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

We still love you, Eds!

I hate it when threads get like this. (Not your last post, Subcom. The preceding 50 or so.) This has become a synchronized jumping session on the italics, IMHO. Can we say that point's been made?

Re: "On h2g2, *you* decide what goes into the Guide". "You", in that banner, does refer to the community, and that's true, for the most part. The community decides what entries to write in the first place, which ones to submit to PR, and which ones to pick from PR. Usually, that process works just fine. Sometimes there are contentious entries. Some people feel strongly that this one should go in the EG. Some feel strongly that it should not. Some don't care.

When "you" can't decide, can't reach a consensus, about what should go into the Guide, then someone has to make the call. The italics do that. It's not like the community unanimously wants this entry to be edited, and it's just a small fascist band of italics saying "NO!" A significant fraction of posters here have been community members saying they also hate this entry and don't want it in. There's no consensus. Those who have the right to make the call are saying "no". Game over. So it wasn't as clearly put as it might have been. I'm sure it will be clearer next time. Let's all recognize that the answer has been given. Take the entry out of PR, resubmit it if you like some time in the future when there's a different editorial team. Get on with life. Everyone's learned from this, I'm sure. Let's stop beating the poor thing, and bury it, already.

We're removing this entry from Peer Review on a temporary basis. As a Scout commented earlier, it's been getting more than its fair share of attention, and there are lots of other entries that deserve feedback. Wander over to <./>RF1?entry=0</.> and pick a few more entries to comment on.

We're also temporarilly unsubscribing from this conversation because it's become too stressful. Thanks to all the people who've supported this entry, and all the people who've posted constructive criticism, and please continue to do so, or topic drift like a demon, according to your preferences. We will come back later and read all the comments later on, and respond appropriately.

Cheers
-Martin (et al)

heh, simulpost GTB.

I'd have removed the thread earlier, but I only got into work just now...

Oh, any fantastically important stuff - post it to my home space, not here. Thanks
-Martin

Well he came and did the decent thing at last!

Thank you Lucinda

Firstly, thank you Lucinda et al for taking this out of PR.

KerrAvon

>>> Now, I suggest the eds either tell us, straight, that the reason they won't accept the entry is because they *do not like it*. Which is fair enough

I think Post 2 in this Conversation is saying it straight:

"There's nothing I can really add that hasn't already been said by Sam the last time this was in Peer Review, so to quote his original comment:

"I virtually coughed and spluttered all over this dreadful entry in an apoplectic fit, so surely that must render it unsuitable - at the very least unhygienic! Lucinda, I just don't see how the Edited Guide will suffer because of this entry's absence from it - it's still in the Guide and it's still searchable. It was reasonably well written and in 'form' it fulfilled Editied Guide criteria. Its 'content' however, we deemed to be tasteless, and, well, basically useless. As far as the Edited Guide is concerned, we have to maintain certain standards where possible, and as I said earlier, this entry is still in the Guide at large." (admittedly there has been a winkeye smiley ommitted from this)



agcBen


>>> It is also interesting to see how the conversation has gone since then: it has moved - once again - from the entry in question to the editorial team's reluctance to handle presenting bad news well. It would be perfectly acceptable to say 'we have decided not to include this entry because it is in very graphic poor taste - we are the editors, and our decision is final'. Instead the Italics have once again, tried to be hip about presenting bad news.


Please see above - that posting is clear in its message.


>>> Let me say this in short words: you can be as hip as you like if you say things that are fun. Use grown-up words and choose a grown-up phrase if you must say things that are not fun.

I have done this in this Conversation. I have been direct and honest and grown up. I think this is an issue raised in another thread.

>>> NONE of us deserve to be patronised.

That icludes Italics. I may be a Bold Italic, but I am also human - when confronted with sarcasm and antagonism I will switch off. You learn this when you have worked in news rooms.

>>> So - reject it on the grounds of taste by all means. You are the editors for heavens' sake! You are paid to take decisions which are - by definition - final. It's ok.

This is what we did in post 2, but it fell on deaf ears.



We rejected this entry in posting 2 on the grounds of bad taste. I offered Lucinda a chance to see if it could get in the Guide through the Update Headquarters (never a guarantee) but he declined. As a last resort I invoked the 'No Spitting' rule - pathetic maybe but Lucinda loves the rules so I thought he might abide by them. It was a last resort.

The reason why Sam isn't around is the fact that both of us are developing projects that will push the Guide that little bit further and develop it along lines that will be innovative and exciting.

Ashley

In retrospect, clearly I should have submitted this to the Writing Workshop first, not directly to Peer Review. A learning point. Also, apologies for random outbreak of greater-than-normal multiplicity - there was some... dissent about the appropriate way to handle the situation. Still is, in fact. *sigh*

I have been accused of having deaf ears regarding the second post in this thread. While I'm happy to let the other criticisms ride, I'd like to respond to that one. I'd hate for people not to comment on some of my other entries because they felt I'd just ignore them. Nothing could be further from the truth.



Jimster originally pointed out the issue of usefulness in post 2, as he says. I gave an initial holding response immediately (post 3) and gave a fuller (three paragraph) response later on (post 34). The point was also answered by a girl called ben (post 15,etc), Andy (post 30), KerrAvon (post 45), and so on. The issue of taste followed a similar route, being pointed out on post 2, and a reasonably full response being given on post 34. The point was also answered by other peers.

