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

Hobbit, what are you on about?

have I missed something here?

That's where we trust your integrity...

Marjin, if you were replying to me I was wondering what totally random post 15 was about, and wondering if it had somehow ended up on the wrong thread...

Usually such a random post is an answer to post 20.

Any chance of adding a "(Suggest an article)" link under the list on the front page?

That'd probably require a fair bit of fiddling to the code and as this is still quite an embryonic scheme we'd probably prefer to just see how it goes before we start bolting it into the infrastructure .

But that's a possibility for the future, definitely.

Jimster

All it would take is a static link to the explaination page...

It's a good suggestion, but it's just that the boxes that house those 'Top 5s' on the Front Page, including the 'Have You Missed...?' section, are coded to just accept five links and a title - adding a link to the 'Have You Missed...?' page itself would mean we'd lose one of those other entries.

However, there are two other ways we can promote it. One (thankfully) is provided by the fact that this new feature has already entered the top 5 Busiest Conversations box on the Front Page. Another is a link to it from the Read Page, which is something we can do easily.

I must say, we were a little unsure how this would all be received - it's great to see such an interest in the feature after just two days.



Jimster

Another possibility: Is it possible to turn the title of the box itself into the link, or would that give problems with the color?

I'm not sure if it's 'possible', but as it would then look odd compared to the other boxes, I'm not sure it's 'desirable'.

What does everyone else think?

Jims

I wouldn't be overly unhappy with that solution...

That is what I feared, color problems.

It is the only block of that type where an imbedded link looks usefull.

Thanks to Peet's suggestion, this is now being publicised via the Read Page as well.

and keep voting!

Jimster

Now, I may be being dumb, but surely by selecting the entries that the most people vote for, you are by definition selecting the entries that the fewest people have missed...?

B

Not really, Ben, as the number of people who will actively nominate an entry will almost certainly still be outnumbered by the amount of people who just check out the Front Page every day - the very people who might well 'Have Missed' older entries, or might have forgotten about them - or, to use another meaning of 'missed', who enjoyed the entry first time round and are pleased to have 'another chance to see' it.

Jims

"or, to use another meaning of 'missed', who enjoyed the entry first time round and are pleased to have 'another chance to see' it"

I like that.



I was thinking about this when I saw that there had been a reply.

I understand the need for any scheme like this to have minimal impact on resources, and the honest answer: "yep - it might have better to have some sort of review system, but though what we have chosen is not perfect it does have the fundamental advantage of being implementable" would have been a more honest reply, and therefore more acceptable. You really don't need to protect us from harsh reality quite as much as all that.



Anyway, I can't think of a better system, and since I can't put up, I will shut up.

B

Truthfully Ben, we have given the honest answer.

Originally, this was just a little idea of Natalie's to keep the Italics entertained and we at the Towers thought it was a fun idea. It was never really thought of as a drain on resources because all it took was a knowledge of the Guide and an enthusiasm for its many entries. But then someone suggested opening it up to the Community, so we did. Simple as that. Having it as a Review Forum didn't come into it because we didn't think everyone would want to take part, and admittedly we also didn't know how long the scheme might last; it might run and run, or after a few weeks people might stop nominating and then we'd quietly close it down. No harm done. No animals injured (... well, except for that entry on how to gut a rabbit... and some of the other cooking ones... and ... well, you get the idea ).

However, you're right that, should this really take off then eventually we'd probably have to go down the Review Forum route. Personally, I'm just glad it's getting all this attention.

again, Ben,

Jims

As the number of threads under *Discuss this Entry* is limited to 10, the ineviatble has (already) happened...

Two threads for one Entry:
F95011?thread=200538
F95011?thread=201805
(for A531820 Life as a Wannabe Writer)

Is this going to pose a problem <?>

If so, perhaps the HaveYouMissed page needs alphabetically listed tables of current nominations and past *winners*

If not, ignore me

six7's

Ooops!

There is no limitation to the number of conversation threads below an entry (that's what the red bullets are for), but, er...., apparently there is a limitation to the abilities of a certain researcher U132240 to check for existing nominations.

* knocks head against wall *