A Conversation for Old Announcements: January - September 2011

This thread has been closed

24 July, 2003: Suitability of Content on h2g2

Post 221

a girl called Ben

smiley - ta


24 July, 2003: Suitability of Content on h2g2

Post 222

SEF

Ben: "Well, I always find it is simplest to start with bite-sized chunks when asking questions. That way I do tend to get answers."

It isn't the size of the questions (or even necessarily the number) but the quality, as with so many other things. The unanswered questions were simple enough but possibly/probably not of a type the h2g2 editors wished to answer whereas your questions had essentially already been answered for the most part or were not pertinent. Mine and Peet's were more pertinent and therefore necessarily impertinent also. smiley - winkeye The only one of yours which came close to being important (and repeating what we had already asked) was deflected rather than answered.


24 July, 2003: Suitability of Content on h2g2

Post 223

Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like


Or alrernatively yours and Peets questions were important enough that they have gone away to think about them. Knee jerk answers help nobody under the circumstances.

Rome, as they say, wasn't built in a day. This isn't the only thing which the italics are dealing with at the moment, so giving them a little breathing space might be beneficial for us all.

smiley - shark


24 July, 2003: Suitability of Content on h2g2

Post 224

SEF

Then they could have acknowledged them and said they were being considered as they have done with other things.


24 July, 2003: Suitability of Content on h2g2

Post 225

Peet (the Pedantic Punctuation Policeman, Muse of Lateral Programming Ideas, Eggcups-Spurtle-and-Spoonswinner, BBC Cheese Namer & Zaphodista)

What she said.

smiley - smiley


24 July, 2003: Suitability of Content on h2g2

Post 226

Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like


Yes, they could have.

We *all* have feet of clay from time to time.

smiley - shark


24 July, 2003: Suitability of Content on h2g2

Post 227

a girl called Ben

Well, presumably you have fins of clay, Sharkey?

smiley - winkeye

B


24 July, 2003: Suitability of Content on h2g2

Post 228

a girl called Ben

BTW - I am going to be gadding about for the best part of a week with intermittant access at best, via Internet cafes, etc.

Have fun, and don't get the site closed down while I am away, eh, guys?

Ben


24 July, 2003: Suitability of Content on h2g2

Post 229

SEF

The BBC have already closed the message boards. So they are rapidly running out of site anyway if you mean the whole of BBCi. smiley - yikes However, there is some hope this means they are actually trying to fix the software (it has been malfunctioning a lot).


24 July, 2003: Suitability of Content on h2g2

Post 230

~ jwf ~ scribblo ergo sum

Just how hard can software get?

No, I'm not sure if I really do wanna know.
But I really did have to ask.

smiley - biggrin
~jwf~


24 July, 2003: Suitability of Content on h2g2

Post 231

SEF

Well it is ludicrously off-topic as well as presumably being mostly a joke. But software can be hard in a couple of ways at least. It can be built into and indivisible from the hardware - so one might say it is as hard as the semiconductor materials which embody it. Plus it can be very intellectually hard - which is why it is a bad thing that much of it has now been made easier to do by those not fit to do it employing tools written by those not much better at it.


24 July, 2003: Suitability of Content on h2g2

Post 232

SEF

So it is easy to do but hard to do right - or, to put it another way, I would not want those message boards running a nuclear reactor or chemical plant etc.


24 July, 2003: Suitability of Content on h2g2

Post 233

The H2G2 Editors

Hi Peet & SEF

Please accept our apologies for not answering your question. We are just discussing it now and we will be back with an answer shortly.

The Eds


24 July, 2003: Suitability of Content on h2g2

Post 234

Peet (the Pedantic Punctuation Policeman, Muse of Lateral Programming Ideas, Eggcups-Spurtle-and-Spoonswinner, BBC Cheese Namer & Zaphodista)

smiley - wowsmiley - tasmiley - ok


24 July, 2003: Suitability of Content on h2g2

Post 235

Peet (the Pedantic Punctuation Policeman, Muse of Lateral Programming Ideas, Eggcups-Spurtle-and-Spoonswinner, BBC Cheese Namer & Zaphodista)

"I would not want those message boards running a nuclear reactor or chemical plant etc."

We're sorry, this message board is now closed. Any critical reactor control commands you enter will be reviewed in the morning by our moderation team before being acted upon. Thank you for using our message boards, your messages are important to us.

smiley - skull


24 July, 2003: Suitability of Content on h2g2

Post 236

The H2G2 Editors

Hi SEF

Can you let us know which number posting your question is in?

Thanks


24 July, 2003: Suitability of Content on h2g2

Post 237

SEF

Post 112 F77636?thread=299215&skip=100&show=20 and Peet asked a rather similar one at around that time too (simulposted).

A number of unanswered points were also made later but are phrased less as questions since they were part of the ongoing discussion in the absence of any visible italics.


24 July, 2003: Suitability of Content on h2g2

Post 238

SEF

Incidentally, Peet, it's not so much the overnight closure - though messages are not queued and reviewed any more for most boards - it is the way that individual posts, threads and even whole boards go missing randomly(?) for hours or days at a time. Some people can see and reply to a post which others can't even see, though they might see the reply in another view of the board. The numbering of posts has always seemed pretty random. So, continuing the analogy, the reactor alert might be listed as coming before the causative events and not be visible to the operator at all.


24 July, 2003: Suitability of Content on h2g2

Post 239

The H2G2 Editors

Hi Peet!

>>>If there is no policy of systematically reviewing unedited entries, when an Edited entry fails to pass the revised interpretation of the guidelines would it be possible to switch it back to "unedited" status and attach the A-number to the original author's (or original editor's, in the case of collaborative work) personal space?


As we said in our reply to Ben we will be looking at this on a case by case basis. But as a general rule of thumb, there are a number of issues with just removing the Edited status from an article. It would need to be removed from the Categorisation system, and as it is our policy not to link to unedited entries from the Edited Guide, we would need to check which other entries link to it. It would also mean that there would be two versions of the article on h2g2.

What we are proposing instead is that the Edited version is removed and the unedited version is left on site. We would also keep a copy of the Edited version to send to the author and the Sub if they so desired. We should point out that this is our initial reaction to this question. Should our views change, we would let the Community know.

smiley - pony

SEF

There was no systematic review of content. We were alerted to the fact that other BBC people felt that some Edited Entries did not comply with the BBCi Producer Guidelines. We reviewed the entries, agreed with the opinions of our colleagues and removed them from h2g2.

It is fair to say that at first we not entirely clear on the reason why our initial decision to give them Edited status was perceived to be a wrong one, but on balance and following a series of meetings over the last few weeks we agreed with the opinion of our BBCi colleagues. It is never our intention to mislead the Community and we apologise for any confusion in communicating these decisions.


24 July, 2003: Suitability of Content on h2g2

Post 240

Ferrettbadger. The Renegade Master

So editors,

Out of interest does FB's sanitised version qualify for the edited guide.


Key: Complain about this post

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more