A Conversation for h2g2 Feedback - Feature Suggestions

Suggestion for removal of another feature

Post 41

U168592

I'd be upset if I couldn't suggest other researcher's work to other forums. As a newly hatted CACer, I think the ability to push either elvissed Researchers (or even the ones who are a bit shy) work into the AWW, CWW or WW is wonderful.

There is certainly some fantastic work just milling about under no 'Forum' and if anyone can push it into these Forums, doesn't that really speak volumes about what h2g2 is all about? Sharing ideas, concepts and writing that otherwise wouldn't be?

And if an Entry that is EG unsuitable goes into Peer Review, like so many do, then the Scouts just need to move it...isn't that what it boils down to? So, what we're saying is the Scouts are finding it too difficult to keep on top of Entries that are believed to be EG unsuitable? And that they can't move them because it should really be up to the author or the Researcher who put it into the Forum to do that? I don't think the fact that Researchers putting others work into Peer Review is the problem here. I believe it's the Scouting process, which needs considerable review, but that's another argument altogether.

You can't have the best of both worlds. You either let the 'rubbish' fall in and give everybody a chance at writing, or you close the funnel to the EG even tighter and simply 'evict' work that Scouts and other Researchers believe is unsuitable for EG (which then flies in the face of the fact that h2g2 is a site run by the people, for the people).

I think it should be left as is, if there's what some people consider 'rubbish' going into Peer Review, oh well. One person's trash is another's treasure. smiley - smiley


Suggestion for removal of another feature

Post 42

Mikey the Humming Mouse - A3938628 Learn More About the Edited Guide!

"As a newly hatted CACer, I think the ability to push either elvissed Researchers (or even the ones who are a bit shy) work into the AWW, CWW or WW is wonderful."

I just can't see a single reason why it would be a good thing to submit someone else's entry to the CWW or WW -- both of those places are for working on and improving an entry -- which can't be done if you don't have editing rights to the entry. In order to do that, people need to create their own copy of an entry, and submit that to the relevant forum -- at which point it doesn't matter whether or not they can press the submit button for someone else's entry.

smiley - 2cents


Suggestion for removal of another feature

Post 43

Kat - From H2G2

So we definitely definitely can't have it so that one forum is still open for submitting others entries? DEFINITELY??


Suggestion for removal of another feature

Post 44

There is only one thing worse than being Gosho, and that is not being Gosho

That has yet to be ascertained.

And Frood, you know that it's not the Scouts who move entries, it's the Editors, on recommendation from the Scouts. Since the Eds are often so busy these days that PR moves are a long way down their to-do lists, unsuitable entries often remain in PR for a long time after the request for their removal has been made, which makes it relatively difficult to request new moves and results in PR becoming even more cluttered.


Suggestion for removal of another feature

Post 45

Pinniped

The posting above makes me wonder whether the appointment of a Master-Scout, with the authority to remove Entries from PR, wouldn't be a better solution. Presumably there's some technical reason why that wouldn't work.

The desirability of the original suggestion probably depends on your view about one question : whether the best Entries for a given forum will always be Entries purpose-written for that forum.

In the context of the AWW and the UG beyond it, we probably all accept that the best Entries may well not be purpose-written. The statistics of the UG appear to bear this out. More than two-thirds of its content was originally submitted to the AWW by someone other than the author.

In the context of the Edited Guide, the answer is less clear-cut. Most interested Researchers will probably feel that good EG-Entries will invariably be written by people who are fully EG-aware.

There's could be a price to pay for enforcing such a rule, though. It might mean that the Entries offered to PR will be more formulaic. I'm therefore with Frood on this one. I think that self-promotion only would be very bad for the AWW, but it would also be bad for PR.

Incidentally, Jodan's mention of Loonytunes' "27th Letter" as one of very many UG-Entries put up by someone else is very apposite. Some of us might remember this :
A666623
Different times, weren't they? I think we all need the odd reminder that the prevalent values and aspirations haven't always been what they are today.


Suggestion for removal of another feature

Post 46

U168592

Whatever the case, I think that this issue should be bought up in 'ask h2g2' because more Researchers subscribe to that thread. Then a more balanced view could be attained.

