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

In trawling through 355 conversations on the Peer Review Page, I found 23 more conversations for the Sin Bin...

... and of the remaining 332, a total of >>37<< (ie, 11%) which didn't receive a single comment after more than 3 days. And this has driven a huge lot of people off, I guess.

It raises a question, too. How long do you think the average researcher will wait for a reply before getting impatient? A day? Two? Three? A week? I dunno. It might make an interesting poll for next time.

Thanks for the additional info, by the way, Bossel.

Did you visit every thread? Is that how you were able to estimate the number of entries with no replies?

Yes, that's what I did over last lonesome weekend (and I really /wanted to know/ it exactly ) and hence this is a count, not an estimate. Sometimes I also visited the author's homepage, just to make out whether they're still active. I'll include the list in friday's email, if you are interested.

What I did not count (I realized too late that it was significant) is the number of threads which fell asleep after a few comments, with the /author/ announcing to do the requested changes, but never ever returning. That includes some scouts and ACEs as well! In a few cases I also visited these entries, but never found any which was actually modified according to the proposals (this was only a random sample).

As to the question above: all in all, it depends on individual settings. A few researchers obviously quit h2g2 the other day (perhaps mistaking the forum for a chat group or so), but my impression is that 2 or 3 weeks of silence is the average timeout condition for researchers with a single entry running. Those who had more entries, or even edited ones, lasted longer or are still active (in particular, the above mentioned scouts and ACEs).

Found a few interesting quotes as well:

Researcher in reply to first comment:
My dearest [...] Thank you generous sir, thank you! I feel so ... validated! I'm very new to this community, screwed up repeated trying to post my article, and was deeply wounded by the interest it very clearly failed to stir! Actually, I thought perhaps I annoyed readers by accidently posting the same thing three times, and I don't have clue one who I managed that feat.

another researcher, also in reply to the first comment:
Gee, it's replies like this that make the week-long wait worth while. I'm really glad that you enjoyed it so much, and I think I'll make a biographical entry on [...]. I'm really thankful that I finally not only got a reply, but a positive one.
*Flies away while humming REM's "Man On the Moon"*

and a third researcher finally gave in and left the other day:
I'll take your silence as "'fraid not, b****r off"

Thanks for the additional info, Bossel. I knew it would take a long, long time to examine *all* the Peer Review threads. I would certainly like your list. And may I quote you on your research in next week's column?

Of course, that's what I'd like you to do. All this has had me thinking a lot about /feedback/ in general and I'd suggest this as a headline: 'Feedback and Information'.

I tried to make my point clear in the 'Peer Review Rejection' thread, but didn't feel anyone really read it.

I'm going to put it into some more words for friday, but the bottom line surely will read:
No feedback is the worst of all ways of feedback,
vice versa: Any visible feedback is better than none
and knowing how things work can help to sustain periods of silence.

phew, I put the pieces together now, and made an entry out of it: http://www.h2g2.com/A487253, Feedback
It's still in plain text, but that will change.
So you may copy from there, or perhaps link to it from your summarizing View from H2G2 .

Wow! It's clear you put quite a lot of work into that.

I don't feel I want to summarize. But I will reserve a small section to discuss your article on Peer Review responses. And I'll include the little statistic at the top of this whole thread, if you don't mind.

One interesting point you've made is that writers want support, but they don't necessarily take the time to give support to anyone else. They don't want to go through Peer Review to see whether they can give feedback on the other threads.

Hmm. Good job. Let me know if anything about the article changes significantly. It definitely deserves a link.

Thanks for the feedback!
And yes, apart from the scouts there really aren't too many people who post in response to other researchers's announcements more than once. Seems as if 'peer' review were mistaken for 'scout' review.

Hi Bossel,

I think this is really important, thank you for conducting your investigations so thoroughly. This is a topic that both the Scouts and the PTBs need to look at, and I'll post a link to this conversation on the Scouts eGroup - I hope that's okay.

