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

I'm not surprised other sub-eds haven't done this - it's demeaning to the writers. In my first batch I had three entries I could not approve. One already existed (by the same researcher!), one had very little content and the third was a personal account. If there are errors in the GuideML or they wrote their entry in HTML or text there's no problem - that's the easy bit of the editing. I think the main thing is to be impartial when editing articles. Just because you get one about a whacked-out religion or irritating music should not mean you reject it. And yes, both those articles don't seem suitable for the Approved Guide but by making a page of rejections and making such comments on the articles, it makes it look that you enjoy rejecting and that you reject according to subject. I try NOT to reject - my first batch I rejected three and maybed two but in my second batch I only maybed one. I reject only if I feel forced to - if I can't change the article to be suitable without making the content totally different.

Well, nobody else has let it get them worked up...

I took out the 'demeaning' comments, though you're the only person who's found them 'demeaning'.

For your info, I do 'enjoy' rejecting articles about stuff I don't like, when it's entirely justified. I need not worry myself about "omigod was I being descriminating again?!" because I rejected them because they are not official material. And it gives me a fuzzy feeling inside when it's about stuff I don't like. It's only human...

I reject depending on whether the article will be good enough for the official guide, surgery or no surgery. If I happen to get a batch which is 70% rejection (yes, it's happened) then I will reject 70% of it - because I have to. Not because of prejudices, because I -HAVE- to.

I just think it makes you look proud of rejecting articles. I don't mean you should feel guilty that you rejected an article but saying comments on how crap they are gives the wrong idea. And just because I spoke out doesn't mean I'm the only one that may think people may find offensive - I just thought that if I saw my entries listed there I would be a bit teethed. No offence meant .

My current batch is 70% rejection...makes me not want to edit it...

Well, if somebody's offended by me rejecting their article they can read this thread and if they're still offended then I can shove a metal pole up their ass.

Could people please pass comment on The Strangerers article in my batch. There's a link to it on this page. As I've said on the sub-ed mailing list, I'm not sure what to do with it and it's the last thing to sort out in my batch of 20.

I looked at the strangers article. I think you should definately keep the episode guide but I see what you mean about the length of the glossary. I don't know what I'd do with it. Sorry I can't help.

And people shouldn't be offended by rejection. But listing all the articles you've rejected may offend. Look; I'm not getting at you, I just think this list makes it look like you are proud of rejecting articles. Would you like someone listing an article of yours, commenting it's crap?

I think you should delete the glossary totally.

Well, Mr Cynic, it would depend whether my article -was- crap, y'see.

Take, for example, my Jonathan Brisby article. I'd read the official guidelines, and they gave me the idea that my Jonathan Brisby article would be ok for the official guide.
This was at a time when I was only a few weeks old as a researcher. btw, Jonathan Brisby is an animated mouse
So, I few weeks before it was rejected, I thought "s**t, I've submitted something I shouldt've" but I didn't have the heart to unsubmit it. Now, if the dude who rejected that said "why the f**k do people submit fiction" I'd say "I did it because..." I can understand why they'd loose their rag.

Now, as another example, take the time when my History Of Eric Clapton was rejected. The rejection slip said "there is so much more to say on Clapton's career" but didn't actually say -what- there was to say about Clapton. So I got pissed off. If that guy had gone on to say "this article sucked" I'd have torn his head off.

I resubmitted it, after Asteroid Lil gave me a helping hand sorting out the style. I don't remember actually adding any more facts. Sure enough, it got accepted.

btw I ain't gunning for you. Not any more . Please don't be offended or anything by this.

Now, Mr Cheese. I've looked at the homepage of the dude who wrote the Strangerers article, and he hasn't been around for a few weeks. I'm going to accept this, but cut down on the glossary. Give it a good trimming. Anyone disagree with this?

It would be nice to receive official notification of a rejection before seeing it on this mean spirited page.

I still wish you didn't have this entry. Isn't the many approved entries listed on your page enough of a gratification? . I also really like the 'Three Modes of Interpreting Reality' entry. Mind if I ask (if you remember that is) why you rejected it?

I couldn't get my head rpund it! I read it and re-read it and re-read it again...and I thought "I could understand this, if I sat with it." But if I can't understand it, then there may be others who won't get it as well.
The obvious answer is to simplyfy (sp?) it a bit, but I couldn't cos I didn't get it. So, I rejected it.

Now, I think maybe I should have got in touch with the guy who wrote the page. But this was before I had this page...

I AM NOT SLANDERING THE ARTICLE THAT I REJECTED!

Mr Z, haven't they sent you the slip yet? They must be lagging behind a little...but they're v busy people.
When you get your slip, you can pop back here and cut off my balls if you think I've been unfair to you.

Last I checked I didn't have any balls. I am not "Mr." And I do not have a problem with my article being rejected. It is the insensitivity shown in your piece that I take issue with. I was under the understanding "ACE" meant someone who is helpful. Perhaps I am mistaken.

No no, cut off MY balls.

Just because I'm an ACE doesn't mean I have to be a hippy bunny-hugger. Though I do like Watership Down

Your balls are safe, sir. And I do not expect sweetness and charm just because you are an ACE. I do expect a certain level of professionalism, though. And that is not apparent in your article.

It's not a professional article though. It's something where I can find, out of curiosity, who wrote the stuff I'm passing judgement on. It allows me to find people to add to my Massive List Of Researchers It allows me to check articles from my lastest batch for comments on forums etc. It allows me to pick fights

If you want proffesional, you can read one of the dozen (nearly) articles I've submitted. Thank you

You have missed my point entirely, but I do not enjoy fights so I am leaving this one. I will be sure to read your "proffesional" articles.

What was your point then?

I really wish you would cancel this entry. It's bad enough to have such a listing but to see you article listed before it has been seen by the in-house staff! And I really wish you would put entries you don't understand but are great in the Maybe pile - even if it means Ashley gets some more work . I think it's such a shame that 'Three Modes of Interpreting Reality' article got rejected. It really mocks faithful belief.

I agree with Mr Cynic... you're implying that all articles that are rejected are worthless, when in fact a great deal of them aren't, and the others *still* deserve respect because someone's actually put some work into doing something for the Guide...

My current overall acception rate is something like thirty percent; but I'd think that ninety percent of the articles I receive could, with further work by the original author, be made into something worth accepting. So I write my rejection notes with a view to encouraging people to put in that work...

Look, it isn't up to me to say what you should and shouldn't put on your pages... but I think this isn't helpful, so I'll ask the ptb what they think and thus settle the matter conclusively...

26199

o i c, threats. Blackmail. Grassing. Snitching.

Jeez, you lot get so worked up, how the hell did u all find this anyway? I only posted a link in one thread, not expecting -anybody- 2 look at it, and suddenly I get a load of moaning minnies...

Well, ok, I'll cancel it. You cocksuckers happy now?