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

Sounds very cool. Very professional and researcher-like. I hope you get it passed. Catchy headlines would be good too. I wonder if a list of the variables that are useful in name-reading would be a good thing? That gives the reader a quick glimpse of the field of possibilities before settling in to read the specific examples.

I'll give a thought to catchy titles. Bye for now -- M

cool - glad you like it...

Ok - I've opened up a Peer Review thread - it's at http://www.h2g2.com/F48874?thread=78684&post=614253 . It's not 100% perfect at the mo, but I want to see what other people say anyway... I'll fiddle around with it a bit in the mean time... Hmm - list - perhaps just underneath the 'basics' header?

Just been across to the Peer Review thing and -- as usual -- think it sounds great (Am I easy to please or what??).

What DO you do for work? I bet you're good at it! You're certainly good at recommending a potential Guide Entry!

I'm distracted by events in my life, so cannot bend my mind to the task at hand. However, I think the thing to do is for me to copy out your entry and look at it off-line. I might be able to make a couple of more concrete suggestions ( what I mean by "a list" for instance).

If I wore nail-polish, I'd share mine with you! Magnolia

Awww - you're so sweet

{secretly, this is one of the main bonuses of men wearing nailpolish - women seem highly likely to randomly add to your collection - I don't think I've bought half the colours I own... }

I hope you recover from your events soon... seems a common affliction...

Hi, I read the exchange between you and BMMT -- and think it's looking positive, maybe? I think I understand the resistance, because unless a person has read our *superb* analyses, they will NOT be convinced that there's anything of substance here. But then again, the Guide is based on entries , not on analyses. Is this an impasse? Anyway, it was for these reasons that the entry didn't get through in the first place. I think the problem with UserName Analysis (UNA) is that it requires the analyst to be VERY SMART (BIG CHEEZY GRIN here) unlike tea cup reading which does not -- or ... doesn't APPEAR to. The truth is, any kind of analysis, requires intelligence on the part of the analyst, but the forces of popular mythology have conspired to make these lesser forms of "divination" appear to be within the reach of the herd.

I'm wondering whether the choice lies in the direction of making the effort of -- what shall I call it? Digitizing? -- UNA to bring the basic principles of it within the reach of the casual browser, with handles to lead the less casual browser onward to higher goals. Does this sound UNLIKELY? But ... anyway, I shall think on't. More power to your cursor all the same, M

Of course - clearly only the most intelligent people in the world can deal with UNA...

I'll reply to BMMT when the conversation is a little way out of the most recent - that way more people get to see it and make comments (or so I hope...)

Btw - we have a scout(!) asking for an analysis... talk about putting the pressure on....
*starts catching rare and exotic butterflies in her stomach*

I'm still trying to figure out what you mean in your second paragraph... digitising? Do you mean simplify it? Hmm - that's not quite what you have in mind though, I think - I shall await your further thoughts...

Glad you asked. What I meant was ... uhhh ... lemme see ... it's like this: in REALITY, any kind of analysis requires the analyst to have a flexible, intuitive mind. Reducing the whole mass of intuitive understandings down to a series of simple steps which any reasonably smart person can follow and apply, is what I would call "digitizing". That is, rendering the smooth, continuous shades of reality to the kind of half-tone screen -- such as one sees in printing -- that can be scanned by a single-colour scanner.

BMMT's point -- like the editors who rejected the guide entry earlier on -- is that UNA is fine and dandy, but so what? It isn't a science -- and the proof is that you can't make any absolute judgements based upon it. For instance (this was something that occurred to me while thinking out this response) it could happen that reading about UNA would result in users cobbling together names based on UNA concepts IN ORDER TO CONCEAL whatever they wished to conceal. This is one reason that it is worth emphasizing that we are not scanning the user's actual vital statistics, we are scanning the mask. Whether the user has chosen a mask that mirrors her/his true face or not, we look at the mask and read it for what it tells us. So, for instance with BMMT -- looking at the name just on its own, I am not concerned with whether or not he/she is big black or mad. I would ask myself if someone big black and mad would EVER really describe her/himself in those terms and would conclude -- no, she/he would most likely NOT be big-black-mad. UNA cannot reveal any absolute truth about the user -- just as dream analysis does not reveal absolute truths about the dreamer. But that doesn't prevent dream analysis from being an interesting and thought-provoking activity.

The question is: to what an extent can we create formal rules? And ... should we, anyway? There's something to be said about keeping it light. Jokes aside, I realized a while ago that the analysis is only EVER 50% accurate, if that. The satisfied users who respond warmly are (in my opinion) responding in part to the pleasure of being caressed by someone else's attention -- and yes, that IS nice and IS an essential part of what makes UNA pleasing.

I think it's worth persevering a little longer -- on my own, I wouldn't have, but your involvement makes it worth the effort -- but be warned, I lose focus easily enough and I STILL have commitments to Clive the Flying Ostrich with Password generation techniques -- I haven't added my two-bits of effort to his entry yet.

Ah well. Can't be perfect. Over to you ...

Hmm - then I'm not sure digitising is a good idea - for example, at the moment the entry says that a short name suggests a short person, while a long name might suggest a tall person - I don't think it would help to say, for instance, "Names with 6 characters or less are most often used by..." - as you say later - formal rules really don't work anyway...

Maybe a section entitles "Why analyse usernames?" would be a good addition? - some place to talk about the motivations, the aims, what makes a 'good' analysis... and something I just thought of - that by learning about UNA you have a better chance of picking a username that accurately reflects how you want to be perceived - what happens to the mild-mannered person who has a name like (for eg) 'Croz' - which *feels* like the name of someone who's pretty motivated and head-strong? Can that be avoided - and is that a good thing? I think so...

In any case, I think you're right - emphasis that it's the *mask* being emphasised is something that's got to go in - I'll put it towards the start, next to the bit about it not being a science...

Anyway, Mag, don't feel you have to add any bits of effort - I stole half the entry from your own entry anyway - leave the rest to me if you feel busy...

Sorry to butt in, just wanted to say 'what an intresting Page'. I realy enjoyed it.

No, no, butt in all you wish, if you're going to say nice things!!

Why'd you have to ruin such a lovely thought by sticking your tongue out...

It's stuck out in a cheeky way, not a nasty way, still like the page.