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

Hello Mark and the rest of the team. Many thanks to you all for bringing back h2g2 as quickly as possible.



Some things have occurred to other resarchers and myself in other forums on the site, and i felt that it was best to bring them all to your attention sooner rather than later.



Firstly, the new domain name bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide sort of gives the impression that the site is aimed at a UK only audience, rather than the global community legacy tha twas set out with the original h2g2.com. Will the original domain be reinstated eventually (once the previous licence for it expires), since not only does it suit a global community image, it is also a lot easier to remember.



Secondly, the removal of the tag from the GuideML set has been regarded by a number of researchers (and not naming names, at least two italics), as a very bad move. I do understand that the BBC are concerned that researchers may place copyrighted images on their pages, but not all artwork is externally copyrighted (such as user created artwork for community pages). There was talk ages ago of the possiblility of an image server, but this in my opinion is completely unfeasible for 2 reasons:

a) Storing users images on a BBC server will cause the already atrocious lag problem even worse,

b) It would not look good on your part going up to Greg Dyke (or whoever is in charge at BBC NewMedia) and asking for a few extra terabytes of server space . The obvious solution (tried and tested in the past), is to make researchers use existing webspace and rely on our own personal judgement of what is suitable for view.



Finally, a really serious problem has come to light with regards to URL blocking within journals and forums, that could prevent edited guide entries from being as good as they possibly can. As you are aware, Scouts and other researchers at times wish to post an external link to a URL in order for a researcher who has an entry in Peer Review to improve it. How are we to supply such information if it is just going to get immediately deleted? Even though it isn't my place to say so, I'd have to propose two possible methods to get round this:

a) Remove URL blocking for the Peer Review and related pages

b) Remove it entirely and replace it with the 'cannot guarantee suitability' message that is present on entries and user spaces.



Thank you all for reading what has got to be one of the hardest messages I've had to write in my history as a researcher. I look forward to all your replies.



Regards,

Croz (Scout)

I would like to add my concurrence to Croz's statements, with the sole exception of the domain name. Personally, I don't care what the domain name is, so long as the Guide continues to provide an atmosphere where international researchers are welcome. The stated policy of deleting posts that are not in English seems to be a step backwards in that regard, however. It was DNA's appearance on German television that brought that particular sub-community on board, and I can't help but feel that they'll feel unwelcome if they are no longer permitted to communicate among themselves in the parent tongue. Still, I guess it would be difficult for Big Brother to filter their content in a foreign language. Personally, I lament the need for any such filtering.

Croz's concerns relating to external links raises another point. First, as a Scout myself, I can verify that providing external links to researchers working on articles in Peer Review has been a common occurance for myself, especially when I try to discuss an aspect of a subject that the researcher has overlooked. But one of the things that I enjoy most about H2G2 is the way we can exchange ideas about controversial subjects without fear of being pelted by various blunt or pointy objects. In that way, H2G2 has gone a long way towards shaping my ideas about Life, the Universe, and Everything, which is exactly as it should be. But when you get into abstruse discussions on controversial topics, you have to cite references in order to keep the discussion honest. Since these discussions are taking place online, internet resources are the best choice for references. Take away the references, and you handicap those discussions. You'll end up relegating the discussion to an endless litany of "Nu-uh!", and "Uh-huh!" Other conversations start out with a link to a news article, and people discuss their take on it. If we can't link to the appropriate source, the only alternative is to copy the text into the already heavily loaded SQL database.

Not only are these types of conversations a vibrant part of the community, but they lead to articles. Sure, some are biased, but eventually the writers get down to the business of producing balanced, Guide-caliber entries. These kinds of conversations also provide diversion for the brightest minds in the community, keeping them interested enough to provide high-quality content for the Edited Guide.

I think handicapping these kinds of conversations is a big mistake. If people stop talking about such things, then all you'll have going on in the forums is a bunch of virtual tea parties. It's very difficult to get a quality Guide article out of such content.

I've said elsewhere that I don't mind about the pictures/Java thing. However, I have to agree with Croz and Colonel Sellers on the URLs - I can survive without them, but I know a lot of people will have to change their habits, and indeed it will be a problem for the Peer Review. If URLs were allowed in forums, surely it would be sufficient to:

a) have the standard BBC external sites disclaimer on the forums
b) encourage people to Yikes! posts with unsuitable external sites

If by any chance such a setup wouldn't work, then by all means return to the current setup, but couldn't we at least try it?

Surely you trust some of the community to take the small amount of time out to check for unsuitable external sites from time to time? I certainly would.

I think the simple solution to offensive URL posts in forums is to allow researchers to complain with the Yikes button. The community can help you regulate the URLs just as it will help regulate forum content.

I shall still be using the http://www.h2g2.com/A123456 links myself - quicker to type, easier to remember. TPTB have said that it will be changed to point to BBC/h2g2/guide when the site goes live. And my T-shirts still have the correct URL. There's no rule forbidding you to use the old URL if you'd prefer.

The UK focus does concern - this ain't the HHGTT United Kingdom... the restriction on language just about has to be discriminatory and unlawful - If it's still there come launch date, I'll be yikesing it.

Photos - I think this'll be ok. People will get hosting elsewhere to display their photo albums. The post, atelier, bikini comp, etc, get BLOBs. I can't think of any other reason people use pics in h2g2. As a compromise, though - why not allow fotango pics? fotango censor for obscenity and copyright - so they should be safe.

