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

I should add, just because I disagree, that doesn't mean I think my opinion should hold sway in PR.

That's how we get variety, by different people contributing.

Well, alright Teasswill.

I probably should have added (I usually do something like this when it's late and I've written too much... which was every night this weekend and last week ) that single-person accounts relevant to non-fiction have precedent in the EG, and I would like to continue to see them in the EG. My real point was about the fiction though.

"If your PROD article typifies the quality of writing you'd like to see in the EG, then it's not for me."

You didn't like the city thing? I liked that. Thought it was clever. Takes all kinds though, and I respect your opinion.

That's not quite what I meant, but let's not get into that.

Actually, I think reclassifying what goes into EG/UG/AGG elsewhere could be beneficial, as well as refining the selection process. I'm quite happy with first person accounts in the EG where relevant.

I'm not sure that all these different writing workshops are necessary. Perhaps one initial melting pot PR would be helpful for researchers to help refine entries & direct them to the most suitable destination.

As for the quality of entries, which seems to be what you're concerned with - that's so subjective and dependent on the volunteers who write, review & select. If anyone feels that scouts aren't adhering to the guidelines, then perhaps that should be taken up with the editors.

"Perhaps one initial melting pot PR would be helpful for researchers to help refine entries & direct them to the most suitable destination."

That's pretty much my argument for promoting the Writing Workshop (and the Alternative Writing Workshop) ahead of Peer Review. These should be the initial melting pots I feel. That way there would be less compaint about 'dross' in PR, there would be far more excellent Peer Guidance before an Entry is even thought about sending off for possible submission to the Guide. Who said it, the WW should be looked upon as the busy mall and loud discussion forum, whereas PR is more the place for a quiet sit down with the regualrs over tea and biscuits.

Perhaps that way good stuff gets better before it even sees the light of PR and 'bad' stuff stays where it is and stuff that doesn't follow the EG Guidelines gets poked over to UG, or AGG or the Post. As a Scout I would be quite happy to 'scout' for brilliant writing everywhere in hootoo. If you can devote time to PR, surely you can devote time to the WW and the AWW too. There's great writing everywhere on hootoo, but some of it's getting missed out on, or ignored because it doesn't follow Guidelines immediately. With more input before something has to follow Guidelines there might be less noses put out of joint? Just a thought. Not a very cognitive one though .

Frood

If we could cope with the length of the list in one 'melting pot' forum, I would be all for it. It must be very embarrassing for new researchers to find that they have submitted unsuitable material to PR and anything that can minimise their discomfort is worth a try.

I think there is mileage in improving the usability of the system. The submission system is learnable but isn't intuitive and could provide more opportunities to reverse the process or to escape from the transaction part way through. Once your work has been submitted, you need to know your way around h2g2 quite well in order to remove it so you might have to live with the embarrassment of having made a mistake for a long time.

What I don't think is a good idea is to introduce a 'good writing' criterion. We all have different ideas about what is good, great, brilliant, entertaining, moving etc and a 'goodness' criterion is unworkable. What's more it would lead to a fundamental change in the accessibility of the EG. At the moment, you don't have to write well, you just have to match the EG criteria and anyone who is functionally literate can have a go. If we introduce an additional rule that EG submissions will be compared against a standard and must be 'good writing, the less confident writers will be frightened away.

Surely we should be looking at *all* writing - not just the stuff we consider to be good - and asking if it might meet, or be adjusted to meet, the EG criteria. We're always going to miss some of it, but we should try. Personally, I scour the WW and AWW about once a week looking for EG candidates. I haven't found a project I wanted to take on yet but I live in hope. Writing for the EG is being the other workshops and redirected. A3709433, for example was taken from AWW - see F2006681?thread=579000 and finally made it onto the front page last week via this PR thread: F2006681?thread=579311.

Oops, words have escaped.

That should read: 'Writing for the EG is being *found in* the other workshops and redirected...'

Glad to hear it!
I certainly agree that a criterion for 'good' writing would not be appropriate.

I understand the concept of peer review being a final polish compared with the possible rawness of workshops. In theory if one can visit PR one can also visit the workshops, but it doesn't always work in practice! I just thought it would be simpler to have some amalgamation.

