This week, the View reviews the results from the last column's poll, and continues Project Spy. It also looks at ways writers can help make the Edited Guide feel a little more complete.

There are 37 entries on the What's Coming Up page, 6 more than in the last column. And there are 292 entries on the Peer Review page, 3 more than reported last time. If we add the statistics together, we get a total of 329 entries, a tiny increase of 9 since the last report.

This tells me that little about the editing process changed at h2g2 during the holidays. This is just as well as far as I'm concerned, since this column took the holidays off along with The Post. Also, my own personal experience was that the majority of researchers took a break from h2g2 during late December, especially where writing new entries was concerned.

A total of 79 threads total have been moved from the Peer Review page to the Writing Workshop, an increase of 24 since my last report. There are also 126 threads in the Sin Bin this week, 7 more than before. So while the number of entries in Peer Review remains fairly steady, the number of entries being rejected and placed elsewhere is growing.

The University of Life released two additional projects during the past three weeks. These helped make up for the brief (and understandable) drop in new Edited Entries during Christmas week. The average number of newly edited entries released per week was 24.33.

As an odd factoid, I noticed that The Paul McCartney Death Clues has been sitting on the What's Coming Up page since I began checking it. The entry was recommended for the Edited Guild almost three months ago. All the other entries recommended on or before October 18th have long since been released. While I'm sure this is no comfort to Bluebottle, the Death Clues entry certainly wins the record for the longest waiting recommended entry under the Peer Review system.

Last week, I included a brief survey to mark h2g2's landmark 2500 Edited Entries. The questions were perhaps a bit miscellaneous in nature, but many researchers stepped up to the plate for me anyway. You may want to check out the survey results directly.

To summarize the results, about 1/3 of the respondents identified themselves at Scouts. This means my responses are probably a little different than what you might see from the general h2g2 population. But notably, nobody answering the survey felt that h2g2's range of Edited Entries feels 'very complete' to them right now. In fact, 4 out of 5 said the Edited Guide will never feel complete.

When asked whether they would purchase a book full of Edited Guide Entries, the respondents were divided. 45% would 'probably' or 'absolutely' purchase the book. 20% said 'no chance,' or 'not today.' And the other 35% said 'maybe' or 'only if it's cheap enough.'

A remarkable 81% majority would prefer h2g2 to utilize Peer Review in the future, but only if some technical improvements are added. Only 6% are satisfied with Peer Review as it stands today.

Also interesting, 73% of the respondents are only comfortable waiting a few weeks to find out whether their entry will be featured in the Edited Guide. Another 17% prefer their answer within a single week. Currently, h2g2's average wait time is still a matter of two to three months. But things have been improving since Peer Review took over a few months ago.

Finally, I asked whether the respondents had ever commented on somebody else's entry submitted to Peer Review. 25% had done so either once, or not at all. And only 10% could say they frequently commented on other people's work. This just goes to show how little h2g2's regular authors understand how to help one another out.

That survey made me reconsider my hunch that 5,000 Edited Entries will be enough to make the Edited Guide feel complete. Clearly, my opinion is in the minority! But surely the Guide can feel more complete than it does today -- if we really work on it.

So how do we manage that? The easy answer is that we need to continue writing for the Edited Guide. But really, it takes more than that. Adding thousands of cookie cutter entries on topics similar to what has already been covered will only do a minimal amount of good. That nice, complete feeling takes quality as well as quantity.

The authors among us really should take a periodic look around to see what the Edited Guide is missing. Browse the topics and ask yourself whether a whole category is missing, or whether important topics within a category need to be added. And if you see an entry with an obvious companion topic that hasn't been covered, consider covering it yourself.

If a whole area of thought has been sadly neglected, head over to the University of Life to take care of the problem in one glorious sweep. The Admissions Office is always looking for new volunteers. You might also consider helping out someone else's project by browsing the Current Projects list.

And of course, there is always the Index of Unwritten Entries. Even if you're not a writer, you might consider contributing your ideas for new entries there. And of course, a writer looking for something to write about can go there knowing they'll have an interested audience for their efforts.

Finally, remember that style is and should be variable in the Edited Guide. While entries must always be factual, they can also range from silly to dry to fascinating to downright entertaining. Examine the trials and tribulations of your own everyday life to find topics outside the norm. Often, the best entries are ones outside the strictly academic view of life.

Project Spy is an ongoing project for this column. Several volunteers send me periodic updates on their entry's progress through the Peer Review system. Through them, we get to spy on the emotional component that makes the editing process at h2g2 so unusual.

So far, two of my four volunteers have had their entry recommended by h2g2's Scouts. One is still waiting with baited breath, while Volunteer #4 seems intent on improving his entry and hasn't contacted me in a while. None of the entries have yet reached a Sub-Editor to the volunteers' knowledge.

Volunteer #1

January 5th:


There's not much to report about the proceedings of this entry. Nothing happened in the meantime, and as far I can see, there's no copy of it somewhere which would indicate that it was assigned to a sub-ed. I know that it takes its time for the entry to appear on the front page, and don't feel bad with it. As a footnote, I've got some more entries running, and one was recommended after 2 (that is: t-w-o) days) on the PR.

Ah, yes, the Peer Review. PR was listed under the "five most busy" conversations most of the time since the new ad-banner came up. Now I'd really call this a place where the community is at work!

So long then, and a Happy New Year!

Volunteer #2

January 3rd:
I've had three comments since I submitted this entry to Peer Review [in late November]. Three!

I don't know what's wrong with this entry. Everyone who has bothered to read it has had positive things to say.

[One researcher of note] said 'Direct, to the point, and doesn't leave out anything of import that I noticed.'

But so far only one Scout has looked at it. :-(

And he's told me that he's looking at entries even older than this for his next batch of three. From what he's said, a bunch of Scouts only seem to select from the most recent entries, leaving lots of good stuff just sitting around.

I don't have a lot of entries in the Edited Guide, but I'm surprised at how poorly Peer Review seems to be working on an entry like this.

I think you may be right that something on a kind of boring topic might get passed over while other, sexier topics get lots of comments.

Volunteer #3

December 22nd:

So, [the entry] was recommended last friday. By [Scout's name], if I recall, who was the third scout to comment. They were all very kind, and liked the entry, offering no advice for improvement.

I think in a way this points up a weakness. If the standard of entries were, for arguments sake, pretty low, when a scout happens on one that is reasonably well put together they will say 'Great' from relief more than anything. I, on the other hand, would welcome comments from better writers, even if its just punctuation and grammar. In this particular entry, I was worried that I had not got the point across effectively and would have been very pleased if someone had said, "I see your point, but it might be more effective if you did this or that"

[A second submitted entry] has attracted no more comment this week. I have also put up two new entries in PR, one of which has attracted no comment whatsoever, and the other of which which quickly got a couple of people - not scouts - commenting, but again just compliments, so far.

Finally, this week the first entry I ever did, back at the end of July, was on the front page, I also have a couple of others up this week, and one next week. So, I am finally a contributor!

Next week, the View will explore how h2g2's regular researchers can help the writers out -- and how h2g2's authors can lend one another a helping hand. Writers need care and feeding, and h2g2 provides several unique opportunities for this. So come back next week, and learn how to Feed the Writers.

Fragilis the Melodical

Click here to see previous weeks' Views.

Opinions expressed in this column are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of h2g2 or the Post.

08.01.01. Front Page

Back Issue Page