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

This is a personal opinion, and I need to get it off my chest. I don't expect for any policy changes to be made because of it, it's just a rant.

I want to expand a bit on something I said... yesterday I think, about being uptight about scaring away potential PR writers F55683?thread=609357&post=6824798#p6819224

I've worked for shopowners and managers who are absolutely paranoid about losing a single customer. They're so immersed in the (what I consider to be) bullsh!t of customer service training that they they can't countenance a customer saying 'I'm never coming here again' and storming off. They'll quote all sorts of statistics about how many customers will never say anything, just never come back, and about how many of their friends a customer will tell if they have a bad experience in a shop (lots) as opposed to how many of their friends they'll tell if they have a good experience(far fewer). They'll also regale you with a story about someone who was on the point of storming out but who was persuaded to stay, and subsequently became one of their best customers, spending enormous wads of cash every week.

I see a similarity between that, and the attitude here that we mustn't do anything to lose any PR newbie.

I'll be the first to admit that my manner can sometimes be a little... abrasive, and the fact that we're having the discussion in the other thread is clear evidence of the impenetrability of the system for a number of Researchers. Then, of course, there are plenty of people who will always simply ignore the system and just do what the hell they want without reading TFM

And yes, I know about how you almost didn't come back to us Jodan

However, we can't have *everything* perfect in life. Sometimes you have accept that that customer/Resarcher isn't coming back, and you have no idea whether that Researcher is going to be A R Shams or Gnomon. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, perhaps tens of thousands more customers/Researchers out there.

Anyone who comes in on a system that's been in progress for a time has to understand that they may get something wrong, and that they may not be the first to do that thing. If someone says "Oh no, not again", there may just be a good reason for it. No need to get all bent out of shape or turn around and vow never to darken this website again. People these days are just too damn sensitive, and mollycoddling them with customer service/PR fluffiness isn't helping the situation.

And before anyone tries to say it, of course I'm not advocating that we treat everyone with short shrift

*Reluctantly puts away cat o' nine tails*

He's got a good point you know...

Do I use that story a lot?
It's really a pretty good little story, I think

You do seem to enjoy telling it Jodan, but I wouldn't say that you've over-used it... yest

I'll be honest. I probably would have mentioned that I almost left in a reply to this if you hadn't have told me not to, because I disagree with pretty much all you've said

But my views on this subject are fairly well known, so I'll give the floor to someone else.

So will I

*Huffs*

Well I agree with parts of both your arguments...and you both know that...so I also give the floor to someone else...

Actually, no I won't I'll add something that happened today.

There's an email list I belong to (one of about half a dozen or so). The list owner cracks a firm whip - you can't be off topic, you must edit posts before replying, that sort of thing. The bloke must have a sphincter you couldn't get through with thermo-nuclear device.

His zealotry p!sses me off sometimes, and he's gathered about him a handful of list moderators who are as much a bunch of muppets and little Hitlers as he is, but unlike someone today who told him where to shove his list, I've stuck with it and will continue to do so because it gives me a lot of interesting information.

Unlike Jodan, I did just walk away from PR and never return to it.
Perhaps I should take another look at it. See if it seems as unwelcoming as it did two years ago.
Then perhaps I can get ‘all opinionated’ about it.
Not right now, ‘tis 5am.
When I was ACE-ing I would always encourage new researchers to look at the writing guidelines, think about what they may have to contribute to the EG and see if PR was an aspect of the community they'd want to take part in.
Can't say I ever got feedback on the subject of PR from anyone I'd ACE'd but it did seem that those that joined in were the one very confident of it being their place to write authoritatively on a subject or their place to criticize others work, ability and such.

Hi BV - your argument is bulletproof - to be honest there are people out there who submit to PR that do it either out of complete ignorance, a touch of madness and occasionally out of pure badness - there's absolutely no way we should be running after redbeardthered or evoskepsis or even to be spending too much time on the relatively moderate percentage of researchers that post a five line article on how crap their town is, get a decent enough response from a peer reviewer and *zap* we never hear from them again.

But I don't think anyone is actually saying that we should run after everybody who submits something to PR and mourn their passing with sackcloth and ashes if they choose not to return.

Also, there are some occasions when we get a researcher reacting disproportionately to the eminently reasonable comments of a reviewer and promising that they will never "darken our halls" again. Yep, often we can't really do much about that either.

My intention was to create a debate to see what, if anything, we could do to improve the experience for researchers, both new and existing. The people we do want to reach out to are those people with an interest in developing the guide and an ability to produce articles worthy of it. I don't want to scare them away for the wrong reasons, and I do want to explore if there are reasons why we might be scaring those researchers away.

OK... I've had a couple of dozen entries go through PR, most recently a couple of months ago. I don't write for the EG any more (my last entry aside), partly because of two or three specific incidents involving an arrogant (now former) Scout, erratic editing, and bizarre censorship. So that's where *I* am coming from.

My view is PR *should* be a robust place. It *should* be a bit intimidating. Just a bit.

The newbie should be cossetted, at first. They should be given a few chances to fit in. If they seem like they're trying, they should be cossetted some more. If they seem like they're the sort of person who expects US to fit in with THEM, they should be hounded mercilessly from the site, or PR at least, as soon as possible.

Once a newbie has had an entry accepted, they know the score. They're "in". They may then, I would suggest, be reasonably held to a slightly higher standard, and expect more robust criticism.

It's worth bearing in mind, I think, that while probably most people have one or two good Edited Entries in them, hugely prolific people in the mould of Demon Drawer and Gnomon are rare. If someone comes here, writes a good Edited Entry, then disappears, we should be happy we got that much out of them, because odds are that's all they had to give.