However, both taste and usefulness were raised by a number of peers, so I made a number of changes based on this feedback. I removed one entire section that I felt was unnecessary, and was particularly disgusting. I also made some minor tweaks throughout the entry for taste, and added info to try and make the entry more useful and informative. I will continue to try and tweak the entry in these ways, and Mikey (IIRC) has made some valid points which I want to incorporate.

There were other issues raised in the threads, and I'd like to think that I responded to them all and amended the entry where appropriate. If I've not responded to anyone's points, I'm really sorry - just direct me to the post where you said it, and I'll get back to you when I can.

So I certainly read what Jimster said, and I took that on board. It looked like a comment from Jimster as a peer (and Jimster has often commented in Peer Review as just another peer), and I treated it as such. It's a shame that it wasn't made clear to me that this post was in fact a rejection until a couple of hundred posts later. A good deal of heartache might have been avoided.



Now, the situation *seems* to be, if I've interpreted Ashley's words correctly, that the entry, while significantly improved, is still too tasteless for the Edited Guide. The "No Spitting" comment turns out to be a codeword for taste and decency (shame that wasn't made clear for so long either). The Update issue has been answered by a number of peers (see posts 150, 159-171) and seems to have been dropped. The issues of rude words in title is pending an answer from Mina over what the guidelines actually are.

Based on that feedback, I can certainly modify the entry. So, if anyone would like to comment on any particular words, paragraphs, sections, that they find particularly tasteless, that would be very useful. Ideally, I'd like to cut out tasteless stuff while retaining useful stuff, though there may have to be a compromise. I'll also add some more stuff, if I can find anything useful.

I'll probably post again some time on Monday or Tuesday. See y'all then
-Martin

Hi Lucinda,

I'm sorry, I must have missed that question. Any chance you can help me find it in the backlog, so that I know exactly what I am answering?

Hi Mina,

I think Lucinda was talking about what Ashley wrote in posting 175: "Mina is coming over to look at the issue of Swear Words in Edited Guide Titles - starred and otherwise." ...which might have been prompted by posting 139.

Hey Lucinda,

Thanks for replying and let me firstly apologise - the 'deaf ears' comment was a little harsh maybe and I would hate for anyone to think that yuo don't respond to feedback.



>>> It's a shame that it wasn't made clear to me that this post was in fact a rejection until a couple of hundred posts later. A good deal of heartache might have been avoided.

True, but the message of the post was clear. The entry had not changed (at that point) much since the last time you submitted it. You accepted our reasonings before, we thought you might have accepted them again. Assumption is the mother of all ...



>>> The Update/ No Spitting Suggestions

I have learnt my lessons form this. I used these to try and get you to remove the entry from PR yourself. Pathetic yes (and the 'No Spitting rule is not a code word), but thanks to you all, I know that you want us to be even more assertive and direct when we don't like an entry. Duly noted

Mina is away today but I'll aske her to come over and answer the question about swear words in titles.



Lucinda, I will read this again, but if the tenet of the entry is still about filling your mouth with beer or any other fluid and spitting it on someone else, it won't go into the EG.

Cheers for now.

Ashley

No need to read it again, Ashley, till I've made those updates, then discussed it a bit with peers, then submitted it to the writing workshop, then pondered a bit further, then *maybe* submitted it to Peer Review. No need to micromanage the process.

> "I know that you want us to be even more assertive and direct when we don't like an entry"

Direct is good. Assertive? For what purpose? I can't recall asking for that...
-Martin

Oh, and thanks for the apology

I'll always put my hand up and say 'Mea culpa' when at fault.

It's not just your feedback I'm reacting to when I say we are going to be a little more assertive. Kerravon, Ben, GTB have all stated that you want us to come right out and say it.

Cheers for now Lucinda.

I see that, unsurprisingly, I never got an answer from Mina over whether there were in fact any issues with starred swearwords in titles. I really must invest in buying the h2g2 office a personal organiser with a "to do" feature.

-MyRedDice

Any pressies gratefully accepted!

It's been nearly a year, what was the question again?

See post 230 if you want to bother. I don't care anymore though, so you'd be wasting your time.

I can see it, but I don't understand it. I don't work on h2g2 anymore, so if you don't care nor do I.

If you don't care, how come this conversation has suddenly come to the top of the pile again?

I mean, I like a laugh, but self delusion is an ugly thing Lu.

When one has left a community, one occasionally wishes to come back and review older entries and older thoughts, both for nostalgia, and to see if there is some insight that might be gleaned, and connections made with current thoughts and interests. And occasionally one makes notes, and such notes create page churn.

http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?PageChurn

Thus, having recently read "Yes, Minister" by Johnathan Lynn and Antony Jay, I was rather struck by their descripion of the three types of civil service silence:

* They do not want to tell you the facts: Discreet silence.
* They do not want to take any action: Stubborn silence.
* You catch them out and they haven't got a leg to stand on. They imply that they could vindicate themselves completely if only they were free to tell all, but are too honourable to do so: Courageous silence.

Still, one prefers to assume stupidity not malice... or at least assume the lack of a decent filofax. Not that this is getting me anywhere in figuring out what to do with this artice, if anything.

http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?AssumeStupidityNotMalice