't seen any significant shift, or suggestion to shift, the tenor of the piece to one more factual'

The lack of a significant suggestion to shift the tenor is not a fault with the Entry or its author, but (if it is a fault) with the other researchers, of whom you are one (who himself posted to this thread in March, presumably without making the suggestion now desired). If you think the suggestion is lacking, why complain about the time it has taken for someone to see the need for it? At worst that is a sign that your views are not widely shared; nevertheless, you can make the suggestion at the time of seeing a need for it, and wait to see the author's reaction following the making of the recommendation. As for the shift itself, one would naturally expect that to occur after the recommendation, which you say had not been made. Now that you have made it, why not wait to see how Hussassan responds before bringing up the AWW?

'"Perhaps AWW is a better place for it?" is merely a speculation.'

However, it followed an assertion that you didn't see 'much hope' for this Entry in the EG; hence the suggested move to the AWW was combined with an expression of doubt concerning its suitability for PR.

'But, if some of us didn't play devil's advocate, a lot of entries would have never made the EG'

Telling people their Entries don't have 'much hope' for the EG, and might be better suited to the AWW, looks a curious way of persuading them to make their Entries more suitable, especially when you had not tried other methods, and my comments had resulted in changes being made. If this actually were moved to the AWW, you'd have shot yourself in the foot. If you want this Entry improved -- advice has been shown to work. Why include suggestions with it that the Entry be moved out of PR; and why take so long, and so much probing, to reveal your real opinions?

*Wanders off to try to work out how to tell the difference between someone 'speculating' regarding a move out of PR and meanng it, and someone thus 'speculating' and meaning the opposite.*

RFJS - My hat is off to you! You are truly amazing!!wow>

Here I am, sitting like a fool in June, while you are already in November. How DO you do it?? [especially with such a thin skin?]

I have nothing against Hussassan, or any piece that's written; but, until they are changed, we all live by the guidelines. If I have an opinion about the piece, certainly you wouldn't want to stifle that, would you?

I'm no scout or editor, so all I provide is a personal opinion. I respect your right to yours, and Hussassan's right to his/hers.

I did like the way that the dictionary definitions were worked in early, BTW. I guess I can't help it if I've always hated that kind of pigeon-holing; but I recognize that it exists. Certainly a similar entry could be written about categories of Jocks, Braniacs, Social Climbers, In-crowds, et al. But 'dorks' seem to get the worst of it, more often than not; so I tend to be defensive on their behalf.

I can't say that I can remember being perceived as belonging to one of those categories, or the others I mentioned; but I've stood up for them, on occasion, and will again.

The worst aspect of pieces of this sort is that the labels are so transitory. Once they were squares, cubes, maroons, spaz, etc. Entries of such momentary significance don't impress me (personal opinion here) as guideworthy. [just my opinion]

A few years from now the labels will be different; so, if this piece is going to have any historical significance, it should at least be accurate. This may eventually get to EG status, and I wish Hussassan luck; but trying to limit the definition to someone who will only read one of two comic titles is ludicrous.

As far as improvements go, I can't really say that I care if it is ever improved or not. In my mind, it's the researchers call. All entries have a home on the site unless they really break TOS. Otherwise, it is entirely the researcher's choice how far they want to take their entries.

I've got one in the underguide, a couple EGs, one in AWW, and some that may never find a home. I'm okay with that.

I feel that anybody who puts an entry in Peer Review WANTS to know if there may be a serious breach of the guidelines, because the ONLY reason for putting it here should be if the EG is the goal. My opinion is no better than his, or yours; but I would be failing Hussassan if I didn't express my doubts about its direction.

It is up to Hussassan what he/she wants to do with the expressed opinions.

Speaking of standing up for the little guy, I suspect that this is what you feel you are doing. If so, , I applaud you.

Stand back, guys.
Give the Writer room to breathe.
(...Sheesh)

So I shall limit this post to the factual observation that what in U.S. notation would be written 6.11.2004 is in British notation 11.6.2004.

Me too. I'll limit my observations to the month thing being a joke, and that I think we've proven RFJS's point about how fast comments can eat up a page of 'notes'.

Thank you.

OK...thank you for your comments, FT...I'll be sure to work them in......Though it may take a while...I have stuff going on in the outside world....

Isn't it nice to know we haven't forgotten about you?

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Congrats Hussassan!

Brill!

(Goes back to waiting for his to be picked)

Vindication, then. Congratulations!

*wades through a ton of b'log before starting to sub the entry*

Some of it can probably be skimmed...

It's probably too late to mention it, but in the same paragraph you give _Sandman_ as an example of one of the few "normal" comics Dorks like, and then as an example of one of the "non-normal" comics they like.

Just checked and this entry has already had it's appearance on the front page as A2754399, Athena.

I corrected that section before the entry hit the front page.