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

This was originally going to be a reply to this post F2111414?thread=644246&post=7054652#p7059104 but as I wrote it it started to expand and to take on the life of a new thread.

I too disagree with your first paragraph Mikey, but I agree wholeheartedly with everything else you have to say.

I'm still quite unsure about what it is that PROD wants to see PR and the EG become, or exactly what it is about PR and the EG that they feel needs improving. They keep saying that they want to see more 'creative' writing within the framework of the curent guidelines, but they also seem to be saying that the guidelines - or rather, the interpretation of them by some of the Scouts - is what's stagnating the EG. With their reluctance to name anyone in particular, and with the fact that I often use reference to the guidelines in my own PR posts, I have to assume in absence of any evidence that I'm one of the Scouts they're referring to.

Based on that assumption - and it can be no more than an assumption until they give us some specifics, let me provide some examples of what *I* personally consider to be great EG writing, at least one of which if I remember correctly, I had the privilege of recommending.

A776054 - The Egg Banjo
A1171603 - Kilburn
A3176318 - Karate - The Human Factors

These are my three favourite entries (off the top of my head, anyways) from the past couple of years, and are the type of entry which I would love to see more of in the EG. They're witty without being overly funny, they're informative, they're different, and most of all they're *creative*, and they didn't have to bend or break any guidelines. Another one will soon be joining them - Skankyrich's Hitchhikers Guide to Europe entry that was submitted to PR a few days ago.

Why aren't there more entries like these in the EG? Probably for many, many reasons, none of which I'm entirely sure of... except for one. There's usually a reason why things that are really good are few and far between - they're few and far between!

Not everyone is a Dali or a Steinbeck or a Bach, but for every good artist/writer/composer there a hundreds of thousands of others who one can most charitably describe as 'journeymen'. Their creative output will never be great although there may be occasional flashes of brilliance. If we get a couple of 'great' writers here at h2g2 we should consider ourselves very lucky indeed. When our 'journeyman writers' get a flash of brilliance (still looking for mine btw... it's not under the sofa, not in the laundry basket, not hiding under the sink ) we should be accept it with gladness and hope they find another.

Long story short: I've said this a few times already - everything can always be a bit better than it is. That seems to be what PROD wants, but we still don't know exactly how or what or why. My take is that they want the EG to become a sort of official UnderGuide, and I think I've said that somewhere else too.

In the absence of anything concrete from them all that the rest of us can do is speculate. I notice that a few PROD threads have lengthened quite a bit in the past 24 hours and I really ought to go and read them before I post this because perhaps some of these issues *have* been resolved in those threads, but I do actually have to go and put in some hours at work and I probably don't have the time to more than skim. Besides, being one of those 'journeyman' writers, when a moment of clarity comes to me I have to get it down a bit smartish before it disappears into the ether. If it turns out that it came to someone else a few hours before it got to me, well that's something I won't lose any sleep over.

Journeymen entries, that's a good way of putting it. They're good entries as far as I'm concerned, sturdy and solid even if they haven't any frills. Some subjects don't suit frills. As the first paragraph of the article said, PROD wants something in addition, not instead of.

It's not about the EG becoming an official UnderGuide. The UG is what it is, it's already semi-official. PROD is about the EG within its existing guidelines.

I had a go at putting PROD's suggestions in a more concrete manner but it feels as though I've simply reworded the original Post article. It's hard to put a change in mindset into practical terms.

I got it down though and might as well post it. For what it's worth:

PROD is suggesting a change of attitude towards reading, reviewing and, for that matter, writing. The business of PR is to produce Edited Guideable entries but that doesn't mean there can't be more of an awareness of the value of the entries which will exist within h2g2, Edited Guide suitable or not. It's a subtle difference to read something for its intrinsic value first and then to move on to the extent to which it meets the Guidelines of the EG in particular second. (If you can do both at once fine, but in that case we're suggesting giving the former priority of importance initially.)

It's my perception of PR that EG requirements come first. I admit that's understandable given time pressures.

The difference putting the guidelines second makes is that writing tends then to get reviewed for what it is first and what it isn't (if it doesn't meet EG requirements) second. Of course the guidelines do then come into consideration. Despite opinions to the contrary PROD isn't about abandoning the EG guidelines.

From commenting on pieces in the AWW, I've very rarely found an entry with nothing good in it to comment on or something in the content to react to. Either will let the writer feel they've made a connection and that's encouragement to write. Writing entries is what the site's designed for, whatever their destination. That's partly what the city/buildings analogy is about.

