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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A568820

A very well written Entry. It started of as a description of a band, but soon the author noticed that the band's fate is oh so true for almost every band. Comments are welcome.

P.S.
It's not mine. It's written by Catwoman.

Jeremy

Aaaaah! Lovely The reworking of the 'Furball' entry has made its debut to Peer Review -- and I'm sure it will soon disappear again - into the Edited Guide because it fails to fail, so to speak.

Bossel (Scout)

I really hope that it will fail to fail ...

"Most bands in Dublin don't have more that one gig ..." (The Commitments, 1991)

I must admit I'm not quite sure what to make of the fact that almost nobody has commented (sorry Jeremy and Bossell - I'm sure you're not 'almost nobodies'). Is it so well written that no-one has any criticisms (a-hem!) or is the title so damned uninteresting that no-one's even read it? In which case what makes a good title for an entry in PR? If one includes the word 'sex' in the title is the entry more likely to generate interest? Won't that just irritate people who read it only to find that there's no sex in it? I think I'm drifting off a bit, but it's a (mildly) interesting pause for thought.

No, no, I've read this one before--I read it in its Furball form, and I have read it now, in its generalized form. Part of me, I must say, misses the story of Furball, but I understand that the Editors woud probably have rejected it because of that pesky first-person subjectivity business. Is the Furballed version available somewhere as a regular old Guide entry?

Anyway, I very much like this entry and wouldn't change anything. Well done!

Catwoman,

if I hadn't been convinced that the Entry is worth going into the Guide, I wouldn't have touched the thread at all (I'm a rather lazy Scout sometimes ).

I have read it thoroughly, trying to find some points of constructive criticism, but I failed. I didn't do an intensive search for typos or grammar mistakes, which takes lots of time for a foreign language speaker, I'd rather leave that to the Subeditors. In my opinion the Entry is great as it stands, nothing to add, nothing to take away.

Lack of feedback can be a good sign, too ...

Jeremy

Catwoman,

I think it's exceptionally well written and is good guide stuff - sometimes a lack of response is also because people are busy doing other things - sorry

As far as I'm concerned, this will make it into the guide - I can't see any reason why it shouldn't.

Keep it up.

Thanks for all your comments - I didn't mean to sound bitter about the lack of interest (honest!) but if user numbers are allocated sequentially there must be over 150,000 users of h2g2. Makes you wonder what everyone is doing, but then you start to realise there are a million better things to be doing than sitting at a computer. Guess I've answered my own questions.

The Furball entry is available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A586019 though it's drastically reduced. I don't really know what to do with it to be honest - I was going to submit the edited form to PR but not sure if it's worth it. Maybe I'll reinstate the details and leave it as an unedited guide entry.

Catwoman, you already know my opinion

As things are, I'm trawling all over the site with lots of browser windows open. If I stumble over a thread which has lots of praise in it, chances are that I'm making a mark in my list and go for another thread. 'Saves me around 3 minutes and the author already knows' is what goes through my mind.

The .../guide/info page reports some 84000 registered researchers. This number includes all those who have gone long ago (including the h2g2 down time aka Rupert), an immense amout of multiple identities (some researchers have 14 of them ), plus many people who only visit the site occasionally to have a beer in their preferred pub. As a very rough guess without having any sound standing, I'd say there are a few hundred researchers who are regulars or even addicts (like me).

You could try and go to /guide/newUsers to see how many of them didn't even change their name and how many didn't modify the initial blank page.


I'm waiting for the PR debut of Furball!


Bossel (Scout)

Thanks for your recommendation. You'll be glad to know that we think this entry is great, and it has now gone into the Editorial Process for future inclusion in the Edited Guide. When it does get into the Edited Guide, we will email to let you know, but please bear in mind it can take a while for entries to go through the sub-editing system.

Well done Catwoman , now perhaps you can get back to the Buzzcocks entry

Linus

Oh, can you see how fast this entry failed to fail?

The Buzzcocks entry is still in my backlog, and *not* forgotten!


Bossel (waiting for furballs )

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Peer Review' to 'How to Fail as a Pop Group'.

This thread has been moved out of the Peer Review forum because this entry has now been recommended for the Edited Guide.

If they haven't been along already, the Scout who recommended your entry will post here soon, to let you know what happens next. Meanwhile you can find out what will happen to your entry here: http://www.h2g2.com/SubEditors-Process

Congratulations!