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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A576821

This is a new variation on a core theme of the guide. The results themselves are surprisingly conclusive and quite different in derivation to any others I have seen.

Hi GH 007.25,

This is interesting, and certainly creative. There's a minor factual error which may pose a problem:

English is one of the most spoken languages on Earth. Next would come Mandarin Chinese, Bengali, Cantonese, Spanish, and somewhere way down the road, French.

You're creative enough that you can probably find a way around this, however.

Arpeggio, for LeKZ (linguistics bxtch from Hell)

Good point - thanks for that, I will edit it right away!

I thought you could.

This entry is great, but it will not become an Edited Guide Entry in its present form, because it is not fact, it is fiction. Entries can be about things like belief systems, (such as reincarnation, religion, etc) but not normally about the belief systems of single individuals. So if you want this in, you'll have to start a cult and get about a million followers.

Why? Didn't the computing really take place? Haven't they actually calculated all that stuff from 42? Seems pretty real to me.

(OK... why not take 43 or 8376... - It's not real science but hey.. who said the guide is only about super-perfect science?)

Why should this entry leave PR and not enter the edited guide?

Certainly not because of the contents (Check out the "How to perform the Woopty Loopty Doopty[...forgot the name] or "The goatee must die")...

There is a lot to improve in there though.

I still did not get proof# 2, so any number that results in a 1 in the end is a proof... OK... but a proof of what, to GET UP AND MIX?

Hmm... There's some lot of retouching work to do on this entry to make it into the edited guide. The contents and the topic is fine though in my oppinion.

HELL

Perhaps a few more of these proofs may add to the weight of this entry.... And whoever said 1 is the ultimate digit? I thought it was 5.....

Oh... I thought ZERO was the one.

Hello,

As much as I like silly math games, I'm afraid I don't really feel this belongs in the Edited Guide. It is amusing to read, and somewhat apropos for the site, but I personally don't think it really jibes with the purpose of the Edited Guide, which I see more as a somewhat offbeat Encyclopedia of eclectic factual information. Perhaps if you wanted to rechristen it more like a silly math game, or even incorporate it into an entry on more math games (like the one that returns your age)... I also would emphasize that the Deep Thought is a reference to the book, since we are not trying to write for the fictional H2G2 here (call me pedantic). And neither are proofs in any technical sense (again, I'm pedantic).

That said, I want to emphasize I am NOT condemning the entry. There's lots of great stuff in a library that's not in the Encyclopedia, and there are likewise many great things in the Unedited Guide.

Yours,
Jake

I couldn't help but laugh....

"I thought zero was the ONE."




In any case, I think the article is in the right spirit and should be in the edited guide. However I also think some refinement is in order.

Namely, get up and mix....I'm thinking margaritas or something

Then the last proof with the string of numbers. Folks I'm no math man, and I had no idea what I was looking at.

Don't ditch this one though, I'm interested to see how it turns out.

I agree with Mr Cogito - it really isn't one for the edited guide - but of course it can stay as a personal entry.

What do you mean: "of course it can stay as a personal entry???"

OF COURSE "of course it can stay as that." Noone will delete it if it doesn't make it into the edited guide.

Anyhow... I'd like to point out that the only acceptable valid reason for taking this entry out of the PR right now would be that it needs some serious retouching and some inflating.

The Topic per se and the way it is written, though, are IMHO fine enough for the guide.

In the past I also thought that entries like this (or the 'How to perform a WDLL...' or 'The goatee must die') had lost nothing in the EDITED guide, and should remain as an unedited fun entry. BUT - Looking at discussions (go check out the threads they might change your mind) brought me to the conclusion that these entries are, indeed, valid for the edited guide... not from a technical point of view (I am a scientist, and had to change my frame of view to accept that) but from a philosophical or artistic perspective.

OK... So here are the facts on this entry.

- There IS a well-known piece of literature that endears the number 42 for some reason.

- There are weird computer-geeks out there performing all kinds of number-gymnastics to find out if there IS an actual deeper meaning behind 42.

- Some of them came to (highly questionable) conclusions,

which the author of this entry set out to portray. IMO that's totally OK and would not conflict with any guidelines of the edited guide.

Thanks for your attention,

HELL

Fair enough. Better go and volunteer as a scout then and recommend it.

Afraid I'm with Mr Cogito on this one - nice as it is - I reckon this would get bounced by the PTB if it were recommended. Sorry but as said before - it would get bounced on fictional grounds imho.

Sorry but that's the way I see it.

Anyone else?

Orcus

Hey, what the heck is PTB?

Have you seen the entries I mentioned?

Anyway... My 2p are in here.

Over & Out

HELL

PTB stands for "Powers That Be", an informal term for the Editors of h2g2.

PTB is Powers That Be.

Yes I have seen them and agreed that they were also fiction/opinion.
Doesn't make them bad, just not suitable for the edited guide.
The Goatee must Die ended up as a Post article which was

As I said Hell, feel free to disagree - that's what Peer Review is for. Lucien's a Scout and is on your side

It's a question of approach. An entry which says "This, the long sought answer which tells us the purpose of our lives" - is claiming that it really *is* the answer - which is controversial, at least. An entry which says "Some people have hailed this as the long sought answer which tells them the purpose of their lives" is fine. Well, in my not-so-humble opinion, anyway.

You may be interested in the (edited) entry on Santa Theories, which deals with similar stuff&nonsense, though this one is nonsense physics rather than nonsense maths. Find it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A571556

And, in case it hasn't been said enough times already - the opinion of Scouts is no more or less important than the opinion of anyone else in Peer Review. Indeed, I treasure the opinion of experienced non-Scouts to a greater extent, for the external view on the process and its failings. Thank you for sharing your view, HELL, it has been a great help.

To paraphrase Douglas Adams, that great big whooshing sound you hear is this entry going right over my head. I mean, it's very unclear whether this is factual or not, and what use it serves. Edited Guide entries have to have a certain factual, useful basis (useful in that one can actually learn something) and this entry falls short. Remember, it's still in the Guide, it's still searchable - nobody's going to take it away - but as it stands it doesn't make much sense and it's not going in the Edited Guide.

Sam.

If the title changed?

OVER & OUT

HELL

Oh.. just forgot.

No one said it's a bad entry - I've seen tougher comments when that is the case... And everyone knows it's going to stay in the guide.

The question is edited or not?

Again: If the title changed?

AND: Apart from the topic being in my modest oppinion suitable, there IS quite a LOT to add and retouch in the article as it is now. So... All I am saying is: There IS alot to retouch and add to this entry before it gets MY recommendation. But the topic per se and the way it is written is not being objected against from my part - for reasons I have pointed out.

Definetly over & out.

HELL