I know that some will say 'ask h2g2' isn't the place to discuss these matters, but I don't see why not. At least more of hootoo will see what the ideas are.

And for the record;

1. There are many Entries that have been recommended to the WW and CWW (that's recommended, NOT moved) and have progressed into EG or UG entries.



Um, forgive me, but you've just given two reasons. For working on an Entry. And for improving an Entry. If the Entry didn't end up in the CWW or WW in the first place how could it get response from other Researchers. It doesn't matter if the end product means making a new Entry as mentioned, the Entry has still been bought to the attention of Researchers in the Forum, which it might not have done otherwise.

2. Yes I know that the Editors move entries from Peer Review. And yes, Scouts recommend those moves to the Editors and the Editors only move something due to those recommendations. So if you look at it laterally, Scouts move the Entries. Perhaps not in the physical sense, but if Scouts don't say what needs moving, then nothing will get moved, yes? So, hence Scouts move Entries from PR by letting Editors know which Entries to move. Have I repeated myself? Probably, but I want to make it obvious what I'm saying.

I've come to the rapid conclusion that I really do have to spell everything out when posting. smiley - tongueout I'll take more care in future. smiley - winkeye

Anyway, that's my opinion, and it's only opinion and doesn't have to be noted at all. I think consensus is needed before anything else is done, therefore my suggestion to bring up the idea in the 'ask h2g2' forum.

smiley - run


Suggestion for removal of another feature

Post 47

Mikey the Humming Mouse - A3938628 Learn More About the Edited Guide!

"Um, forgive me, but you've just given two reasons. For working on an Entry. And for improving an Entry. If the Entry didn't end up in the CWW or WW in the first place how could it get response from other Researchers. It doesn't matter if the end product means making a new Entry as mentioned, the Entry has still been bought to the attention of Researchers in the Forum, which it might not have done otherwise."

You seem to have completely missed the point here. What is being achieved by submitting someone else's entry that couldn't be achieved just as well (*and* more efficiently) by making a copy of the entry -- for which the submitter will have editing rights -- and submitting that? Whenever someone submits someone else's entry to the WW or the CWW, this is exactly what they're asked to do -- because no actual improvements start happening until there is an editable version of the entry. It's the exact same as it is for Peer Review.


Suggestion for removal of another feature

Post 48

Kat - From H2G2

I agree with Mikey on this. Every time an entry gets submitted to the WW or CWW by someone other than the author they have never made their own copy so nothing can be done to it. What Mikey's saying is that when someone submits someone else's entry the original author never wants to do anything to it (hence why it's not submitted) or hasn't left the site.

This is fine when the forum is the AWW because anything drastic that needs changing (if it is a good piece) can be done by the UG team, but in the other workshops just causes bumf.


Suggestion for removal of another feature

Post 49

U168592

Perhaps I have "missed the point completely". Perhaps I'm not very intelligent and need everything explained to me in simple terms. I am after all, only human (a mildly dyslexic and confused one at most times). Sorry. It's just I think I try to look at the complete picture and think outside the box. If I can't convey my thoughts as 'eloquently' as others, I apologise. I'm tired of having to explain myself, but I'll try to do it one last time.

Just because an Entry is submitted to a Forum (like the AWW/CWW or WW) by another Researcher who was interested in the subject matter, and nothing can be done to it by the author doesn't mean that it's not provoking feedback. Why should the only factor in submitting an Entry into ANY review Forum be about "improvement"? Why should the fact that "nothing can be done to it" be the reason it shouldn't be there? Some entries need work, yes. Some go in not needing much at all. This is the case in all review Forums I believe. Just because something can't be done to an Entry in the literal sense though, doesn't mean that there is 'nothing' happening in regards to that Entry.

