The Ohio Plan - What I Would Do About the PR Problem
Created | Updated Oct 12, 2005
(I named this the Ohio Plan because... <erm> well, why the hell not?)
Too often in threads like F55683?thread=609357, people want to recognize that there is a problem, but do nothing about it. Are we going to fix the problem in Peer Review soon? In the words of JFK in his inaugural address, "All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin."
It's definitely a problem - not a crisis, but it would be good to have it done by the time the HHGG movie is being actively promoted and more newbies find their way into the PR swamp.
Shall we act? If so, we need to pick a plan. First, we have to recognize the problems with the current system (and may I state that I do not pretend to be innocent or blameless in perpetuating these problems)-
1- A very low proportion of new users stay on the site or focus on the EG. This could be as a result of-
A- People noticing others being treated in PR badly.
B- Flame wars.
C- Bad first impressions (IE item 2)
D- Impatience with newbies who don't get it at first (such as the Earth: mostly harmless authors)
2- We're scaring off newbies with long lists of problems and many times not being very friendly about it.
3- There are often periods of extreme drought in PR when scouts don't have enough entries to pick.
4- We're not really attracting community members to participate in the EG. From what I gather, PR has a bad reputation even among people who have been here years for hosting Flame Wars (it happens only occasionally, but it just doesn't look good) and simply being intimidating. There's always that fear when submitting an entry to PR that you will be essentially yelled at and told to take it out. (I've never not experienced that feeling)
5- Not enough focus is being given to making the entry's content better. As scouts, we assume that if an entry is short, it probably needs more (depending on the subject) and that if an entry is long, it is probably comprehensive.
6- The workshops aren't functioning properly. They never really have, but now's as good a time as any to make them work.
7- There are not even nearly enough comments in PR. Too many of them have nothing to do with the subject.
8- There is a perception among people who have been here a while in the community that PR is a 'club' - that only scouts and people who know the processes can comment on entries.
9- Style, spelling, grammar and sub-editor things are often stressed over content by the scouts.
10- The PR process is too often looked upon as a battle.
11- Entries get neglected constantly. If the conversation thread of your entry lasts more than 7 posts these days, consider yourself lucky.
What can be done?
A lot can be helped along by a change in the PR page. It was last changed to include a Commenting section, and I believe it can be changed again if there is enough support for it. Here are some changes I suggest-
1- Though the definition of commenting includes spelling and grammar niggles, I think another bullet point should be added to say that we should focus on content over spelling and grammar.
2- Under submitting an entry, it should ask writers to check their own spelling and grammar before entering it into PR (I know the Writing Guidelines say to, but historically, it seems that few newbies read those). Perhaps add that if you are not able to (if English is not your first language or you're not confident in your abilities) request someone to help you in your submitting form.
3- Note that everyone is welcome in PR in the introduction. Emphasize that scouts are not the only ones to be who should be commenting, and the forum would suffer from a limited group of regular reviewers.
4- Reviewers should give authors a chance to make corrections on their own before handing them a list. They should, naturally, be given the option of a corrections list.
5- Emphasize that all reviewers should be friendly and patient with newbies. This will look good to newbies as well as preventing newbie-bashing.
6- The most important elements of the writing guidelines should be incorporated onto the Submitting an Entry section near the bottom, in case a newbie doesn't read those. I think those would be the examples of suitable entries (which need to be updated incidentally), Don't Try too Hard to be Funny, Avoid Writing in the First Person, Write at Appropriate Length and Write About Reality. The link from the PR page to the Writing Guidelines says "Ensure the entry fits our Editorial Guidelines." That makes it look like it might be more like the House Rules, maybe a lawyer-talk boilerplate article. A better link might be "Check to make sure your entry is in line with the 14 tenets of a good entry with our Writing Guidelines." Or something like that. I don't know, I've only written one RF page before.
7- Maybe a prominent link from the PR page to a new help page "What not to do when submitting an entry to Peer Review" so that the PR page doesn't get too crowded.
8- Ask reviewers to delve deep into PR to find the neglected entries.
Other things-
I have believed since it was brought up quite a few moons back that authors should be given more incentive for writing. The concept of a badge for someone who has written a certain number of entries was brought up in the past and it bears discussing, I think.
Subs should be given more of the burden of spelling and grammar. Scouts (who incidentally, will find no mention of spelling and grammar corrections in the 'What do Scouts Do' page) currently take care of more of this than anyone else, when there are three other lines of defense - the author, who should take care of most of them, the sub (and possibly italics) and the front page readers in Editorial Feedback. I don't buy the argument that somehow the scouts checking spelling and grammar creates less work for the italics. Subs (who incidentally, will find mentions of spelling and grammar corrections in the 'What do Sub-Editors Do' page) are capable of dealing with these problems, especially when they focus on two entries for up to 2 weeks or more.
We need to change the attitude of PR being a club and the scarcity of reviewers through, for lack of a better word, a grassroots campaign. Articles in The Post, asking writers to review others' works and encouraging our community-based friends to get into PR are all useful things. We need to create a fuzzier atmosphere in PR. Some of y'all might hate it, but that's what we have to do.
