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

Rather busy atm, but I'm definitely going to come back to this for a read - looks really interesting!

FYI, the categorisation system can't categorise Conversations, only entries, and we would only be talking about h2g2, not DNA, as each individual site gets their own categorisation tree, and the individual editorial teams control them. You also can't categorise external websites in the system - you can only add Guide Entries, nothing else. (Of course, it could be expanded to add functionality, but I thought I'd point out the current level of the tools.)

Back soon, depending on how DNA 1.01 rollout goes...

Thanks, Mark. Could the system handle descriptions and the little additions as I noted on the development page? For general consumption, there will probably have to be a few new widgets added to the system. However, on the cross-DNA and weblink front, those could always come later. I assumed that the other DNAs would have their own systems, but the idea was to provide a 'one-stop' page for the topic, linking out to appropriate material across the BBC as well as on h2g2 - however this is an 'eventually' - the most important things would be h2g2 pages, IMO with desciptions, visble Axxxxxx, author and editor details, and two sections (edited/not). Anyway, as it stands, I can see that it'll take a while to get the ideas straightened out (something I'm starting to do over on the proposal page), and then the technical stuff could be done when you're all nice and ready - and while you couldn't set a date for it, I'd be envisaging later in the year...

Between myself and Frankie, we decided that the whole Conversation thing probably wasn't a good idea - you'll notice it's absent from the proposed layout.

Good luck with DNA 1.01!

Whoami?

"I'd be envisaging later in the year..."

And some.

I'd keep it a bit simpler, and just let a set group of volunteers have access to the directory-editing tools (with other people able to make suggestions). I'd think it better that Edited entries and non-edited entries are kept in seperate directories too (ie world of h2g2).

Interesting idea, Frankie - but what the feeling that I get from a lot of the postings I read is that people want their non-edited Entries to get the respect that they deserve - that's one of the main reasons for a 'one-stop' topic page, where Edited Entries sit under one heading, and Entries sit under another, on the same page, in the same hierarchy. It's just like the way you suggest, but more convenient for the user, and the idea is to bring the two communities together...

Whoami?

Frankie - I think our differing opinions may have something to do with our 'ages' on h2g2 - you've been around longer and as a result your impression of the community is different. That's no bad thing - in fact, it's rather a good thing! Let's get some more opinion.

Oh, and Mark, what do you think of the whole 'descriptions' idea?

I'll be back at 1930 GMT Tuesday to write a bit more into that proposal...

Whoami?

Whoami, you work far too hard!

Compared to revision and practice exam papers, cousework deadlines and early starts to catch up with the workload, this is relaxation!

(Early: 5am)

Whoami?

I can see your point of view whoami? (the question is part of your name, the sentance is a statement).

I think it's an editorial descision really. Depends on what emphasis you want h2g2 to have. Some people see the Edited guide as kind of alien - a kind of authoratitive part of the community (which should be avoided IMO, and PR and the subs/scouts have done this quite well), whereas others might think of the edited guide as a sort of 'quality-controlled', organised section of the guide, the product of our work. They're different perspectives. In some ways (and this was something I explored in my interview series) the guide can be split into the community (chatting, role-play threads) and the guide (writing, peer reviewing, subbing). Many people do both of course.

Just a theory...

Anyway, think we've exhausted the various proposals for the category system now...

I'm sure we have brought up most of the points. Now we need more people to discuss them all. Let's wait and see what happens...

Whoami?
Keeper of Cake

'see what happens' sounds like calling *me* ('schau'n mer mal')

Alas, I still have to read the backlog, and there's a University project waiting to be finished.

That's OK, Bossel. Thanks for registering an interest - come and tell us more once you've read the backlog, the proposal document (so far), and seen the Proposed Layout. I think it's around Posting 6 or so.

Whoami?

This idea sounds good, but rather akin to painting the Forth Bridge. I think the Guide (by which I mean edited, unedited, AND conversational parts) can grow faster than you can catalogue it.

And I take it you've given up on the idea of categorising conversations? A pity in some ways, because, as you observe, some passages are funny, or intense, or creative etc. But even the best conversation has its share of cross-talk and non sequiturs and newbies stumbling in out of the hallway. You might think of excerpting good bits, in a best-of sort of directory (as in, read posts 25-78 of thus and such a thread for a nice discourse on basketry).

Of course, you'd have to be mostly insane to even attempt such a thing, or not have a life.

I think the best thing for useful conversations is for them to be written up by someone into an entry (I suggested this kind of thing a while ago for ask h2g2, but it didn't come to anything).

