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

It's PR but different, I get that. Then you say don't read anything with the Guidelines in mind, but if we don't do that, then how can we review it with the idea of it going into the EG? And that's what PR if for, after all.

And then I got a bit lost with all the talk of cities. Are you sure you are really talking about PR, or are you just saying that we should just enjoy h2g2 for the best of everything it produces? Which isn't really about PR at all.

Sorry, it's just confused me a bit.

What it says is 'None of us should ever read an Entry with the Guidelines at the front of our mind.'

The 'in front of' is important. Is it possible to get what a piece of writing is saying if all the while you're reading you're measuring it up against a set of expected values?

Assuming of course that there is something in the writing to get. Though it can be deceptive. Someone posted a one-liner to AWW a while back. Would have been easy to instantly dismiss it. I nearly did. But there was an incredible amount of 'backstory' contained in that one line. I'm not sure it wasn't accidental on the part of the author but accidental or not, I got a lot out that entry.

It's a question of order really. Read first and measure up against guidelines after. It is confusing, we're talking attitudes, mind sets, here, they're imprecise and difficult to explain .

>Is it possible to get what a piece of writing is saying if all the while you're reading you're measuring it up against a set of expected values? <

Yes. Definitely. I think most people can do more than one thing with a piece of text at the same time.

Well, we'll need to agree to disagree on that one. When I mark exam papers I have to read an answer through completely to get an idea of whether the candidate had a general understanding of the issues and came up with a useful response to them.

Then I go back and see just how much of the detail was correct.

How interesting. I can do both at the same time and check the text for spelling and grammar and compare it against the grade criteria.

We're all different, I suppose.

It'd be a dull place otherwise.

" Is it possible to get what a piece of writing is saying if all the while you're reading you're measuring it up against a set of expected values?"

I never read anything without measuring it up against a set of expected values - even if those values are as basic as 'is this book/article/entry well written and keeping me interested?'.

Just wondering if anyone from PROD would like to answer my questions in post 1?

Hi Mina

Sure can.

The one about not reading Entries with the Guidelines in mind :
We don't mean drop the Guidelines, or change them in any way. We mean, don't read the Entry as if it's a thing to be assessed, at least not at first. PROD suggests that we should enjoy the Entry first and then use the Guidelines as a check that a good Entry is suitable for the Edited Guide.
You'll possibly feel that most people in PR do this already. (It's clear that you personally do this already). But that's the answer to your question, anyway.

The City thing? It could describe the whole of h2g2, certainly, but it was intended to describe the Edited Guide, and emphasise that the EG is elevated by its variety and inclusiveness. Most particularly, those words were included as an uplifting ending to what was meant as a harmony-bringing piece. I've been a bit surprised and disappointed by some of the responses, to be honest. I didn't expect anyone to object to the terms PROD was put in.

The main objection seems to be the spurious assumption that, if we want the EG to be stimulating, varied and inclusive, then we think that the Entries in there already aren't like that. Of course the EG is already stimulating, varied and inclusive - hence the City analogy. PROD is saying that PR needs to keep things that way, so that new Entries maintain the standard. We think that means they should be judged mainly on quality and spirit. Good and uplifting Entries shouldn't be lost on technicalities.

There are a lot of other points coming out too - not all of which were originally intended. I think most of them are still helpful, though.

It's good to talk, as they say, so thanks for asking!

Pin

Thanks Pinniped, it makes a bit more sense now. I was getting the impression that this was someone saying:

"We don't like what's going on. Let's do something, yay!"

But not actually offering any suggestions of what to do. And at least you didn't slate the hard work that other people have already put in. Well, not in this post anyway.

Hi mina.

Thank you for understanding. It's all very simple really.

As for concrete suggestions - we debated a few, and considered coming out with a specific plan before we posted PROD. However, some of us thought that it would be better to get the ball rolling, and then think about specific things to do, or specific solutions to adopt, so that's what we did. Hopefully the discussions that've come out of this will make everyone's opinions clear, so that those of us who want to do something (to whatever ends) can decide what it is..

~ db

>> >Is it possible to get what a piece of writing is saying if all the while you're reading you're measuring it up against a set of expected values? (Waz)

>> Yes. Definitely. I think most people can do more than one thing with a piece of text at the same time. (Amy)

To me, this is the most fascinating exchange I have read in the whole messy debate.

I have known for about a decade or so that the mechanisms that people use to think vary drastically from person to person, and this is an example of that.

Richard Feynemann, (a physicist whose name I cannot spell), did an experiment to discover whether or not people had the same mental internal rhythm. (He was also an amateur drummer - hence his interest). He spent an entire day counting silently while working, and discovered that the speed at which he counted was constant, say 70 counts per minute. He then got some of his colleagues to do the same, and they were equally constant but not necesarily equally fast.

That isn't the interesting bit. The interesting bit is that some could count silently and talk at the same time but not read, and that others could could silently and read but not talk.

Feynemann discovered that some of his colleagues counted by hearing the words "one" "two" "three" which got in the way of their saying other things, and others counted by seeing the numbers "1" "2" "3" which got in the way of their reading.

It seems pretty clear to me that the prescription "Evaluate for enjoyment before you evaluate against the Guidelines" is based on the assumption that everyone thinks in the same way.

It is clear from the posts between Waz and Amy that we don't, which challenges the validity of the prescription as a universal panacea.

I'm not sure where this takes us, though.

Ben

with apologies to ben, that is not the most interesting bit either

>> It seems pretty clear to me that the prescription "Evaluate for enjoyment before you evaluate against the Guidelines" is based on the assumption that everyone thinks in the same way.

It is clear from the posts between Waz and Amy that we don't, which challenges the validity of the prescription as a universal panacea <<

yes, assuming that everyone thinks the same is an assumption. yes, it's interesting. it's also not the point, since the point we're trying to make is not one about cognition, but about perspective and priorities

what we're saying is not based on whether the act of evaluating against guidelines interferes with enjoying an entry or not. it's based on the idea that evaluating pedantically with respect to the guidelines (in whatever order, or with wet socks on) tends to bury the creativity of some entries that might be otherwise accomodated in the guide. that's all we're saying.

~ db

>> it's based on the idea that evaluating pedantically with respect to the guidelines ... tends to bury the creativity of some entries that might be otherwise accomodated in the guide. that's all we're saying


Well, that's a bit clearer then. Glad we've managed to tease that wording out of the confusion.

Thanks db.

Ben

A quiet suggestion: maybe we could think about trying to read entries first as 'users' of the Guide might, rather than as 'creators' of the Guide. Yes, it requires at least trying overlook spelling and grammar at first -- even structure, perhaps -- but read the entry for its meaning.

Readers, ultimately, won't come to the Guide with critique in mind. They'll come seeking somebody's take on 'Badger Hollow, South Dakota', 'How to Cook Breakfast Outdoors in a Sandstorm' or 'What the Heck is Hemoglobin and Why Do I Need It."

No, the entry won't be perfect. Yes, you will be distracted by spelling and such. But there's time enough to fix that that stuff. Try to find its heart first.

m: yup

~ db

Like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel, never ending or beginning, on an ever-spinning reel

I'm sorry, B. I suppose I'm just dense, but I don't understand that.


m

>> Like a circle... ever spinning reel <<

Yes, Ben, we all know you're 56, grew up in the flower years, and have expanded your mind. I, unfortunately, have not the advantage of such an education, so I can't recognise that line. Where's it from?

*echoing m*

damn, that post is missing a whole lot of smilies, so consider these - - part of it