Too often in threads like F55683?thread=609357, people want to recognize that there is a problem, but do nothing about it. Are we going to fix the problem in Peer Review soon? In the words of JFK in his inaugural address, "All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin."
It's definitely a problem - not a crisis, but it would be good to have it done by the time the HHGG movie is being actively promoted and more newbies find their way into the PR swamp.
Shall we act? If so, we need to pick a plan. First, we have to recognize the problems with the current system (and may I state that I do not pretend to be innocent or blameless in perpetuating these problems)-
1- A very low proportion of new users stay on the site or focus on the EG. This could be as a result of-
A- People noticing others being treated in PR badly.
B- Flame wars.
C- Bad first impressions (IE item 2)
D- Impatience with newbies who don't get it at first (such as the Earth: mostly harmless authors)
2- We're scaring off newbies with long lists of problems and many times not being very friendly about it.
3- There are often periods of extreme drought in PR when scouts don't have enough entries to pick.
4- We're not really attracting community members to participate in the EG. From what I gather, PR has a bad reputation even among people who have been here years for hosting Flame Wars (it happens only occasionally, but it just doesn't look good) and simply being intimidating. There's always that fear when submitting an entry to PR that you will be essentially yelled at and told to take it out. (I've never not experienced that feeling)
5- Not enough focus is being given to making the entry's content better. As scouts, we assume that if an entry is short, it probably needs more (depending on the subject) and that if an entry is long, it is probably comprehensive.
6- The workshops aren't functioning properly. They never really have, but now's as good a time as any to make them work.
7- There are not even nearly enough comments in PR. Too many of them have nothing to do with the subject.
8- There is a perception among people who have been here a while in the community that PR is a 'club' - that only scouts and people who know the processes can comment on entries.
9- Style, spelling, grammar and sub-editor things are often stressed over content by the scouts.
10- The PR process is too often looked upon as a battle.
11- Entries get neglected constantly. If the conversation thread of your entry lasts more than 7 posts these days, consider yourself lucky.
What can be done?
A lot can be helped along by a change in the PR page. It was last changed to include a Commenting section, and I believe it can be changed again if there is enough support for it. Here are some changes I suggest-
1- Though the definition of commenting includes spelling and grammar niggles, I think another bullet point should be added to say that we should focus on content over spelling and grammar.
2- Under submitting an entry, it should ask writers to check their own spelling and grammar before entering it into PR (I know the Writing Guidelines say to, but historically, it seems that few newbies read those). Perhaps add that if you are not able to (if English is not your first language or you're not confident in your abilities) request someone to help you in your submitting form.
3- Note that everyone is welcome in PR in the introduction. Emphasize that scouts are not the only ones to be who should be commenting, and the forum would suffer from a limited group of regular reviewers.
4- Reviewers should give authors a chance to make corrections on their own before handing them a list. They should, naturally, be given the option of a corrections list.
5- Emphasize that all reviewers should be friendly and patient with newbies. This will look good to newbies as well as preventing newbie-bashing.
6- The most important elements of the writing guidelines should be incorporated onto the Submitting an Entry section near the bottom, in case a newbie doesn't read those. I think those would be the examples of suitable entries (which need to be updated incidentally), Don't Try too Hard to be Funny, Avoid Writing in the First Person, Write at Appropriate Length and Write About Reality. The link from the PR page to the Writing Guidelines says "Ensure the entry fits our Editorial Guidelines." That makes it look like it might be more like the House Rules, maybe a lawyer-talk boilerplate article. A better link might be "Check to make sure your entry is in line with the 14 tenets of a good entry with our Writing Guidelines." Or something like that. I don't know, I've only written one RF page before.
7- Maybe a prominent link from the PR page to a new help page "What not to do when submitting an entry to Peer Review" so that the PR page doesn't get too crowded.
8- Ask reviewers to delve deep into PR to find the neglected entries.
Other things-
I have believed since it was brought up quite a few moons back that authors should be given more incentive for writing. The concept of a badge for someone who has written a certain number of entries was brought up in the past and it bears discussing, I think.
Subs should be given more of the burden of spelling and grammar. Scouts (who incidentally, will find no mention of spelling and grammar corrections in the 'What do Scouts Do' page) currently take care of more of this than anyone else, when there are three other lines of defense - the author, who should take care of most of them, the sub (and possibly italics) and the front page readers in Editorial Feedback. I don't buy the argument that somehow the scouts checking spelling and grammar creates less work for the italics. Subs (who incidentally, will find mentions of spelling and grammar corrections in the 'What do Sub-Editors Do' page) are capable of dealing with these problems, especially when they focus on two entries for up to 2 weeks or more.
We need to change the attitude of PR being a club and the scarcity of reviewers through, for lack of a better word, a grassroots campaign. Articles in The Post, asking writers to review others' works and encouraging our community-based friends to get into PR are all useful things. We need to create a fuzzier atmosphere in PR. Some of y'all might hate it, but that's what we have to do.
