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

Seriously though, if there is anyone out there that feels I haven't earned that badge, please let me know, and I will do a proper project to earn the badge.

Well it would be good to see summat like this A10892126 but to be fair you've already done a lot of work and probably deserve the badge. The problem comes when differentiating between projects and entry categorisation systems - though it would be good to have batchs of entries interlinked to facilitate navigation around h2g2, it seems a bit funny if you could just say "let's make C731 into a Uni project and give all those involved badges". It's a grey line, but remember that the point is collaboration, which is one of hootoo's greatest features IMO.

The University was originally designed as a way that people could collaborate. If there was a topic that required 10 entries, 10 different researchers could contribute an entry each and each would get a Field Researcher badge. But it rarely seems to work like that now. Most university projects seem to be just one person putting in five entries and getting a badge.

You're right, Alex. I'll try and write some top-level entries (or even just one) on musical instruments which will tie the whole thing together to make a proper project out of it.

It looks as if that has changed, though, so I guess collaborative entries will be rare

Collaborative Projects

Most projects are collaborative. For collaborative projects, the person who co-ordinates the project will receive a Field Researcher badge on their Personal Space. If any Researcher has contributed significantly to five or more entries in the project, they may also qualify for a Field Researcher badge. It will be up to the project co-ordinator to let us know of any individuals who qualify.

"What is the h2g2 University?"

Let's clarify.

Is the University's primary function

(a) creating a series of linked entries which

(i) cover a subject extensively (A595082)

and

(ii) are linked internally, as well as through the categorisation system, so that the extensiveness of coverage is emphasised;

or

(b) to streamline the passage of linked entries through the review and editorial processes.


In other words, is the University focussed on what ends up in the Guide (in which case Gnomon certainly deserves his badge) or on how it gets there (in which case he doesn't)?

TRiG.

I've always thought it was the first, as what gets into the guide is the important matter (and would you look at the size of that radar project )

So there isn't any point in the University then, really.

Why should a University Researcher submit all five together, when he/she could simply enter each individually into PR and claim the 'Five on a theme' badge after the event? If this is how Field Researcher badges are awarded now, there is absolutely no point in the University whatsoever. It's just a badge to given out pointlessly.

I've completed five Entries in C54910 - so if I do a little Curating job to link them together I get a new badge? Of course not, and I can't believe that anyone could feel that would be right. Let's not forget that those Entries have already contributed to my shiny '25' badge. I didn't put those Entries through the University as a project, and giving me a badge for them adds nothing to the Guide or my personal satisfaction with the site.

If I want a Field Researcher badge, I'll put a series of related Entries through the University project and hopefully be awarded one at the end. Making up projects after the event is a bit of a joke, to be honest. Sorry, Eds, but you've got this one wrong.

(Sober if grumpy Rich )

Hello Rich,

We're very sorry that you feel this way. We want the University to encourage people to write Entries based around a particular theme. This whole issue has arisen as a result of badges being given retrospectively - that's because some Researchers have written a series of Entries on one particular subject, without connecting them with the University.

This could be because they didn't have many Entries in mind at first and felt more inspired as the writing process went on, or it could have been that the University wasn't 'open' at the point they submitted their Entries. Whatever it is, it seems a bit churlish not to award the badges just because they didn't initially link their work with the concept of the University.

We've got two schools of thought here, and we're trying to deal with it in the fairest way possible. What this thread has raised is the fact that if we are to award badges retrospectively, then the Entries should have more than vague links - there should be a definite idea of a project, and the navigation should reflect this too. That's not to say, though, that we won't give people the chance to amass 'credits' as they go along.

Thanks,

The h2g2 Editors

Well, the university pages suggest that the answer to my question is B, but your post suggests that it's A. Should we have two seperate universities?

Say, keep the name University for A: it suggests a body of knowledge.

And create a new name (how about Guide Projects?) for B, the streamline of a group of entries through the review processes.

Or, to prevent confusion, create a new name for A too. People who write a number of entries on a similar theme over a length of time should get In-depth Resercher badges. Gnomon gets one of them, alright! People who put a bunch of entries on a similar theme through PR at the same time, or who do it in the way the University is currently intended to operate, get Project Writer badges.

How about that?

TRiG.

I thought my answer suggested a) and b)!

We are extremely pushed for time and resources here at the moment, so we don't necessarily want to add new levels of complexity to existing projects.

However, the University pages do state: 'Often we've changed an idea because, after debate with the volunteers, we've realised that things would be better if done differently.' So - although h2g2 is made up of diverse individuals and 100% Researcher agreement is unlikely - we do really appreciate feedback like this, which will help us if we decide to make changes in future.

In my opinion, the most important aspect of the University should be the ability to get a group of people to produce a project that one couldn't. Although each case should be looked at individually, as Rich said there's a badge system for rewarding solo contribution, so the Field Researcher badge must be for something different - collaboration.

Fair play to those who have slogged their guts out and feel they deserve a reward for doing so, but the Uni is utmost and foremost for group efforts of various shapes and forms.

As an aside, it would be nice to see people coming up with groups of entries that can be linked with 'nice little curator jobs' without the need to give everyone involved a little badge, as it does look quite good if someone reading up on a certain subject is surrounded with links to other relevant 'nearby' entries on the subject - it adds a lot of extra value to the site. That isn't to say that the curators should be stuck with an extra task, though - I'd encourage the authors of the entries to provide the code themselves. Oh and I know the categorisation system is there to help with this, but rough and ready links staring people in the face are also handy things to have.

Alex

c.c..c...code?

Oh, you mean like: A13441321

It's not really code, it's just markup language. But it looks sort of codey.

Yep that's right GB, though you don't have to say "this is a continuation from...", and once you've done all the entries you can have exactly the same links bar at the top of each entry, with the link to that entry missing so that it appears black instead of blue (white instead of pinky in Goo)

I still don't understand why a Researcher would want to go to the bother of creating a University project when they can get exactly the same reward by putting Entries through PR one by one, or how handing out badges retrospectively adds anything to the Guide. It's a waste of time adding navigation to Entries just so that someone can claim a badge, too.

The Field Researcher badge will become just something else to collect, rather than something to be worked for and earnt; this just de-values it completely.

What do you think of my proposal, Rich?

TRiG.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the system as it is, Trig (retrospective awards apart). A is what every Guide Entry should be part of in any case, though linking them together would be an almighty amount of work for little gain - related Entries are already linked through the categorisation, through links and the text and 'References' tags already. Putting a bit of code on each would be unnecessary work, and I would resent being asked as a Curator to do this. We should be working for the Guide, not Researchers' vanity.

I don't think the University is for B, either.

I think, as I've said above, it is a way for Researchers to tackle big subjects, to write about and research Entries they may not have written otherwise, to collaborate with other like-minded Researchers on projects and to increase the number of Entries making it onto the Front Page slightly.

So I think it's a good proposal in principle, Trig, but it doesn't address the issues. Whether Entries should be streamlined through the process or not isn't part of what I'm baninging on about

Or banging, perhaps?

Thanks, saves me looking it up ( probably without any result,too )