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

I'd like to know what people think about this basically. I don't think it's right for peer review (despite the fact that everything stated is entirely true) but would like to get a critique anyway.

It's not dull

Thanks in advance.

--David, who can also be expressed numerically

I've only had a quick glance over it (actually only reading headlines and 'diagonally' through the rest because I'll be heading off to work in a minute) so this *is not a profound review* but I'll come back to that

In Peer Review it would encounter problems because it doesn't really talk about reality. How about alerting the h2g2 Post people to it? See http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A566651

It's a direct hit to my sense of philosophy and rings dozens of bells (just compare with Endless Loops (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A444845) which of course will languish in Peer Review forever although I tried hard to enrich it with facts.

There's also a project called AGGH which tries to collect philosophical pieces: Alternative Galaxial Guides for Hitchhikers, http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A506675. The true/untrue point raised there will of course have to be discussed further because yours contains pure truth.

Bossel (will be late at work )

ROOOFL I'll only need three words for my comment...


Ex - cell - ent !!!!!

I could propose some more octu er... occupations:

Business secretary: **
filing away eight files simultaneously but unable to answer the phone.

Cleaning the windows of skyscrapers: ***
well equipped with suction caps hence capable to run up the wall without help, saliva also works as antibiotic.

There's another place for pieces like that: the FFFF (Freedom From Faith Foundation) at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A254314 but you'll need an official rejection to submit there

Bossel (Scout)

err... wrong. No rejection required

This Conversation has been moved to the new 'Alternative Writing Workshop' as it doesn't necessarily fit the guidelines for the Edited Guide at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/Writing-Guidelines (and Peer Review and the Writing Workshop are now only for discussion of entries that are being put up for the Edited Guide).

You moved it after no replies for five weeks? How much of a threat to the universe was this thread? And if it was so terribly dangerous why was nothing done before now? We could all have been killed!!! The scandal!

-- David, sarcasm £3.95 a jar

I'll buy a jar! Err... no, sorry, I could start competition with my stocks of that

Well, the thing is that a huge initiative was launched to clear the Review fora of obsolete threads (this applies to some 80 threads which belonged to entries which were recommended from Peer Review), duplicate threads (around 12), threads which have siblings on PR (another 20 or so), and abandoned threads (author left 3 months ago, a whole lot of threads which went to the newborn 'Flea Market' at A608762). You can follow the discussion at A591473.

Another outcome of this discussion was the creation of two new places, one of which being the Alternative Writing Workshop where we are now. Its purpose is to create a home for humorous and fiction articles which, although being great to read, won't meet the Guidelines for Edited entries. Ta!

Hi there

I was going to have a look at this since it sounds worth a read but I will have to track it down 'manually' because there doesn't seem to be a link to it on this thread (or did I miss something?)

I don't *mind* tracking it down. It's not that tricky! But others might appreciate a link if poss.

Spiff - *off to find the article*

Hi The Right Honorable David,

I read your article and I think it is very funny. To be honest, I haven't seen anything funnier on the guide yet. It also seems well-written and completely off-the-wall. Great!

Unfortunately, as you have discovered, this last quality is the kiss of death if you covet edited status. But all is not lost! Edited status is *not* the be all and end all around here. I am *certain* there are lots of registered researchers who love this kind of thing and are missing out on the chance to read it because of the guidelines.

I have recently come across a group of such people who are trying to get a project together that would provide a legitimate space on h2g2 to showcase stuff like your article. For the time being the best place to find out more is probably http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A506675.

In the mean time, I do actually have one or two *tiny* quibbles with your piece. Sorry, don't take offense. I think I have make it clear that I love it! Keep 'em comin'.

Spiff

For other readers, the Octopus article itself is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A586992


PS I have just realised that I forgot to include my quibbles in the previous post!

For what it's worth, here they are:

'octopi' - I prefer 'octopuses' as the plural. Two reasons, firstly it is the 'official' plural given in the dictionary, even though a lot of people *do* say 'octopi'. Secondly, I think it is a much cooler word than 'octopi'. It's fun just to say (at least, it is for me!)

