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

It's good to see the scouts flagging up old, abandoned threads for removal from PR, but I'm wondering if the PR thread is the best place to do this.

The effect, of course, is to bump up these old threads, thus to that extent displacing the current, active threads that most visitors to PR are rightly interested in. By the time there have been a few of these, each with a proposer and a seconder, one is having to drill much deeper down into the PR list to strike oil.

Since the removal process is definitely a scout thing, it might be better to transact the business via the scouts' y****group. Admittedly this would hide these deliberations from the rest of us, but they are so rarely likely to be contentious that this would not be a major problem, I think. At worst, an entry could always be reinstated if some horrendous error occurred - but this seems pretty unlikely anyway.

I realise it will be slightly less convenient for you to do things in this way. You'd get the proposer's email (quoting the thread URL) and then have to open a browser window to view the thread. But this would be *so* much more community-friendly, not to say discreet.

So please talk among yourselves, and let this great job that you do be done quietly, behind the scenes (just as picking is), so that the top of the list really reflects current community PR activity rather than scout admin.

Bels

I agree that it is a problem to have threads bumped up in Peer Review. It's both a nuisance for those still subscribed to the threads and causes the threads to be pushed to the top of the list.

However, I don't think the Scouts' group is the best place to do the administration. There are emails sent to the group automatically reminding Scouts about picking dates, emails sent asking for moves, emails sent confirming that moves have been made and, every few days/weeks, debates that generate many emails.

Instead, perhaps a single thread on the Scouts' homepage, which all Scouts would subscribe to, would be a better place to do the administration? This would not increase the number of emails sent to the group, it might even reduce the number of emails sent if Anna subscribed to the thread, and would make it easier for a seconder to find the post proposing the move.

What does everyone else think?


RhoMuNuQ

I thought this was what the Grim Reaper was for?

U198667

Whisky (ex-scout)

I think you've made a very good point Bels, and I believe that Rho's suggestion would make much sense - the thread being flagged doesn't move back to the top of PR, and deliberations are made onsite where everyone can see

Incidentally, what exactly *is* the GRM for? I use the identity myself in PR threads relating to entries which are, er, shall we say rather eccentric and most definately not EG material. The kind of entry which may well end up shivering inside the Last Bus Shelter for instance.

Actually, I think that there's one very good and very important reason to have the posts be done in the PR thread itself -- it often (or at least occasionally) gets the attention of the authors, who are sometimes not so much AWOL as lurking or whatnot. If the author is still subscribed (and most are), having the post go to the PR thread brings it to the forefront of their conversations list. Actually, I'd have a bit of an issue with the idea of yanking people's threads from PR without the kind of warning they get now from having the conversations suddenly bumped up to the top of their page again -- people do deserve a warning.

However, I would think that seconding and whatnot could just as easily be done via the scouts list, although I really don't think that would make much of a difference once a conversation has already been bumped up by the original proposal.

My
Mikey

As Mikey says. The only thing I'd like to add is that somebody *must* stir up PR every now and then because otherwise all those people who are just looking at the first page would be bored very soon

> yanking people's threads from PR -- people do deserve a warning.

Gosh, Mikey, you make it sound really cruel!

But

a) All that's going to happen is that a thread is relocated, and the entry can easily be put back into PR by the author. Is this really such a terrible thing to happen to someone?

b) We're talking about threads that have been silent for a generous period of time, enough time - it has been agreed - for the author to return if they are going to.

Many of these entries will never get into the EG at all. They just aren't EG material. Some of the rest will need a lot more work, which the author has been given every chance to comment on and hasn't. That leaves what I think is a tiny minority where the only thing that is needed to speed the entry towards pickability is a wake-up call to the author. If someone wants to post a 'Hey, what gives?' message to PR that's fine, and I know you do this yourself where appropriate. Or it might be better to post to the author's PS (if they've bothered to activate it).

But let's face it, the vast majority of these scout proposals/seconds for removal have no salutary effect on the author. They are purely scout admin, and as such are better handled outside of PR.

Monsignore - old Azerbaijani proverb: There's more than one way to skin a rabbit.

All these people looking at the first page are already bored seeing all these scoutish posts - that's precisely the point. By all means give the possibles the kiss of life, but there's no sense in flogging dead horses in full public view.

Like has been said, it's easy for the author to put the entry back into Peer Review. If a thread was set up for finding a seconder, perhaps, once the thread has been moved, the person who proposed the move could post to the old PR thread. That way, if the author was lurking, they'd see that their entry had been moved and might come back to put it through PR again.

RhoMuNuQ

Just to let you know that I'm writing something about this right now and am listening to the discussion!

Whoami?

uh-oh, I'm going to disagree with Bels TWICE this year, all apologies. . .

I think that using PR to discuss the fate of an article is essential, even if the article is destined to be moved. The stimulated discussion is important for all articles. If someone disagrees with a move (which I admit almost never happens on a quality basis, but occasisonally on a technical one), this may be the only chance to voice the opinion.

I agree that it clutters the top of the list. But it also gets removed faster by doing so. Seconders either second when the article gets bumped up right away, or it lingers in PR for another cycle.
So by being bumped, we're thinning the overall herd.

However, there is soo much flotsam in PR (which cannot be avoided) that I think the bumping up of articles, while sometimes a real pain, is just representative of the total product in PR at the time.

IMO

Friar

Hi, Friar. Well they let me in to the USA and now they've let me out again, so we can happily disagree at this safe distance. Sorry you never got to meet up with Ellie. Anyway...

>discuss the fate of an article ... The stimulated discussion is important...

Of course there are times when the fate of an article needs to be discussed. For example, F115106?thread=249365. But mostly, it's a case of one scout proposing a move out of PR and another seconding. That hardly comes under the category of discussing the fate of an article.

>I agree that it clutters the top of the list. But it also gets removed faster by doing so.

There are three points about 'faster'.

1. Faster than what? You don't say. Faster than some other method that's still under discussion here?

2. How much faster? Just a little, or a whole lot faster?

3. Why would speed necessarily be important anyway? The entries we're talking about have been hanging around for ages anyway, so a bit longer isn't going to matter too much. This discussion is about the experience people get when they click on to PR - or is the sweeping up of dead entries more important than that?

Regarding the flotsam in PR, it can be quite depressing enough seeing some of the sort of stuff that gets put in there, without having to wade through all the 'removal' posts first. Maybe you think there's a deterrent effect, but I very much doubt it. How many times do you see an author removing their entry from PR when asked to do so?

Practically, I do agree with you Bels. . .

But even though it doesn't happen, because an author submits their article to PR gives them the right to hear feedback. Even if that feedback says "take this away", even if the author is no longer listening.

I'm not saying that another method couldn't work just as well. I'm sure that is possible too.

Still, I like to treat PR as if everyone is trying their best and going to respond to comments. I know that does not happen, and most of my time in PR, unfortunately, is really spent moving errantly placed works to their proper places. But the work of sorting through the flotsam is worth finding the gem.

When I said articles get removed faster when noted on PR, I mean that as Scouts check PR we are generally more likely to look at the first page, so we might quickly find an article for which we might second a move. Of course, emailing for seconds could work quickly too. Still, that would leave the author out of the loop, which would be a little unfair, especially to new users.

I know that the VAST majority of the time the user for an article getting moved doesn't know/care/understand, but for the very very few that do, I would hate to turn them off h2g2 by slipping their work out of PR without prior notice.

I guess I just didn't find the removal threads to be too big of a problem. . .

Friar

ps. Bels - is Ellie back home yet?