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

I'm considering starting a band called "[URL removed by moderator]" - with all the free publicity we'd be getting from the BBC here, we're guaranteed a spot on "Top of the Pops" even if none of the members can sing, mime or play an instrument! (Hey, so what's new... )

Perhaps the Beeb could make a TV series about you. You could be the new Hear'Say!
Seriously - I'm already collecting the URLs to rebuild this page after the devastating damage it suffered in the Vogon attack. But first I want to leave it as it is for a few days, so I can show it to those people who are still saying things like: "Hey, the moderators are all right really! It's early days, give 'em a chance".
Yeah, right. Give 'em a chance and this is the sort of thing they do.

Ormondroyd, if you can fit it all into 5000 characters of HTML, you can have a page at Goo Overflow! - details at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A521407#back3 ...

Oh my! That exhaustive list that you made has been replaced with a list of [url removed by moderator]!!!
Your list has had its cojones removed. It is as though somebody has taken a b*****d sword (a type of sword from the middle ages, trust me) to it, leaving your list all battered and bloody (covered in blood). You should get a private dick (slang for detective) to check this out - Your once mighty hawk of a list, now looks like a tit (a bird).

D'you think they'll bite?

A good question.
Really, I don't know.
Someone should stop them.
Everyone's complaining.

How much time did you invest in that page Ormy ?

TM(Tegen Moderators).

I couldn't count it up, TM. A lot of hours spread over a long time! It began as a list of about 30 favourite acts on my main home page. Then I thought "Well, why not 50?" Then 75, then 100 - then my home page was getting too long, so I gave it its own space. Soon it had 200 links, then 300, then 400, then 500, then 550 - and then the Vogons struck...
I was furious when I saw what the Moderators had done to the page, but I spent three pleasant hours last night repairing "current acts A-M". I'll continue the rebuilding over the weekend.
Some good has come of the Vogon attack. I have done fresh searches and have found new sites for some acts that are better than the ones that were deleted. In some cases - Billy Bragg, for instance - there are now official sites, when there weren't the last time I looked. I've also added some new names; I'm particularly delighted to be able to include the official Rolf Harris site! After all, he was playing the didgeridoo long before it became fashionable, and he recorded what I consider to be the definitive version of "Stairway To Heaven"!
The argument between myself and the PTB centres around whether unofficial band sites necessarily constitute a copyright problem. The Moderators apparently think they do, but then until a couple of days ago they thought mentioning song titles could be a problem!
I'd have said unofficial sites shouldn't cause concern. If no-one but the act or it's representatives were able to write on the web about them, we wouldn't be able to have Guide Entries about singers and bands. I don't think unofficial sites often cause legal problems - and given that they're usually created by devoted fans, why should they?
I mean, would you be straight on the phone to your lawyers if someone else built a website all about how much they loved Solid Air?

Even if I was making my money from Solid Air I wouldn't. Publicity is publicity. And after all, the BBC is not responsible for other people's websites. If they could just understand that.

On the other hand : Abi is now going through the motions trying to find out why I can't put a line from a song by an artist in an article about the artist in question, whereas it IS allowed in official entries. So I am reasonably positive that we'll have a mode of operation that is acceptable in the future.

To be honest ; I wouldn't make a fuss if it wasn't for the fact that I suspect to be the subject of moderation frequently. Lyrics are somewhat of a passion of mine so I like to write about them. Especially as they are always considered 'less important' than the music. People might like to read about the lyrics they have been singing all along without realizing the exact meaning.

But I'll be da**ed if I let other people decide what I can write ! So if I can't write about the meaning of Gabriel's "Wallflower" because I can't quote say two lines, then that makes it impossible for me to write about it.

And that's where I start to fumigate...

there's one thing I am trying very hard to do, and that is to make a very clear distinction between The Towers and Auntie though...

TM.

Quite right - we know that all of this isn't Abi's fault.
I have posted this elsewhere, but it's worth repeating: I'm certain that brief quotes from lyrics (or books, or film dialogue, or any other copyright material) are fine under UK copyright law when used to illustrate a point in a review or an article. In my extensive experience in music journalism, I've never known of anyone getting into trouble for that - and I've done it myself on many occasions without any problems.

TM - have you seen the new Billy Bragg Entry mentioned on the front page? It's PACKED with lyric quotes!

Ormy,

You should read some of my recent journalentries. Quotes etcetera *can* be in official articles, but not in journalentries. That's the last status I am aware of. As I Said ; Abi is checking this matter at the moment. It's basically because once the BBC approves of an entry, it becomes theirs just as much as yours and so they *are* liable for it. So they have to check it and then approve it.

They apparently have decided that they will be liable for any researcher's input too...

I think a possible solution would be to let non-researchers access only the approved entries, and shield off the rest of the community from the big bad world. Until someone registers of course, and signs the agreement.

Just trying to come up with solutions, doing my bit...

TM.

Actually, TM, that's a damn good idea! By making the entries viewable by all, but the discussion threads only viewable by registered users, the BBC can add a clause to the registration saying that we will never sue the BBC for warping our minds, thereby allowing them to relax some of the moderation restrictions on "language usage", external links etc...!

Also, if they know the age of the registered user, moderation can simply consist of flagging posts which are unsuitable for under-14s, who would then see a "post suppressed by moderator" for that post only within a thread. Thus, for the majority of us, moderation would become invisible.

TM - I think I've discovered what the problems is regarding your wish to use Peter Gabriel lyrics.
The Moderators obviously have a grudge against Mr Gabriel, and don't want him mentioned on h2g2.
That's the only explanation I can think of for the fact that they've just deleted the second different Gabriel link I've posted on the Website Jukebox page.
I've now manged to find his official site, which hadn't showed up the last time I searched. To the Moderator reading this - NOW are you satisfied?

Aw come on Ormy, give them a chance...
My official entry on PG is still there so...of course that *did* have the original PG-website in it...

TM.

How do you like the newly rebuilt Jukebox, version 2.0? I've just added 10cc to the "Gold" section after a message from Shazz reminded me of them!

It's in the bookmarks my man ! For future reference. I used to have something similar on my own website but things just changed too fast... So this is a very welcome replacment.

TM.

BTW : Do you think that there is a 'Pearls before Swine'-website out there ? "My father was a rocketman"...

Yes there is, and I've just added it to the "Gold" section of the Jukebox page!

Excellent !

Tom Rapp rulez...just like Arthur Lee. Although I haven't found the entry for "Love" on your page yet...?

TM.