Putting an Entry into a review Forum stimulates discussion, but it can do many other things too. It could inspire the author into revitalising their entry. Even if the original author is not interested in working on the Entry, a push into ANY review Forum can bring about ideas which could then go on to inspire another Researcher to write an Entry of their own on the subject. There are numerous instances where an Entry in a Forum has inspired another Researcher into creating a completely DIFFERENT Entry, or any type of writing (poetry, prose, satire, fiction, etc.). I don't see the problem with there being more than one copy of a concept floating about the site either. I think if you do a quick search you'll find that's the case anyway.

I'm tired of the frameworks of 'efficiency', 'cleanliness' and 'order' being at the forefront of the Forums. There may be something to be said for these concepts, but NOT when it comes to developing ideas and imagination amongst Researchers. These concepts have their place in organisation, but what good is this in a creative environment? H2G2 is for bouncing ideas, thoughts and feelings about in order to communicate and create "bumf". 'Bumf' is good, it provokes and stimulates everyone on hootoo to use their minds and not be stuck in a creative rut (or non-creative rut as the case may be).

There is the danger of a development of 'tunnel-vision', or editorial blinkers perhaps, that it is not conjusive to expanding the philosophy of the site. Kill off the chance that the one idea out of a hundred that is pushed into the wrong Forum develops into a wonderful Entry, then you are in danger of closing off the site to all but a minor section of the h2g2 community that appears to be concerned in nothing more but entries being created for the Edited Guide, the UnderGuide, the CAC and The Post. H2G2 is not, as far as I can surmount, JUST about these things. Perhaps this should be remembered by the more senior Researchers.

I think the regimented view of Guidelines and the constant need for things to be done 'just right' pushes the concept of staleness within all h2g2 Forums. And that's where there appears to be a considerable lack of vision. I may be wrong, there is an awful lot GOOD about h2g2, I think it's fantastic. But sometimes there are a few too many cooks spoiling a lovely little broth that is bubbling away quite nicely thank you very much.

I'll leave it at that. My anger and frustration has clouded my judgement perhaps in posting this, but I need to get it off my chest. Apologies to those in the line of fire.


Suggestion for removal of another feature

Post 50

There is only one thing worse than being Gosho, and that is not being Gosho

Let's take that point-by-point.

smiley - tea
"Just because an Entry is submitted to a Forum (like the AWW/CWW or WW) by another Researcher who was interested in the subject matter, and nothing can be done to it by the author doesn't mean that it's not provoking feedback. Why should the only factor in submitting an Entry into ANY review Forum be about "improvement"? Why should the fact that "nothing can be done to it" be the reason it shouldn't be there?"

Because the whole point of reviewing something in the context of (some of) the review forums ("To examine with an eye to criticism or correction" - dictionary.com) is to improve an entry. Entries in PR for instance are improved to include omissions and inaccuracies - I can't imagine any circumstance where someone would argue that an inaccurate piece of information (and Edited Entries are, ultimately, pieces of information) is better than an accurate one. Entries in review forums are also expected to meet certain standards. Some of those are simply standards of written English - it should be intelligible - while others are standards laid down by the Editors - it should be suitable for everyone to read.

As far as the CWW an WW are concerned, you only have to look at their purpose to find out why submitting entries by Researchers who are no longer active is pointless - the WW is there for writers who want some help finishing off their own entry before submitting it to one of the other review forums, and the CWW is for writers who want to embark on a collaborative project with other writers. In that instance there has to be one person who can edit the project, so if an entry by an AWOL Researcher is submitted to the CWW no-one can edit it. I see no problem with the current system whereby you go to a Researcher's personal space, leave a message for them, wait to see if they reply, and then make your own entry if there's no reply forthcoming.

Peer Review is different to the other forums in that it has one sole and well defined purpose - to get entries into the Edited Guide. There is no other reason for its existence. The purpose of submitting an entry to PR is to have it reviewed and critiqued (I use the word 'critique' as opposed to 'criticise' because it has a more neutral meaning), and for the suggested changes to be either made or rejected by the author. So when an entry by an author who has 'left' h2g2 is submitted by another Researcher, there's no point in it being there - the person who wants to see it get into the Edited Guide should simply go through the process I outlined above - make their own copy and submit it to PR. The subject is now in PR in a manner in which it can be worked on, and is 'provoking feedback'. That's what the process is there for - problem solved.

