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

The main changes for sub-eds are that we can edit on site rather than by e-mail. (Though I expect most of us will still copy and paste into Notepad and back again). It's less complicated than the e-mail system, and we can also give other researchers writing credits automatically rather than the staff having to do it. One advantage I can see is the possibility for greater collaboration between sub-editor and author. We can edit the entry, and then leave it online for a few days before returning it. The entry will crop up on the author's page, and so they will probably read it and can post any comments/corrections. This has already happened to me, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F40254?thread=128003 We can also see the page rendered, which helps for de-bugging any GuideML (though of course we never make any GuideML errors anyway ;-)). Disadvantages? None I think. It's annoying if you spot a mistake after you've returned the entry, but that was the same under the old system, and the staff will probably pick up on it anyway.

Thanks for sending your thoughts, Frankie Roberto. It sounds like the new system removes a step for Sub-Editors and gives authors a better chance to comment on the editing changes that are made.

I read through the conversation you references, and it seems much better to me that it was done in private rather than in public after the entry appeared on h2g2's main page. Don't you agree?

Well it's private in as much as anything on h2g2 is private... but yeah I agree it's better to sort it out before it appears on the front page.

It's also better to sort things out before you return the entries (as I found out ), otherwise you have to send the changes to the staff via e-mail.

Good point. This way, the Italics spend less time running about correcting editing nitpicks.

Well, that's if they get corrected before the entry is sent off...

One question to be asked however, is what is going to happen next? There are more subs than ever, the system is being made more effecient, so does this mean... more entries per day appearing on the Front Page?

Let the speculation commence!

I think that the new system is a substantial improvement. I personally like dialogue between myself and the researcher of a piece, and the new system certainly facilitates this. The only b****r is the realisation that you've left something out/made a a mistake after you've sent it off, and then you can't do anything about it. There was an idea tossing around the Sub-editors' mailing list about Subs having continued control over entries after they've left their hands, and I think some sort of system like that might be nice.

Also, I agree with Frankie that we should think about increasing the number of entries put on the front page each day. It would certainly help cut down the backlog...

Good point, St Emily. I suppose the Sub-Editor can still contact the Italics to change something before it appears on h2g2's main page. But it sure is less convenient.

I suggested this (more than 5 entries per day) to Mark some time ago. -- No way, unless the BBC agrees to have more in-house editors, to decrease their workload.

In that case, maybe we should have a two-tiered subbing system, where some subs act as the in-house editors would in certain capacities. I appreciate that entries have to be assessed and proof read, but maybe an extra subbing would speed up the process?

It's not only the subbing, it's also copyright/plagiarism check, still proofreeding, then all the classification and sorting: index, life/universe/..., /month and whatnot. Another subbing level would indicate that the Subs aren't doing their jobs

Maybe these new editors could be created as another volunteer level - like the scouts were born out of the original sub job?

Well I seem to remember Mark saying they could only increase the number of new entries per day if they brought in more staff or increased effeciency. And they've increases effeciency...

I think the new system is a lot 'smoother' than the old one and therefore is a lot better to handle. As most Subs I do the editing offline on a copy of the article, but the possibility to see the changes immediately on site without having to return the entry (ie having the opportunity to make further changes myself) is a good thing, too.

What I'm not sure about is whether the A number of the recommended entry really pops up on the author's personal space. I noticed this not before you returned the entry and after it got status 'pending'. So the author wouldn't know the new A number until it's too late for the Sub to make any changes himself, unless he/she explicitely searches for it or somebody mailed him the new entry number.

Another small point: the PR thread belonging to the article is attached to the original article, while the Sub is seeing the copy of it. To see the PR thread, you have to go to the author's space and from there to the original entry. It's just a few clicks away, but if the author is also a Sub or writes a lot of entries, then it's even some more clicks. This point has been addressed before (forgotten where), but no solution has been found yet.

SchrEck Inc.

Uh, I forgot to mention : It's good that you could now return every entry by itself, rather than having to wait until all four (or whatever) are finished. Some entries are quite easy to sub, while others require more (or even a lot of) work. So the easy ones are no longer delayed by the hard ones.

SchrEck Inc.

The original author only gets the entry on their space when you've sent it back.

One thing that could be looked into if the subs are being way efficient is getting the subs to suggest categories for their entries as well... *shrugs*

The original author only gets the entry on their space when you've sent it back.

One thing that could be looked into if the subs are being way efficient is getting the subs to suggest categories for their entries as well... *shrugs*

You're right, it only pops up on their page when you return it, which is bad. That means the author will only make comments on the entry after it is too late to make corrections. Perhaps this could be changed...

I think they will probably get round to improving the categorisation system sometime...

I think they'll get around to that too, Frankie Roberto. It seems to me that the latest updates could act as a foundation. Other automated things could be built on top. That's just my speculation, of course.

This discussion has proved really useful. I'm understanding a lot of things I wouldn't have otherwise.

But here is a question for you. What should an author do if they see a problem with the edited version of the entry that has popped up on their page? Would you still like them to contact the Sub-Editor first?

I think it's positive for there to be conversation between the sub-editor and the researcher, but it's frustrating when they suggest changes when it's too late for the sub-editor to do anything about them.

I would like to see a process like this:

1. Researcher writes entry, which travels through Peer Review.
2. Copy is made for sub-editor to work on.
3. Sub-editor makes changes, updates the entry.
4. Researcher sees entry on page, will read and make comments if neccessary.
5. Sub-editor can make any final changes if they want to.
6. Sub-editor returns entry.

At the moment, 6 comes before 4, but I'm sure this can be fixed sometime.

I'm probably not qualified to answer this one properly (only having subedited for a bit over a month, not long enough for this to arise). I think that it probably depends on the problem. If its spelling, or just an obvious grammar point or a guideml kludge, there's probably not a lot of point in contacting the sub-editor because there's nothing they can usefully do except either contact the towers or tell the researcher to contact the towers.

If it was something bigger like say I'd rewritten a paragraph and they didn't think that the result conveyed their original meaning I think I'd rather hear about it first so that I could explain why I'd changed it, before they went to the towers. However I don't know, and don't speak for anyone else...