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

Yep, a home we are in danger of being evicted from if we don't evolve. Hootoo has continued to change over the time it's been around, more often than not for the better. I'm simply afraid that , to woefully paraphrase - the constraints of the few outweigh the wants and needs and inginuity of the many. Opening up to new ideals is the way forward, not pushing everything into the same tired old cardborad box that will end up dusty and mildewwed in years to come.

And I think you missed the point I was making about the towel entry. As I said, forget the reference, forget everything DNA associated. If that was posted to PR I'm afraid it would get no support, and is the hootoo community then denying a potentially magnificent writer a future by simply saying "Did you read the guidelines? it's not suitable. go elsewhere."???

I'm sure if you make any definite suggestions, they will be listened to.

That I do agree is growing concern of mine in PR.

The Towel entry:

>>"Towel. A towel is about the most massively useful thing a someone can carry. You can wrap it around you for warmth, sunbathe on it, huddle beneath it and even dry yourself with it, if it still seems clean enough."

I can tell you exactly what I would say to such an entry. I'd explain that this is exactly the sort of thing we are looking for, but that it is not long enough. Could they author please expand the entry to provide a little more information about towels, please?

A very similar entry went into the Writing Workshop recently about Feet. This is the reception it got. Now it is considerably bigger, better and is being very well received in Peer REview.

Yep, I'm sure too.

But I wonder, why are there few people dedicated to Peer Review? Is it because they're put off by heftier weightier opinions?

And I think writing style IS criticised, not just factual information surrounding Entries. And it should be, but more often or not it's criticised in a manner that suggests that 'if you don't do it my way, then you won't get anywhere with this'. Let's not let egos get in the way of fine writing That'd be like Shakespeare kneecapping Marlowe because he didn't like his writing and thought his was better...

Just an observation, I'm not pointing fingers and never will do, because I could end up pointing at myself, and I could have an eye out like that.

Just want to bring the simple thoughts I have about PR to the attention of other Researchers, and to see if they agree or disagree, take it on board, and then see if anything can be done to make h2g2 even better.

HF

Speaking of which Gnomon, you seen this one? A3930824 This is the kind of thing I'm talking about
HF

By all means point the finger at me, if you feel I am at fault. I won't mind.

That A3930824 entry got a very friendly and helpful reception from everybody, along the lines I outlined above.

I don't think anyone is altogether at 'fault'. Just think the PR process needs a bit of a shake up, and perhaps the Scouts, Sub and Italics need a bit of a shake as well. Hence all this shaking *shakes*.

Yes, that Entry did, but there have been others almost identical in manner that have been vindicated from the start. The inconsistencies are troublesome. Let's be united on this otherwise it'll all fall apart. I think that might actually be my point. One of them anyway. I said I wasn't a wordsmith.

My brain hurts now.

I think if newbies post their entires to Peer Review they can shocked by the criticism they recieve. Maybe some sort of warning in the page of peer review before posting is a good idea. And if a newbie does post to peer review and in need of molly cuddling some volunteer should go to their space and give a private critique and say why some of the suggestions have been made.

Old hands like myself and Gnomon just take a few more knock in our battle armmour.

Agreed there, but I thought that's what the ACE scheme tried to do? Or am I barking up the wrong fern?

That is what the ACE scheme is supposed to do. Or at least it was when I was an ACE.

One final comment before I leave this thread: an author should only be asked to remove their entry from Peer Review if

1. It is completely contrary to the guidelines

and

2. It can't be made to fit the guidelines by some editing.

There have been plenty of entries which fit this description, particularly in the last few weeks, so I had no hesitation in telling those people that their entries were not suitable. I don't apologise for that, and I will do the same again.

Such entries included the "42" entry, the "I'm this great person and I have solved the mystery of the universe" entry and the "can anybody tell me why my computer won't work" entry.

There is an issue with newbies (actually I hate that word - new researchers) posting inappropriate stuff to Peer Review and inevitably having to be let down, even if in a nice way. It can't be very easy for many, as it will appear to them that they have made a mistake and they are being chastised by it. The issue stems partly from the way in which Peer Review is presented. The "Submit for Review" button is right below "Edit Entry", and we can make is seem in the submit page that all we are looking for is an entry that meets the guidelines and is finished.

I would prefer, as many people would, that more people understood Peer Review before they submitted an entry into it. It would be a win-win situation for everybody.

I do still think though that if we were to move the Edited Guide beyond fact-based guide style entries, that we are inevitably moving into the realm of fiction, speculation, single-person accounts etc, and my personal feeling is that this would be a backward step. The thing we forget about is that guide based factual entries are possibly the most accessible entries anyone can write. They are easy to develop, improve, criticise, understand and agree with. Moving out of this realm brings us into a very different world - one of opinion, bias, controversy and elitism to borrow a phrase.

I personally don't see what's wrong with a little flair and imagination, particularly when it concerns single person experiences or anecdotes. I've just Updated a little piece on IBS that could possibly do with more, but is centred around a personal account. It made it into the Edited Guide because it was well written, factual and concise yes, as per Guidelines, but it was also personal narrative - something the Guidelines (and Peer Reviewers) appear to frown upon. What's good for the goose is good for the gander you might say...
HF

You can put in a personal narrative so long as it's introduced that way. How the personal narrative appears in the IBS entry is perfect. It's a common enough device that helps to strengthen certain entries. I have done it myself without any problems or issues. The guidelines do not rule out personal accounts as a device in a well written entry, but they do rule out narratives that are opinion pieces. The aim is to keep it objective and balanced, supported in cases with narrative accounts if that is what you choose.