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

Suffering fools, eh? I think that's the wrong attitude, really. These are real people, and I believe that the vast majority of people can be trusted and are competent *if given a chance*. I imagine that at one time on this site, I could have been classified as a fool (well, I still can be called a fool, but never you mind that), but I took a chance and started contributing.

"To be unfailingly positive about each and every entry that we come across is as valueless as being unfailingly negative."

That's not true.
You can be positive and assertive at the same time. You can be positive while saying 'No'. It's not the message, it's the attitude that bothers me, for one. Entries that are not suitable must be removed - that's just good housekeeping. However, that doesn't mean that we can't make a new or inexperienced person feel welcome. Challenge them - don't scold them. As the saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar (is that right?)

This post has been removed.

"Would either of these epsilon semi-morons somehow miraculously improve their output?"

I'm going to answer that question with a question-
What harm does it do to be polite and helpful to them?
And now I'm going to answer my own question. (and I hope you don't mind the ongoing narration)
Nothing. If you're under the impression that this would only encourage more crap going into PR, that certainly wouldn't happen if the reviewer calmly and helpfully explained the rules and offered examples of more suitable contributions. The author might be challenged to work on his writing and everyone could end up enriched by the experience
What harm does it do to be rude to them?
Plenty. Not just to the 'semi-morons', who might, yes, miraculously improve their output (I did) but to the authors who feel insecure about submitting their stuff to a PR where things like that go on.

Well, in my very considerable experience, they don't improve. I think you're being a little harsh on yourself by alluding to the idea that you started at the same point that they did. I'm sure you didn't, because people like me can, believe it or not, tell someone who has the makings of a good Researcher from one who doesn't and probably saw that you had actually engaged brain before hitting Submit.

Besides, when I was a Scout, I preferred to enrich by experience those who had the potential to appreciate it. 'Pearls before swine' and all that...

PS: I've just had a thought about something you said earlier: 'These are real people..'

Frightening, isn't it?

Well, even if I were to concede that point, and I'm not and I hate to even write those words, the appearance of a harsh PR obviously keeps some researchers from submitting there. So the helping of 'morons' helps PR by encouraging the lurkers and those who hear about how nasty it is to submit.

When you put on your Bear hat, out of what motivation do you do it?
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but is it to embarrass or punish those who didn't read the guidelines? Is it out of a genuine interest for the site? Do you think that newbies like to see the reviewers being harsh on their fellow newbies?

No, it's because it helps me appreciate better when I am being really positive and supportive, which is a lot more often than not. And also when I am disagreeing with an author because of what he/she is saying instead of how they are treating their subject. It helps me hone my critical faculties.

Now, how does being unfailingly positive aid me to that end?

Not at all frightening, FM There's something admirable about a person jumping into uncharted waters, I think.

By the way, I now realize I did probably come off as putting words in your mouth. Sorry about that.

Simulpost.

I hate to say this, but I think that you honing your critical faculties should ALWAYS take a back seat to the comfort of newbies and the betterment of the site.
You don't need to be a noted critic to see which parts of an entry need rewriting or some facts that need to be included, if you happen to know something about the subject. It's something almost everyone can do effectively.

Depends on whether you think the newbie will amount to anything. I'm pretty confident of my ability to do this. Are you?

Anyway, this is my last word on this subject, unless anyone tries to buttonhole me about it again. So I shall flounce out.

FM (*ex*-scout)

No. I'm not remotely confident in anyone's ability to tell whether the newbie will amount to anything.

PS: something I should really have not let you get away with: you conflate the 'comfort of newbies' and the 'betterment of the site'. I have seen no evidence to suggest that these are both the same. They aren't.

All due respect, yes they are.
A newbie sees a site that is hostile to the new folks - is he likely to join in the fun?
A newbie is comfortable and at home at a helpful site which welcomes and enjoys the presence of all new folks - no matter how misguided. Is he likely to join in the fun?
More newbies joining in the fun = more reviewers, more entries, more volunteers, more fun!

Well Oojakapiv, thanks for the invitation, I'm very honored. I do hang around peer review quite a bit, trying mostly to be helpful and sometimes succeeding.

Formerly Phred

I think that there's a world of difference bettween being unfailing positive about everything and being impolite. I wrote an entry which contained sometips on how to be fluffy but yet firm.

A1159751

Scouts are effectively the quality control of the guide. But we're also the people that some newbies will have more contact with than anyone else. If a newbie wants to join the guide primarily to write then they are going to have to come into contact with more scouts than anyone else.

We need more people to write for the guide. We have to encorage the raw talent that we get and mold it into something suitable. We all needed molding ourselves afterall.

Z is of course correct, and that page, by the way, doesn't get linked to enough. It's an excellent page... and I'm going to put it on my PS right now

No Jodan, comfort of newbies and betterment of the site are not the same thing at all. I recall that we made the LD-users comfortable here, and for the most part they contributed sweet FA to the site. There were one or two who did contribute something, but this was heavily outweighed by the grief and annoyance that many of their peers caused.

That's a good point Grey Desk, but newbies who contribute to PR are at least trying to contribute to the site.

Peer Review *does* have a reputation amoung h2g2 of being a scary place. I don't see why, I don't find it scary, but maybe I'm one of the monsters hanging around scaring people!

If we are rude to someone who submits a moronic entry then lurkers who are going to submit excellent entries don't want to contribute. The writting workshop rarely gets any traffic, so people who read all the guidelines and want to learn to write don't get any feedback.

I agree with FM on one point here -- I do think that the people who submit such drivel are unlikely to change their ways and work towards something we'd be proud of. I have seen it happen, but so rarely that it doesn't really bother me to think that we're scaring those people off.

That said, it *does* bother me that I've heard from so many hootooers (including long-time members) that they are unwilling to venture into PR because they've been put off by the hostility there.

When I'm polite to the drivelers, it's not for their sake that I do so -- it's for the sake of the others reading the thread.

But, we've been round and round this wheel many a time before, and I know that FM and I will continue to disagree on this.


Mikey

Hello GD
Oh no, you've twisted my words! I did not say that comforting the subset of newbies and PR inexperienced people that were the LD'ers is the same thing as the betterment of the site. Though I did say that comforting newbies is the same thing as the betterment of the site, I meant that it leads to a better EG.
Overall, I stand by my belief. Offering certain troublesome folks as an example will always cause an exception.

"I recall that we made the LD-users comfortable here, and for the most part they contributed sweet FA to the site. There were one or two who did contribute something, but this was heavily outweighed by the grief and annoyance that many of their peers caused."

That's not the right way to compare things. Was or was not the grief of all the LD'ers outweighed by the contributions of newbies who were made comfortable, anytime, ever? That's the comparison I'd make.

By the way, I think it was just as much the LD'ers site as yours and mine. The site's main purpose may be the EG, but it doesn't belong to the EG participants any more than it belongs to the guy who's never heard of Peer Review. It helps our purposes in working on the EG for the newbies to join in, but a healthy EG does not an h2g2 make The site has to be sticky too, or no one would stick around.