As far as the AWW is concerned, things are much more nebulous because it deals with creative writing, and deciding whether that is of merit or not is very much a personal thing. If someone submits an entry to PR about, for instance, the paintings of Picasso, there's always room for someone to remind the author of something they've forgotten or simply got wrong, because the EG deals (mostly) with facts. If however, someone submits a poem or a story to the AWW, it's a finished piece which is judged solely on its merits as a piece of creative work. Where art is concerned, anything goes, so it's quite acceptable to submit a piece of creative writing by another Researcher - Elvised or not - to the AWW because it doesn't necessarily need to be changed by anyone, just critiqued.

smiley - tea
"Putting an Entry into a review Forum stimulates discussion, but it can do many other things too. It could inspire the author into revitalising their entry. Even if the original author is not interested in working on the Entry, a push into ANY review Forum can bring about ideas which could then go on to inspire another Researcher to write an Entry of their own on the subject. There are numerous instances where an Entry in a Forum has inspired another Researcher into creating a completely DIFFERENT Entry"

I agree... in principle. Firstly, if a Researcher is inspired enough to submit another Researcher's entry to a review forum, they could equally be inspired enough to write an entry about the subject matter themselves. Secondly, if they don't want to do that and the entry is by an Elvised Researcher, they can suggest it to Challenge h2g2 and inspire someone else to write the entry - that's what Challenge is there for.

smiley - tea
"I'm tired of the frameworks of 'efficiency', 'cleanliness' and 'order' being at the forefront of the Forums. There may be something to be said for these concepts, but NOT when it comes to developing ideas and imagination amongst Researchers. These concepts have their place in organisation, but what good is this in a creative environment?"

I personally don't believe that effiency, cleanliness and order are "at the forefront" of the forums, but I do believe that they are a framework, and a necessary one. Whenever you're operating any kind of system, from a review forum on a relatively obscure website to a multi-national corporation, you need guidelines and direction otherwise the whole thing simply falls apart and fails. The problem arises in deciding where the importance of the rules meet the needs of the organisation, and that's what we're trying to sort out here. There will always be people who want strict discipline, and there will also be people who want things to be much more easy-going. A balance has to be struck that satisfies everyone and is in the best interests of the organisation.

smiley - tea
"Kill off the chance that the one idea out of a hundred that is pushed into the wrong Forum develops into a wonderful Entry, then you are in danger of closing off the site to all but a minor section of the h2g2 community that appears to be concerned in nothing more but entries being created for the Edited Guide, the UnderGuide, the CAC and The Post"

In saying that, I do feel that you've gotten into the same line of thought as one or two other well respected Researchers, like Jodan for instance, in believing that even one lost entry or Researcher is a calamity that must be avoided at all costs. I don't believe that, in the same way that I don't agonise about every missed opportunity throughout my life. One has to accept things and move on.

smiley - tea
"H2G2 is not, as far as I can surmount, JUST about these things"

h2g2 is about so much more than just the review forums, the Edited Guide, The Post, the UG and AGG/CAC. Even when I got here five years ago, the community aspect of the site was so much more prevalent than the EG, and that community was - and still is - an unbelievably creative one. Just look around at all the virtual clubs, societies, bars, venues, ships, towns, kingdoms etc. Astonishingly creative.

smiley - tea
"Perhaps this should be remembered by the more senior Researchers"
Define 'senior'.

smiley - tea
"I think the regimented view of Guidelines and the constant need for things to be done 'just right' pushes the concept of staleness within all h2g2 Forums. And that's where there appears to be a considerable lack of vision"

I don't believe that, and everything I've said above explains why.

Let's talk about one more thing - creativity. Everything on this website has been created - some of it by the Editors, most of it by the Researchers. Every single entry - edited or not - has been created by someone, but it seems that a lot of people only want to attribute the word 'creative' to everything *but* the Edited Guide.

I find that mildly offensive because I think there's a great deal of 'creative' writing in the EG, and I've had a hand in creating some of it myself. There are many, many writers who are much more creative in their writing than I am, and for people to suggest that the EG is stale and fusty is doing those writers a great disservice, I believe.