For a tentative or an enthusiastic first time writer, a completely neutral first comment that simply says sorry, it doesn't meet the guidelines can be very deflating. It would be easy to interpret as meaning the reviewer found nothing worthy of comment in the content when in fact it meant they'd simply only reviewed from a PR guideline viewpoint and did not mean to discourage anyone. Wouldn't that be less likely to happen if entries were read for their own sake, not EGconformity first?

Something else such a change might do is help to identify what gives an entry it's edge or personality (if it has either) and then help ensure that survives the review process. It's easy for the pace or a subtle undertone, for example, to be lost in revision.

Style, content and effort.
There's quite a bit of power in PR. It shapes the EG. Reward writers by noticing certain things with approval and you'll get more of those things. Noticing originality of style, imaginative choice of content and the effort put in ought to bring in more of the same. Reward guideline conformity first and foremost and there'll be a tendency for writers to write to a formula that fits most easily within the guidelines, or follow what they've seen others do that fit the guidelines.

Within the city/buildings analogy is a reference to the fact that we all have different tastes and that that needs appreciating too. The range of taste within PR will tend to determine the range of taste the EG appeals to.

PROD isn't saying none of these things happen now, just that more of it might lead to a better guide.

Waz said:

--"It's a subtle difference to read something for its intrinsic value first and then to move on to the extent to which it meets the Guidelines of the EG in particular second. (If you can do both at once fine, but in that case we're suggesting giving the former priority of importance initially.)"

This is why the discussion seems so circular: "intrinsic value" is exactly where we disagree. This is where the classic/romantic divide that I raised in the wave/particle thread comes in (and I was sorry to find that no one took it up from the opposite viewpoint.)

I *do* read the entries for the intrinsic value first; as it happens, the qualities which give an entry intrinsic value to *me* are ones which happen to match the guidelines in the first place.

You say you value diversity, but what you seem to be telling me is that the way I think is all wrong, just because it's not the way you think. The problem for PROD seems to be that too many of the people who comment in Peer Review have analytic minds. You're not going to change that by saying 'Stop analysing!', since we don't agree that it's a problem at all.

I can see that you are genuinely concerned. The best solution is surely to recruit more PROD sympathisers into Peer Reviewing, to cover a diversity of viewpoints.

Azara

Intrinsic: Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent (dictionary.com)

Well, this is where we run into one of the main problems we've been facing in these discussions. The PRODders want to value each entry in and of itself - it's 'intrinsic' value as an entry comes first. The EGers also want to do that but have to do it through the lens of the guidelines. The guidelines are the framework on which the EG rests, and to ignore them simply for the sake of appreciating an entry is something of a waste of time since the entry won't get into the EG if it doesn't match certain criteria. Therefore there's little point in reviewing any entry if it has no place in the EG.

Entries can be moulded to fit the guidelines, and indeed often are, but if someone wants to write an entry which would sit quite happily in the UnderGuide, AGG/GAG, or the The Post then we - the Scouts and PR regulars must let the author know. If PROD doesn't want to change any of the guidelines or the nature of the EG, what's the point of Scouts and PR regulars looking at an entry which will never be destined for the EG just for the sake of it, when they're already hard pressed to keep up with the bona fide EG entries in PR?

The guidelines aren't put first or second, they are - as I pointed out above - a lens through which the intrinsic value of an entry of viewed in PR. The two are inseperable.

The more 'journeyman' writers work, the greater their chances of improving.

I tend to look at the style of articles in PR and very often I simply unsubscribe from things I can't read easily - be it due to bad grammer, spelling, or style. Other times ~ there's something in the piece ~ some originality or insight, that makes me think its worthwhile commenting.

Maybe we should spend less time reviewing, and more time writing ? But when you review regularly, your writing gets reviewed. I think some people just can't cope with their baby being criticised, except for spelling or grammatical error - they don't want critique they want proof-reading.

"The best solution is surely to recruit more PROD sympathisers into Peer Reviewing, to cover a diversity of viewpoints."
Absolutely, raising the issue here in the Post had the intention of finding out how much sympathy for it there was and going on from there, encouraging more people to go into PR who may not see it as a place they fit into at present. Some of those romantics perhaps. The romantic/analytical point was fascinating. I read it and was going to get back to it. I've had very little internet time this week so far, I'm slow in sorting thoughts into words and I'm no typist.



