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

BTW: How many peers have you reviewed today? None? ---

Hi Bossel!

Your two entries appeared after this thread has been inactive for a while. Are your comments directed at me? I'm afraid I don't understand the connection between this thread and bungy jumping. Sorry if I'm being especially stupid (It's a talent I have!)

Pattern-chaser

Oh, that was me skipping one or two steps in the line of thinking!
What I wanted to say is: the other commentators said you had too much personal experience/opinion there. That's what the 'personal' entry on Bungy jumping has had in common with yours, and it was rejected. Instead of going grunty, the author went along and wrote a 'factual' entry on Bungy Jumping, which was approved. That's the pair of entries which sit beautifully side by side, and that is what I was about to suggest in the first posting above.

The second posting was about some very unrelated initiative, if you want to go deeper into that, please see http://www.h2g2.com/A487253 (Feedback on H2G2)

Ah, right! I understand now.

I will take issue with you on a minor point, if I may?

You say "the other commentators said you had too much personal experience/opinion there." and then "Instead of going grunty...".

I think I resent that! If one is writing about art, opinion cannot be avoided; it's all there is to write. A factual treatise about a Monet would be a short and dull piece indeed, and it would miss the point of the painting entirely.

Design is part science and part art. No piece on design could even approach completion without including opinions. May I ask whether the second ("factual") piece on bungy jumping retained the thrill of the jump, the adrenalin rush as the floor approaches like an express train? My guess is that it disappeared entirely, and we (the readers of the Guide) lost out.

There is no 'factual' entry on Design because such a treatment is inappropriate to the subject, in my opinion.

Pattern-chaser

Ok, I understand you won't go grunty . But I have seen lots of conversations here on Peer Review which ended abruptly after the author was advised to remove all 1st person writing.

You are right in saying that opinionless entries are somewhat dry, but that is what the Towers want them to be. The least you can do is put both (or all) sides in -- 'balance' is the keyword then. There was awfully long discussion about an entry on God some weeks ago, which cannot possibly go without opinion. The proposed entry ended up as a call for community contributions. The end result is at http://www.h2g2.com/A472033, an intermediate stadium of this entry is at http://www.h2g2.com/A429923, with the discussion still going on at the time it was written. I'd suggest you read the introduction of the latter one.

Bossel wrote "You are right in saying that opinionless entries are somewhat dry, but that is what the Towers want them to be. The least you can do is put both (or all) sides in -- 'balance' is the keyword then."

I disagree. My point is that there are as many opinions as there are commentators - a balanced approach (covering all perspectives) is virtually impossible. I think the Towers are wrong on this. Just my opinion, of course.

Pattern-chaser

This is, I'm afraid, not a good place to disagree. That's what the Feedback Forum is for...

I think our disagreement - such as it is - is more or less fully explored now, but I'm sorry for doing it in the Wrong Place.

Pattern-chaser

Well, do you still plan on re-shaping it to the Editors' taste?

Pleased to meet you, GRM.

I never had any intention of re-shaping the entry to the editors' tastes. I will not provide a view of design that is misleading and incomplete (IMO, of course ) just to get published.

[The problem is not one of eschewing the first person, it is the requirement to avoid opinion. Philosophically, at least, there is nothing *but* opinion.... I think the Guide's position on this matter is mistaken. ]

Your comment is phrased as though you're impatient for me to do something...?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I for one find yor definition perfectly clear and to the point, I enjoyed it, and being a designer I found it informative. Futhermore, I was suprised to hear the reasoning behind the disapproval of submission by the editors; I have read some very unintelliglible, pretentiously written articles on this site. This was defineltly not one of them. Keep it up!

Why thank you! I too am a designer - I hope it shows in what I wrote! - and I think an abstract/general description of design is (or would be) a worthwhile addition to the Edited Guide.

The requirement for edited entries to be factual has annoyed me since I arrived here early in 2000. I have taken up the argument several times with various h2g2 representatives, to no avail. [Go to my home page and follow the link to a conversation called "Adding my two pennyworth" for the latest example.]

I don't think my view is too radical, or even contentious, but they will have nothing to do with it. I am about as popular as Gary Glitter in Mothercare. Oh well. I shall continue with my argument wherever the opportunity arises. Onward and upward!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"