Suggestion for removal of another feature

Post 51

J

"As far as the AWW is concerned, things are much more nebulous because it deals with creative writing, and deciding whether that is of merit or not is very much a personal thing. If someone submits an entry to PR about, for instance, the paintings of Picasso, there's always room for someone to remind the author of something they've forgotten or simply got wrong, because the EG deals (mostly) with facts. If however, someone submits a poem or a story to the AWW, it's a finished piece which is judged solely on its merits as a piece of creative work. Where art is concerned, anything goes, so it's quite acceptable to submit a piece of creative writing by another Researcher - Elvised or not - to the AWW because it doesn't necessarily need to be changed by anyone, just critiqued."

Mmmmmm, but the AWW doesn't hold a monopoly on art or creativity, just fiction (excluding the Post). At least it shouldn't. I don't see why a factual entry can't be judged on its overall merits as a piece as well as on its components - facts, grammar, spelling, etc.

"In saying that, I do feel that you've gotten into the same line of thought as one or two other well respected Researchers, like Jodan for instance, in believing that even one lost entry or Researcher is a calamity that must be avoided at all costs."

Well-respected? I don't know about that. I'd rather be a rebel on a motercycle and a bandana smiley - winkeye

Yes, it is something we should avoid. I worry about a Guide that doesn't look at the individual aspects - the researcher, each entry's merits and the quality of feedback - but instead worries about getting that number on the <./>info</.> page to go up.

"I don't believe that, in the same way that I don't agonise about every missed opportunity throughout my life. One has to accept things and move on."

It's interesting (to me at least, I don't know about y'all) that you equate an entry with an opportunity. If an entry were an opportunity, what would it be an opportunity to be? To help make the guide more complete? To please and stimulate the reader? Mmmm, questions.
I opt for the latter, largely because the former is a futile exercise.

"There are many, many writers who are much more creative in their writing than I am, and for people to suggest that the EG is stale and fusty is doing those writers a great disservice, I believe."

No doubt, my friend, that the EG has a lot of great entries in it that make you stop and go "Hmmmmmmmmmmmm" smiley - zen. Maybe not as much as there could be, though. smiley - smiley
I think that writers know when their stuff is great (usually there's a barrage of positivity in PR threads when it is wonderful writing) anyways.

smiley - blacksheep


Suggestion for removal of another feature

Post 52

Pinniped


Sheesh.

Not counting smilies and handles, the first 51 postings to this thread weigh in at a total of just under 7,200 words.
I bet no Entry has EVER attracted that much comment in just 4 days.

So we're all about critiquing in PR, are we? Or indeed in any other Forum? Come off it. Most of the people here invest more effort in discussing the admin.

This site is about reading and writing, regardless of any style preferences. It isn't about systems - there are enough of those in RL.

Reding and writing, OK? Let's try remember that.

Pinsmiley - sadface


Suggestion for removal of another feature

Post 53

U168592

I'm off to read and write now, regardless of what anyone else believes I should do smiley - laugh (My mother thinks I should cut my hair, my mrs thinks I need to shave and my friends call me lost in the wilderness. Perhaps I'm Bigfoot.) smiley - runsmiley - monster


Suggestion for removal of another feature

Post 54

There is only one thing worse than being Gosho, and that is not being Gosho

"I don't see why a factual entry can't be judged on its overall merits as a piece as well as on its components - facts, grammar, spelling, etc"

Neither do I Jodan, and it almost always is - of course it is. Some entries get through PR with the odd 'Nice entry' comment and a number of posts pointing out spelling and punctuation mistakes, whilst others are thoroughly enthused over, like Skankyrich's piece about the Hitchhikers Guide to Europe. However, whose merits are we talking about here? Who says that one piece of factual writing is better than another? Well, anyone who wants to, and people who try to argue that we shouldn't be making 'value judgements' of that sort (and there are some who do) can go and join the queue for the B Ark as far as I'm concerned.