>>
When a mummy octopus and a daddy octopus who love each other very much want to have a baby, the daddy octopus pushes a special tentacle into the mummy's body cavity and passes a packet of sperm along a special grove [GROOVE, I THINK!] in the tentacle. The process takes place at arms length and afterwards the daddy will never see the mummy again. The mummy octopus will lay anywhere between 100 and 400,000 eggs depending on her species and environment. She will care for these eggs, forsaking her own needs, until she dies of starvation. Her sacrifice is admirable and stupid, since only a few from an entire brood of many thousands will survive to adulthood anyway.
>>

I include the whole paragraph as an advertisement for the rest of the piece!

Spiff

Thanks Spaceman,

I'll see about making those changes when I have some time.

The thing is, there are 2 versions in h2g2 now. 1 that I can edit and 1 that I can't because it's in The Post. It's actually one of very few articles to be put in The Post twice.

As for writing more, I seldom have the time now since I am in the fourth year of my degree. But if you pop over to my personal space you can read How The War Was Won -- which is of the same theme, but not as technically well-constructed as The Octopus. How The War Was Won was also in The Post. No doubt something else will filter through to there eventually.

-- David, get into the grove, baby!

This is good stuff!

Actually reading this makes me livid. It is GOOD. It is ACCURATE. It fulfills the 13-Guidelines. And it still got slung out of PR....

I think this should be in the Edited Guide myself.

In fact this whole thread is a case-study - it involves the Post, a nascent AGG/AGG/CAC and an entry which adheres to the Guidelines but which was rejected for the guide.

I am moderately tempted to retry the entry in PR. What do y'all reckon?

Ben

I think the same thing actually...it has a definite EG feel about it. It all depends on whether the author is still present: if so no problem. If not, then I don't know what we'd do!

This is good. "Things An Octopus Is Bad For; Sustained flight" . And I never knew their ink was poisonous to themselves.

Being picky I think for an EG it ought to hide just a couple more facts in there about how to tell the dangerously poisonous ones when there are no fleeing marine biologists around. Other than that I'm with you - the EG should allow for entries like this. But I don't fancy your chances .

Pinniped's Harbour Seal entry is another I think should be an EG entry. It's full of real facts.

If the EG is not going to take this I think we should have an Underguide category called something like Informative, Instructive and Factual - with added flair and a twist of lemon.
Waz (prospecting for the Underguide-to-be)

OK...so it won't get into the EG. It might however get into the UG in the satire section?

How does that sound?

To be quite honest, I don't like the idea of an Informative section, but much prefer a satire section: it states what it is and would let quality pieces such as this and the library games entry....

I'm glad this is still being read so long after I wrote it. I'm not involved with h2g2 now, but I was rather miffed at the time that it wasn't edited. If you think it should be moved and editors want my permission just direct them to my personal space -- I still check back every few weeks.

I don't think it should be moved, but I do think it is good for the Underguide. (The Editors are willing to give 'Edited' status to entries not suitable for the Edited Guide, and to give them an outing on the Front Page).

I think this entry should be one of those, and we would like to work with you on that. This won't involve much from you. In the fullness of what will be a very long time, if it is picked for the Underguide, you will recieve an email from the Editors. It will be subbed by a Gem Polisher, and go to the Front Page. If you can help out the Gem Polisher, that will be great. If you don't want this to happen to it, (and I really hope that you do), then let us know and we will get the entry removed from AWW.

This all presupposes that the Underguide does go ahead, but the signs at the moment are good.

Thanks for posting.

Ben

Feel free to include this in the underguide and I wish you success with the project.

This is all going to take a long time, so don't hold your breath. However, as I said, enough people like it for it to be (in my personal opinion only) pretty certain to get into the UG.

Thanks for posting to let us know what you are doing, even if you are no longer actively active here.



Ben