Now there's something <./>agggag</.> would be interested in!

Write an entry recommending some of 'the best' conversation threads, complete with LINKS and introductions to explain why these conversations are the 'funniest', 'most useful for dental students', most moderated, longest, shortest ..whatever.

It might constitute a whole issue of <./>agggag</.> or become a regular weekly feature.

If Frankie's too busy with his own column or other writing, scouting, subbing ..we'll glady accept anyone else willing to take it on. We aren't fussy.

So don't miss this opportunity to achieve your 15 minutes of fame, fortune and the freedom to use free verse.

peace
jwf

There is a problem about pinpointing particular conversations. The more researchers who are attracted to a thread, the more endangered that thread becomes, and the more difficult it becomes to maintain the original subject/purpose of the thread. They are fragile things, conversations, and appearing on the "Five Busiest" list can be certain death.

Because in addition to those who want to discuss a particular topic you get a whole meteor shower of newbies, skywriters, net-autistics and clever-clogs who like to drop through the ceiling or something.

I'm speaking from experience because I've been hosting the atelier for quite a while now. We usually have two substantive and three silly topics bouncing about at the same time, all intertwined, and not counting all the calling cards. It works, but the backlog is daunting to newcomers, and I can imagine the atelier getting all out of balance if even another half dozen were to move in all together.

Which is all by way of saying that it would be better to collect notable "recent" conversations, rather than signpost ongoing ones.

Dang. I promised myself I would never use the word 'ongoing'.

My suggestion would be to copy and paste the best bits out of conversations (into BLOCKQUOTEs perhaps?), but either way could work.

Oh and I'm not volunteering!

OK - I think I get that idea. The most sensible way might be, rather than indulging in listing conversations,

And yes, the directory would always be a little out of date. However, brand new pages tend to still be being worked on, so it's not such a bad thing. As for the unachievability of this project - we've written 4004 edited pieces - a lot of work in itself. For one person, this would be impossible. For a large enough team of category editors, it's not such a problem. Look at dmoz - they've tried to humanly index the whole net, and they're managing largely to keep up with the most useful, important content enough that people like Google Groups (groups.google.com) can use them for a data source. It's possible - it really is!

Whoami?

Oops. I may have missed a bit of message there:

OK - I think I get that idea. The most sensible way might be, rather than indulging in listing conversations, there could be even more focus on collaborative entries - for example a page might be set up for people to post topics for collaborative Entries which they then write up and those pages could be listed. I agree that listing conersations as conversations is likely to be impractical, and of restricted use to the searcher as they'll be wading in a backlog of off-topic rambling.

Off-topic rambling isn't all bad though. I know places where you get timed out for it, but here it's just like it says it is - a real conversation!

Whoami?

Apologies Whoami, I have just skimmed quickly through the thread, so if I restate anything, or butt into quite a different conversation, the fault is purely and entirely my own.

I am fairly much at home with the way H2G2 works - the search option works fine for me normally, and if I stick a topic into the Search engine, it currently comes back immediately with both edited and non-edited entries in the initial response. When browsing Edited Entries, I almost always use the Random Edited Entry option - I actually find the element of choice wearisome : for instance, it's much better to read an article on Radio Alarm clocks when it is imposed on me - as I would never choose to read an article such as this normally. So, to cut a long story short - I don't use categorised directories very often, if at all. Not on H2G2, or on the wider web. That's just me.

I think the best websites on the web are the ones which have a simple vision, and which have excellent underlying mechanisms to support that vision. H2G2 is unquestionably one of those websites. All the community volunteers work to support the original vision of H2G2, just as the DMOZ volunteers work to support the purpose of the Open Directory Project. I am not sure if categorisation is really of interest to many people here. I might be wrong, mind you - I often am.

What I would love to see would be a voting button at the end of all entries edited and unedited, so that pages can be ranked in terms of popularity or quality, as well as keyword relevance. That would definitely enhance the quality of searches.

Or, if everybody had the option of nominating their top 10 H2G2 pages in their Preferences, that might also be useful for searching.

Maybe, if people were to set up entries where they did classify what they thought were the best pages in H2G2, and these entries could be linked together some way, and considered specially in search engines, it might work.

I have probably come across as a bit skeptical, and I apologise if this comes across as too negative, as you have put a lot of work into getting this campaign going. I hope though I have added to this debate by inserting a few suggestion of my own. In reality, I have no problem in principle with the idea of the directory being volunteer managed, and if that's what people want to do, I support it.

Woodpigeon