"Well-respected? I don't know about that. I'd rather be a rebel on a motercycle and a bandana"

Some people respect that sort of thing you know smiley - winkeye

"It's interesting (to me at least, I don't know about y'all) that you equate an entry with an opportunity"

I don't *equate* the two, but I do have the same attitude toward both of them.


Suggestion for removal of another feature

Post 55

Mikey the Humming Mouse - A3938628 Learn More About the Edited Guide!

"So we're all about critiquing in PR, are we? Or indeed in any other Forum? Come off it. Most of the people here invest more effort in discussing the admin."

I admit I find this statement quite puzzling -- does the "here" in Pinniped's comment above refer to "here in this thread", or "here on h2g2"?

Almost everyone posting in this thread is someone who spends quite a significant bit of time commenting in Peer Review (and in most cases, other review fora as well). And this is true for those who I am disagreeing with here in this thread as well -- they're all people who genuinely spend time in the review fora, working to make entries better. I can't think of a person here who spends more time "discussing the admin" than actually putting in work in the different review fora.

If it is in reference to "here on h2g2 in general", then I'm not sure what the point is -- the feature we're talking about only has applicability to the review forums, so I'm not sure why the habits of other people -- who are interested in neither PR nor this conversation -- would matter in the context of this discussion.

smiley - 2cents


Suggestion for removal of another feature

Post 56

J

"I can't think of a person here who spends more time "discussing the admin" than actually putting in work in the different review fora."

*raises hand*
I actually do spend more time in emails with my UG eds than with commenting on the AWW. I do feel badly about that, but am I supposed to not read and reread an email and send a thorough response back? smiley - yikes

But seriously, I think Pin makes a good point. I'm not sure if we spend *more* time discussing admin than reviewing, but maybe - just maybe - we spend too much time discussing admin? We're a very introspective site, always working to try to make it better, which of course involves the sort of debate that would make Vogon bureaucrats cringe.

...maybe?

smiley - blacksheep


Suggestion for removal of another feature

Post 57

Mrs Zen

I confess that I have skipped a lot of this LED though I read all of the first two, because it seemed to me that we had reached an agreement - (it would be nice for PR but really bad for the AWW, and therefore it was not a desirable change) - and then it all turned into a cut-and-paste-fest.

If I have missed salient points please tell me so, and I'll read the posts I skipped.

I do however have some questions which I would like answers on from people who frequent the forums more than I do.

smiley - huh On a scale of -1 to -5, how much of a problem actually is it, in each of the different forums?

smiley - huh On a scale of +1 to +5, how much does it benefit each of the forums?

smiley - huh On a scale of None to Loads, how many people frequent each of the forums?

Oh, and if anyone here has mentioned DNA's Vision for The Site then they get my pillock-of-the-weekend award.

As an aide memoire to myself, the fora are:

Peer Review
Writing Workshop
Collaborative Writing Workshop
Alternative Writing Workshop
Flea Market

Ben

PS - for the record I have and do submit entries to the AWW and at least one of them has been picked, maybe a couple, probably not more than three. Not sure about the exact numbers I've put in, between 5 and 10 submitted, I'd estimate, and not all by elvises. In fact, thinking about it, one of them was one of Pin's, and another was by one of our poets.


Suggestion for removal of another feature

Post 58

There is only one thing worse than being Gosho, and that is not being Gosho

I'm absolutely certain that I spend less time discussing admin than I spend reviewing. Certain. If we *do* spend too much time discussing admin, that could be indicative of at least two possibilities - we like discussing admin, or there are things that need improving. I suspect a little from column A and a lot from column B.

To answer Ben's questions (assuming that they relate to the subject in post 1 of the thread), and to include the one she forgot - the Update Forum:

1. How much of a problem is it? In PR, WW, CWW, FM, UF - about a -2 (not a great problem). In the AWW - I don't know.

2. How much does it benefit the forums? In PR, WW, FM - about a 1 (none at all that I can see). In CWW, UF - 0 (it's utterly pointless to the best of my knowledge). In the AWW - I don't know.

3. How many people frequent the various fora? You'd have to get the site traffic logs from Jim Lynn to find out for sure..


Key: Complain about this post

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more