The URL blocking thing is, frankly, a joke. The easy solution is to replace the "o" of "com" or "org" with a star - isn't an external website, so the censors can't touch it - it just takes a little extra work from the person following the link, to sub an 'o' back in for the '*'.

An even easier solution would be to ignore the T&C, and just paste URLs w*lly-nilly, since the censors take a while to censor posts, and the chance of someone yikesing your post cos it has a URL is so low as to be non-existant. However, I can't recommend this. If I do it myself, it'll be by accident...

*looks distressed*

Insert ******************* before "isn't an external website". Oops.

I agree with most of what has been said here. The pics had to, but I don't think the Fotango suggestion would work as that was a commercial partnership which would have been dissolved during the buy-out.

And I hate to say it but the self policing won't work. This is now the BBC, and so they have to be very careful of the content. This means that they can't trust that kind of legal responsibility to a group of volunteers.

Oh - it was a censor, not an idiot mistake. {or rather, it was an idiot mistake, but it was an idiot mistake by the censor}

Sheesh - this is dumb. Worse, it's inconsistent - elsewhere, URLs which don't point to external websites have correctly been left intact, but some of them have been vaped. It also makes it *really* hard to ask legitimate questions about this.

Yuck.

Well they don't have to rely entirely on self-policing, but since the system's in place why not use it?

But then I suppose the BBC have to cover themselves... there's a solution though. If volunteers can't be entrusted with the responsibility, why not pay us to do it?

Of course, there's never enough money... and there's probably a very good reason why that's a very bad idea, and it's probably not a debate we should be getting into until at least next week.

What do you think the censors are being paid with? love?

Complaining about a post seems to delete it whilst it is referred for moderation. I "complained" about 2 posts here http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F647?thread=99190&latest=1 - a user & a staff one. Shortly after the complaint was lodged the user post was shown as removed - the staff one wasn't (or doesn't appear currently to have been). Surely, the community using the Yikes button to alert the Towers about unsuitable posts/URLs. "Too much work!" I hear someone cry - well it's got to be less work (& less costly) than someone having to wade through *every* post. I'd guess that most of the moderation requirement stems from the Beebs 9PM Watershed (anything before 9PM should be for general consumption) & the fact that the world is round - therefore it is always before 9PM for a large proportion of the planet) & unlike TV the website is available worldwide. There's a bunch of official information to be found on these areas here http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/editorial/prodgl/index.shtml & here http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/bbc/acc_watershed.shtml ;^)#

"Surely, the community using the Yikes button to alert the Towers about unsuitable posts/URLs."

Should have read ~ Surely, the community using the Yikes button to alert the Towers about unsuitable posts/URLs is a viable alternative.

;^)#
also known as clumsy fingers

One would imagine that the BBC can't afford to take the chance... oh I hate legal stuff! And people in general get on my nerves as well, because without people there'd be no Incensed from Croydon to complain about something they consider inappropriate. Without them, Yikes!ing would be perfectly sufficient...

Perhaps some breakfast would help make my thoughts more coherent. Excuse me.

There is also another problem in that as h2g2.com, the site was a small company with limited resources. As BBC/h2g2 there are all the resources of the BBC to "borrow". This means that there is more incentive for outraged individuals/companies to sue over improper content. Not only can they potentially be awarded more compensation, but they also get all the publicity associated with taking the BBC to court.

So unfortunatly the Yikes! button alone will never be enough.

I'm afraid that the Yikes button will be too easy to hit accidentally. There's also the possibility of abuse - somebody doesn't agree with what somebody else has said, so they hit the little Yikes button and remove it. I hope/presume that the Yiked forum postings will go to a central source to be reviewed for content before they're removed.

I have a problem with removing the URL capability. If we can reference books, television shows, movies, magazines, and newspapers, we should be able to mention Internet sites. Sure we can avoid the problem by not including the full address, but this seems cheesy to me - why not admit that it's okay to do this, and provide h2g2 with the ability? We're a global community - let's include all of the globe!

Also - what's the deal with this 'name removed by censor' tag? Is the name naughty? Or did the researcher choose to change his/her name to that?

- Lentilla

Yeah, but when you hit Yikes! You get a new window which has a cancel button, so hitting it acidentally does not mean that a complaint is immediately sent off to the Towers.

As I understand it, you currently can't get round the URL ban by starring out part of the URL, or by only including a partial address. Dropping the http, or the .com, for instance, won't help, nor will starring them out.

This may change as the censorship process is reviewed and improved over the next few days.

> "what's the deal with this 'name removed by censor' tag?

I changed it to that. Back now - it was only causing confusion anyway.

Oops,
Martin/Lucinda/MyRedDice

Yes, I was wondering who you were... please don't do that!! I would have thought that if anyone's nickname needed moderating they'd change it back to the default or something (ie Researcher 55669 for me). That'd be more sensible...

Let's hope nobody's nickname needs to be moderated.



And on a different note:

Argh!

* hits Mozilla which seems to have decided to ignore all presses on the arrow keys for the last week *

Perhaps it's time to get another nightly build.

from the House Rules:

> "if you do pick a Nickname that isn't acceptable, we will simply change it back to the default."

You think you have problems - I'm using NS6...

Mozilla is much better than NS6 provided you're using Mozilla 0.7 or later. Actually, even M18 was better than NS6...

Back to the topic, that's a good House Rule! And good practice and whatsoforth. (Is that a word? Probably not, but who cares?)