Perhaps a general melting pot workshop could be optional, for those uncertain where to post, or wanting advice. Then maybe entries for PR could have some flag attached to show their intended destination (either EG or UG)?

Having a single melting pot and *promoting* entries into PR, (or AWW or The Post) seems to me like a good idea. The length of list would be a problem I think though, but maybe that's for another day.

Although, and maybe we need some data on this, but does a Writing Guidelines reminder, or a Post/AWW referral really offend people? PROD seem to think it does, and fair enough, that may be the case. But I have always seen it as telling people they are on the wrong bus or something - no harm meant, easy mistake to make sort of thing. Is a Writing Guidelines / Post / AWW bump really such a horrible thing?

As you say, Woodpigeon, we have no available data. I can say that I wouldn't be offended and I've never had a bad reaction when I've offered that sort of advice in PR.

I think renaming Peer Review to "Submit for Consideration for Editing" might help - because its meaningless until you've found out what the site is about.

we didn't really say that a writing guidelines reminder, or a Post/AWW referral offends people, or should not be done. we're saying that for the kinds of writing that we'd like to see in the EG, the Post/AWW bump tends to happen without people really thinking about the entry.

That rather implies that you think the AWW is inferior to the EG. So long as a decent entry finds an accredited home, does it matter where?

Great discussion here. Can we just clarify something?

If PROD is a campaign to get a group of people to lead by example, to write the kind of entries they would like to see in the Edited Guide on interesting and thought-provoking topics - all power to you. Anything that adds to the quality of the Edited Guide is fine by us.

If it's a general moan about the state of Peer Review, well... not much we can do about that

Like anyone else, we have our own interests and while we strive to welcome a balanced approach to a variety of topics, naturally some will leap at us as being of a more general interest than others. The Edited Guide is here to help people get their work to the best that it can be within the limits of a person's own abilities and enthusiasm. That, by definition, is elitist in some ways, in that we're looking to separate the best from the... not-so best. But we don't think that's a bad thing. Any editor will be looking to get the best material to publish, and this three-headed editor is no different.

We've had entries from 13-year olds that would challenge some of the supposedly professional work you see elsewhere on the Net, just as we've seen incredibly poor written work from middle-aged people that has been improved by the help, encouragement and enthusiasm of the people in Peer Review. While our aims are to keep the ravenous Edited Guide regularly fed, for some people the joy of writing is what it's all about and they're not looking to be judged on that. This is why we have various forums. The Edited Guide is the hardest area to get into simply because it's the section that has to make some concessions to the expectations of the public when looking at content provided for them by the BBC. Again, we don't think that this distinction is a bad thing. We also have the unedited guide, which has absolutely no restrictions aside from the House Rules, plus the Post, the UnderGuide, Fiction Central and others, whose various criteria fall somewhere between the two extremes. The fact that some people contribute to all sections is encouraging - just is the fact that some people have found their natural homes and are happy to stay there.

Of course, all of the above can be dismissed if this is actually an attempt at revolution and topping the Towers. In which case the three-headed Editor beast will fall back on the old 'benign dictatorship' clause and growl a little.

Three heads, eh? Not the sort of beast that likes sheep, is it?

At its core is an attempt to increase the quality of the EG, yes. PROD thinks that the EG could be more stimulating, varied and inclusive. It could be something truly great.

I don't know about leading by example. That's something I for one can't do, but I hope others would and I hope this would excite them into doing that.

We thought you already do lead by example, Jodan. We're waiting for more dead presidents from you, lad!

You know, Gnomon chided me for being too long. But I'm working on something on Taft behind the scenes. An Ohioan president. Joy!

I like the idea of renaming Peer Review to something a little more explanatory of its aims. Something like "Edited Guide Hopefuls" or the like? (that's pretty naff I know, but I ain't be well lately)



At the risk of being impishly childish and crude, I've always been told it's not really the length that matters, it's what you do with it

off topic>

Frood

Alas Hoopy Frood - she was lying to you.

I thought as much. That's the last time I go punting on the Thames.
Frood