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

Are the Editors not assigning this entry to a Sub to give me time to finish the adjustments (which I will when I have a moment)? I wonder...

The Apprentice

They've assigned it to themselves - they're subbing it in house. I'd make a hoohah on Ed Feedback to get their attention - they may not look at this thread.

I'm subediting this Entry. What are your comments?

Most of my comments are in post 9, although the author says he hasn't deealt with most of the comments in the thread.

I'd like the author to comment. Is there anything that needs to be done on this?

The only thing I can see that it needs is more links.

Sorry, misunderstood what you meant.

Gnomen... I think there are earlier valid comments in this thread that I didn't get a chance to consider and add/ignore. I'll try and have a read through tomorrow... (going to see Bill Bailey tonight... so, really don't have the time!)

The Apprentice

I've read through most of them, and I think "ignore" is the correct action, but you decide.

One or more of Eco's comments in Posting 9 would be worth integrating... otherwise, I'll go with the view there's nothing else to add.

The Apprentice

I was rather disapointed to see someone recommend an author ignore reviewers comments in a PR thread.

I think I had already taken account of a couple of comments, and other than that you're Message 9 was the most significant range of tweaks unused... I don't think Gnomen's comment was inappropriate - plain spoken, perhaps?

The Apprentice

Ooops... Gnomon, not Gnomen.

The Apprentice

Apologies, Eco. What I meant was that Apprentice had in my opinion taken care of all the comments that were relevant. There were some comments which had not resulted in any changes to the Entry, but I did not consider that they were appropriate.

Fair enough, I couldn't tell what had been dealt with and what hadn't.

Some of the points I raised haven't been addressed in the entry, Apprentice, so I'll post them at the bottom of the entry instead, unless you'd like some changes made via EF first.

I feel quite strongly about some of this, and while it's your entry and so you don't have to take my suggestions there are some things in it that are suggested as being good for the environment, and they aren't.

Mina, I thought I had dealt with all your points.

>>Global warming is part of climate change, you just need one or the other, ideally climate change.

I used "global warming" rather than climate change because it allowed me to link to the Global Warming entry.

>>I disagree that it's difficult [to refuse bags]. I very rarely take carrier bags, and it's easy. I just say 'no bag please'. Very occasionally someone won't be listening and will pack one - I just make them unpack it again. It's not difficult at all.

This is your opinion, but other comments in thread show that for most people it is in fact difficult, so I left the entry as it is.

>>Your comment later about being quick to ask is true, but I'm not sure what you mean about being assertive being a problem? It's no more assertive than asking for something that's behind the counter.

Again, it is your opinion. Most people find it a problem to ask someone to unpack a bag when it has already been packed - that requires a _lot_ of assertiveness, and it is quite clear from other people's comments that they do find it a problem, so again I left the entry as it is.


>>Sainsbury's never put your shopping in a bag without asking first.
I don't think the entry says that they do.

>>Why is this only good for small local shops? A lot of charity shops ask for old carrier bags,

Charity shops are small local shops so there's no need to mention them specifically.

>>plus I think some chains have recycling points.

I didn't include this - this could probably be added to the entry.

>>" People don’t like reusing bags as it requires a little bit of effort which they can’t be bothered to put in."
I'd disagree with this too - I don't think people can't be bothered at all. I think it's simply a habit that's so deep ingrained they don't think about it, which means changing is difficult.

Again, your opinion is only one among many, and other people's comments clearly indicate that what is written is correct.

>>If plastic bags are prone to tearing, why suggest paper bags as a replacement when they are more flimsy and awkward as they don't have handles?

The entry doesn't say that paper bags should be used because they are more conventieient, only because they are more recyclable.

>>[Using plastic bags as bin liners ] doesn't count as reusing, because it's only delayed going in the bin by about a week. It would be better to buy recycled bin liners than use a plastic bag, but that's a different story. It only counts if you don't throw the bag away every week - for instance if you keep it in a bedroom bin, or other bin that doesn't get food in.

I changed the entry to reflect this, pointing out that this is using the bag twice, which is not as good as continuous re-use.

Ok, thanks for going through those. I shouldn't get involved in this sort of entry because it seems I take it all so personally.

It was the bin liner bit being left in that I really wasn't happy with being left in, even with your added comment - as you say most of the other things are personal opinions, so the bottom of the entry would be a good place to put in my experiences, rather than try to change the entry.

Thanks Gnomon.

Sorry if I'm making a of myself.

No problem. These things need to be discussed. A few of the "uses of plastic bags" fall into the "use two times only" category, not just the bin liners one.

I did point this out, but can you suggest a rewording to bring home the point more?

I think the wording is fine really, what do you think of changing the order of the list so that the ones that will be thrown away after only one extra use are at the bottom?