My own feeling is that we should be encouraging TURNOVER of people in PR. We should be aiming to have MOST new entries be first entries. We'll get a greater variety of subjects and styles that way. Sure, every now and then someone else will turn out to be the kind of person who churns out a dozen or more good articles - then we struck lucky. Great! But the focus, I think, should be on getting NEW people to do their first entry, rather than necessarily trying hard to retain people as contributors. People who WANT to keep contributing, WILL keep doing it, almost in spite of anything we might say. I know I did.

So - get more people into PR, but be ruthless about weeding out the timewasters. Test the waters, give them chances to show they understand what we're trying for here, but if they don't respond - off with their heads!

H.

Couldn't have put it better meself.

Hey Gosho!

Fine words up there, but you just stuck one in a PR thread with a smartarse remark about wanting a smiley. No words of encouragement. Nothing but that snide comment.

I really don't think you should wish for that smiley
With that habit, you'd get a hell of a lot of them trailing your own postings.

Now, if you taken the trouble to look, you'd have found that you were dissing a first-week Newbie and their first Entry. Mot just that, but you'd have seen that a pretty venerable Researcher (acting as the ACE) clearly encouraged Flying Possum to post that Entry in PR.

We might differ on our opinion of Entries that aren't ramrod straight, but I'm not criticising you for that. We need all kinds of opinion here, and that's cool. I'd personally agree that the Entry in question was unsuitable, but there are ways and means of telling people that.

So I'm calling you on common courtesy, and the inconsistency between what you did to Flying Possum and what you posted above.

Please learn some manners. Please pay everyone the respect of a little time and consideration. Please stop thinking your some kind of special.

Pin (really quite p*ssed of with a low number of low numbers who should know better)

I disagree.

What - exactly - makes you so sure that I didn't take the time to look?

If you'd read the welcome, and disapproved of the advice given, you'd have taken it up with the ACE, and with the ACE alone. You'd have been meticulously careful not to diss a badly-advised newbie.

That is, unless you think that a cheap joke is worth more than a new Researcher's feelings.

If you did read the welcome first, then I think your remark in PR is even more inappropriate.

Looking at this another way, what's really wrong with a first stab at PR like that one? We all have to learn. What exactly does a bit of friendly guidance cost us?

Whenever a first Entry reveals enthusiasm for writing and evidence of ability, even if it's all wrong in style and/or content, shouldn't we be trying all out to educate the Researcher and steer them towards EG-fitness?

Well? Shouldn't we?

I don't generally make a habit of reading other people's conversations, but you're right, and I shall take it up with Granny Weatherwax.

You're missing the point entirely.

I don't think Granny's advice was particularly good in this case, but I don't think she needs talking to either.

I didn't post to suggest that you should sort Granny out. I posted to suggest that you should think about your own approach.

Without the benefit of a response from the Researcher in question, I think you're likely to be having more of a problem with it than they are Pinn. I reckon that ruder and more abrasive comments have been made to a newbie in PR, and some of them even from me.

And I *do* think that Granny needs some friendly advice on directing newbies with unsuitable entries to submit them. I shall be perfectly nice to her

I'm going to date myself a bit, but I'd like to point out that Peer Review owes its origins to the old Fun Run in which researchers polished their entries with discussion from other researchers. And I'd like to see that community-minded spirit return to Peer Review.

"You can help fellow researchers get their pages right. Don't worry if your engish is not up to scratch - just point out what you like and dislike about an article - there are always others who can correct grammar if it is required." -- from A130852

I think PR is too negative. I think one of the problems with PR is that the same folks visit and comment on entries all the time and they get sick of the same mistakes and one-off writer (the Subs had the same trouble once upon a time when they decided if entries were up to par or not).

I don't know how to attract new blood to PR to help the regulars from developing burn-out. I do know that I'm not commenting as much as I should because *I* don't find PR to be an inviting spot.

I'm afraid I don't have answers, but I do know how I would like PR to be. Just not how to get it there...


Not really all that valuable for my but that's all I've got at the moment.

The first thing that comes to mind is to make the Scout role a role with an expiry time. If you only get to be a Scout for 6 months before you have to move on and go back to the bottom of the waiting list, maybe Scouts won't be so quick to dismiss newbies with unsuitable entries.

I remember putting my first entry into the Guide - we just had the old 'submit' button then. I was in agony waiting to see if it was good enough for the Guide, and was over the moon when it was accepted. Of course, then I didn't know that at least half the entries submitted just said 'mostly harmless' and the replies they got were often quite rude (so I've been told), so my entry had a bloody good chance of being picked. Now that it's all out in the open, that agony of waiting has gone. The rude remarks have gone because everything is out in the open.

But I do think that the waiting to see if your first entry is good enough for the Guide is still a thrill for some people, and to then get a rude remark from someone else *in public where everyone can see it forever* is going to put people off.

Jimster once said (and I don't know if this was onsite or just in the office) that he gets a real buzz from helping people into the Guide via PR. It's a shame more of the Scouts can't be like him. Getting a buzz from helping to turn an entry into something good is surely better than just being dismissive? If you haven't got time to be kind, then maybe people don't have time to be Scouts.

Especially as being rude or dismissive for *whatever* reason, is against the Scout's Code of Conduct.

Scouts have a responsibility to the Researchers whose work they are criticising and to the other members of the team. It is vital that Scouts are unfailingly polite to Researchers. When posting to the the Peer Review Page, you must always consider the feelings of those whose work you are criticising. Most Researchers are not professional writers, and it is vital that Scouts are positive in their feedback - suggest how to improve entries, rather than simply say that they are not good enough. Scouts who consistently leave tact out of their dealings with Researchers may be asked to leave the group.