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

That all in fact sounds very good. There ARE many posts in PR or in the WW that would definetly go into the other new systems (ie. Flea Market etc.)

I do not think that a subdivision of the PR into Life/Universe etc... is sensible. This subdivision would tend to attract only interested people, hindering a broad feedback form people who are not experts or interested in the category. For example I would rarely check into the literature section (if there was one), but on the other hand if I stumble across an interesting sounding literature-entry I would read it - and sometimes I have some input on that topic. By categorizing the PR I would rarely read literature-stuff. I also like non-experts to review my entries, which are mainly scientific. For many reasons: First, to see if my explanations are comprehensible by someone who does not have any expertise on the subject I was writing about. Second, there are often diferent aspects people point out, which I would not originally have seen (from my scientific bias for example). This input is immensely valuable. I would not want to do without this input.

I am afraid that a subdivision of the PR in the above mentioned manner would cause the reviews to become restricted to a handful of interested people, and consequently diminish the feedback (in quantity and quality). It would probably also slow the process down.

I am afraid that certain topics would even go unnoticed by the scouts, due to poor feedback and/or lack of interest. (I don't know if there are enough scouts to cover all areas)

Summarizing: A subdivision into different reviewing processes mechanisms (Flea Market, PR, WW,...) is a good idea. But please don't subdivide the PR.

Too many subdivisions could stall the process of reviewing and cause a loss of broadness in feedback.

best regards,

HELL

That's cool, HELL. All we say is that it's technically *possible* to do this with the proposed system, but you're right, it doesn't mean that it *is* a good system. It might, for example, make sense to enable authors to categorise their entries into a subject when they do put it into Peer Review, and this would then wimply be another field on which you could sort Peer Review - so you can look at all the PR entries in one go as ever, but you can also look at all those on sport, if you so desired.

Anyway, we're certainly not going to be splitting into subjects straight away, and would only consider it if the size of the PR Forum got out of hand. At that stage, we'll discuss the best solution - and you're points are good ones.

Fully agreed, HELL! Splitting PR would also split the Scouts into groups of interest, plus it would make it harder to keep an overview of what's going on.