"Therefore there's little point in reviewing any entry if it has no place in the EG." I think there's some point, from the point of view of the site itself and encouraging all writing, in giving some sort of appreciative response.

Not wanting critique in a review forum or workshop is a bit daft really but it certainly happens in the AWW.

Sorry, this is a rushed reply, I'm not ignoring the rest of the posts, but I'll be late for work if I stop any longer.

Waz

"Not wanting critique in a review forum or workshop is a bit daft really but it certainly happens in the AWW"

It's not daft, it's... I'm trying to think of a Golgafrincham B Ark sort of word or phrase that means 'the useful budgeting of one's time' and I know there is one, but I can't think of it off the top off my head.

The Edited Guide has a goal and a purpose, one which I really don't want to have reiterate again because we all know what it is by now although we all have slightly different interpretations of it. Its purpose is achieved through the guidelines and Peer Review. Those are the two main tools by which the EG achieves its goal, and anyone who posts a comment in PR is using one or both of those tools.

If someone submits an entry to PR which is clearly not EG material, such as a poem or a story, it's not going to get into the EG therefore there's no point in anyone reviewing it *in the manner for which PR was devised*. You can say that you liked it or that you enjoyed it but that PR is not the right place for it, and indeed that's happened on more occasions than I can list here. A PR reviewer can decide for themselves whether or not they want to comment on the entry in any personal capacity other than as a reviewer of entries for the EG, but if they have constraints on their time they can also choose not to. That doesn't denigrate the entry in any way or make it any less worthwhile, it simply means it's not where it should be. It's like going to the movies to see one a film and walking into the wrong theatre - you realise your mistake and you get up and go to the correct theatre. Expecting someone in PR to review a worthy but mistakenly PR-submitted entry which clearly will not get into the EG is like going into the wrong theatre and then asking someone watching the film you *didn't* intend to see what they think of the film you did. They're too busy watching their film to talk to you and may well say 'Ask me afterwards'.

I do find myself wondering if we should have fewer review forums. If PR had multiple possible destinations, then things could be picked from there for the EG *or* the UG depending on the mood of the meeting.

There are good reasons why this might not work, and there are bad reasons why this might not work, but here are some thoughts on why it might be a good idea:

1) PR is busier than the AWW, with more active suggestions on how to improve entries. It would benefit entries which are factual but not ultimately EGable, such as first-person travel pieces, which tend to have fewer constructive suggestions in the AWW, and as a result tend to be less heavily revised and which lose the opportunity to end up better bits of writing.

2) It might help to ameliorate any remaining view that the UG is not as recognised as the EG because it would provide pieces which end up in the UG with greater recognition.

3) The experience of reviewing would be enriched both for Scouts and Miners. It would give EG Scouts some practice in debating that elusive factor called 'quality' in writing. Equally it would give UG Miners some practice in recognising the merits in entries which are informative rather than sparlking.

4) Entries which hover between the EG and the UG, such as A4068966 and A2043398 can be considered for both destinations at the same time. This will provide some additional validation for the status of the UG as a destination. It will also provide all of us with practice in interpreting and applying the Guidelines for the EG *and* the Guidelines for the UG.

5) The combined forum would be more interesting and - gasp - more fun.

I can think of some arguments against doing it myself, but I am interested in what other people think.

Ben

My first reaction would be *whew* a lot of work - huge backlog!, but a direct effect would be that it might fix the chronic problem of lack of eyes on anything other than the Edited Guide. It also could mean that *we are perceived to be* a friendlier lot because we don't summarily dump out entries.

A problem might be how we get the message across as to how to get into the Edited Guide. Now, it is clear: submit a good fact-based entry into Peer Review and sooner or later, after it has been reviewed and adjusted, it will get into the Edited Guide. In the future, you submit it to the WW, say, and there would be multiple possible reasons for doing so, and multiple possible end destinations. The goal of getting good entries into the EG might be diluted for some. We would need to be careful about how it is communicated.

Another small problem might be the "I want it, no, I want it" problem where scouts and miners start fighting over an entry that could be applicable to both. Rare, inconsequential, but nonetheless worth thinking about.

A possible benefit might be more engagement from the community at large in the review process. There would be something for everyone in the WW, or whatever we call the staging board.

While I think it's a good possible solution though, I'm still unconvinced that we have a huge problem to solve. It might be an answer for a relatively minor problem in the community when you take all the facts on board.