From personal experience, I can tell you it's a balancing act in terms of effort and time. Clearly, few if any Scouts have the time to visit every single thread in Peer Review, though I hope that most do more than find 3 they need that month and bugger off again. I think the initial "fizz" has died a little and people aren't going the extra mile quite so often.

The other problem is, some entries really leave you speechless. Some are so bad they almost defy comment - it needs a certain mental discipline and toughness to tell someone that harsh fact, and I have on occasion run away from it.

More often, though, an entry is just - how to put this? - lifeless. It contains a bit of information, possibly just enough to be recommendable, but you're not sure. It's a topic you know nothing about, and you don't really know what questions to ask to take the researcher further, nor does what's there inspire you to know more. The writing style's quirky or difficult, and you can see that it'll be a lot of hard work to make a good article - and it's not easy to know where to start. Another conversation catches your eye, and you think, "Someone else will take this on" - and you slip noiselessly away.

As a researcher, I've suffered the fate of initial welcome followed by silence. When each Scout is looking for just 3 articles, and while there are so many corkers to choose from, a half-way good article - or a good one on an obscure topic - will tend to get overlooked.

I'd love to hear what some other Scouts think - so I'll go and get some

As I will be telling you elsewhere, I have a couple of entries in Peer Review at present which have attracted no response whatsoever. But I have no intention of removing them. I know they are well written and I know they are 'Guide Material', and they can just jolly well sit there until someone notices. Every week or two, I might polish a little, or add links etc., and maybe put a comment in the thread to bring them back to the front. The trouble is that they are not about sex, or witty, or silly, or short, or brilliant. But I don't feel insecure about it, just calmly awaiting recognition or any other sort of feedback. Why do otherwise?

And can I just add that perhaps reactions are different if you are a writer by trade (which I most certainly am not) as a few here - on h2g2 - seem to be. I admit, though, it is a trifle galling to see some entries which are patently not well thought through or well written getting attention and publication. I wonder if there could not be a filter before the Peer Review, just to say 'ready' or 'not ready'. But then I suppose the idea was to save the editorial team time and labour

Hi Pheroneous,

First of all, I've visited all three of your articles (I hope there are only three) and left comments in the threads - overwhelmingly supportive, I assure you . Nice diversity of subject matter!

Secondly, I think (as Fragilis says in the article above) that Peer Review is working quite well in keeping the standard up. There are still entries from the queue system being added at the moment too, so it's hard to judge the full impact yet.

Finally, Mark has responded promptly and effectively, by producing a list of all thread creations which haven't been replied to. This gives the Scouts a chance to make sure that the ignored can be heard - with the added bonus that "the meek shall inherit the Guide", as those who have re-posted to their own threads to 'bounce' them to the top of the list won't be highlighted.

I think that's a good start, but there are some anomalies that won't be as simple to sort out. As you say, there is a bias towards 'eye-catching' entries, as a natural consequence of the way the scheme works: talked about subjects appear at the top of the list. However, that is also commercially good for h2g2.com, because they are more likely to attract readership, so I don't think it can be entirely eradicated.

So, the process has begun - though suggestions of ways to make it better are still welcome.

GVI

That's the problem with entries on 'exotic' topics. They won't find too many scouts and researchers with an inclination or background on the subject matter. And on the other side, h2g2 wants to cover /everything/. So this really needs a die-hard writer!

Isn't the H2G2 Writing Workshop just what you ask for, a filter before the Peer Review ?

PR is still really the filter - it's just that we've decided to empty it (to the Sin Bin or Writing Workshop, depending on the flaws) to unplug the pores and let the stuff that's really ready run through more quickly
GVI

aaaha
I'd add another suggestion: something ought to be done with postings from 'retired' writers. Either put them on offer to anybody, or move them back to the homepages, with a note to re-post it if they changed their minds. Anything like that. As it stands now, /nobody/ can have an overview on the situation.