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

Hi, o my worshipful peers,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A662221

Initially, this was not intended to go into the edited guide, so I didn't mind that there were lots of reasons why it wouldn't make it. It's just a bit of fun really, but I've tidied it up and decided it might get through now. Whaddaya say?

PS - It has been brought to my attention that this useful tip only works with MS Explorer. It occurred to me that it *may* work with *some* other browsers. Anybody know definitively?

If nothing else, this one shouldn't take you long to read!

Spiff

Hey Spiff!

I've had method (1) work with some version or other of Netscape Navigator.

You might consider putting the methods before your note about the smileys. The way it is, you're referring to methods one and two before you explain what they are.

I don't know if anyone else will or does, but I for one found this entry quite usefull in learning the subtle nuances (thats got to be spelled incorrectly) of footnotes.

-Strider

This is useful, thanks . I knew about reading footnotes using the mouse but sometimes I still click on the number to read long footnotes. I didn't know that you could click on the footnote number to return to the text. Thats neat. Saves keeping the mouse moving just slightly to keep the footnote pop up open long enough to read when they're long and you don't want to scroll back.

This entry should be in the guide because if more people knew how to avoid scrolling maybe we'd be allowed more than two footnotes per entry (?).

Pending that it might be useful to add a bit to this entry to let authors know that footnotes in excess of that number are likely to be put into the main text in brackets. I've had this happen quite a few times, often after the sub edit stage.

really? I didn't know that!

Method (1) works in Opera too

Rather than clicking the link back into the body, you should use the 'return/back' button if you're using the browser's history a lot. By hopping back, you'll remove that 'loop' from the history.

My Netscape 4.76 doesn't support Nr. 1. And it won't just jump to the footnote, it actually reloads the page Ok, now that we've got brand new servers this doesn't take too much time but anyway.

I don't know of any limit to the number of footnotes in an entry

It happened with my last two. One is still pending and I think it happened post sub edding. With the most recent one I had a look at it immediately after it went pending, saw all the footnotes still there, did a small celebratory dance, read the entry again a couple of days later to check something else and saw they'd been reduced to two.

(There may of course be very good reasons for this - I'm no expert at this sort of thing.)

Now I'm wondering what will happen to my Ash Magna entry (still in sub editing) because if the footnotes in it are put into the text all those very long sentences which I shortened into merely long sentences will become extra extra very long sentences .

Hi Spiff!

Both methods work for me - I didn't know either of them before, so thanks for the info. I also don't think there is any limit on footnotes. I tend to use them a fair amount.

Thought I should check my facts. Of six entries I can check the footnotes changed from X (original) to Y (edited or pending) as follows;
4 to 4
7 to 1
8 to 7
7 to 4
4 to 1 plus one added by sub ed
10 to 2

So it doesn't always happen but has tended to. As I said there maybe good reasons. I'd be interested to know the criteria for a footnote's survival. I've had an interest in this ever since seeing a flippant comment about helicopters become part of a (relatively serious) paragraph about butterflies and moths .

Hi all,

Thanks for reading and commenting!

I probably need to work out exactly which browsers it works with. I guess I'm kind of relying on PR for that, so fire away!

Hey Aragorn (I always knew you were no *ordinary* ranger )

"You might consider putting the methods before your note about the smileys. The way it is, you're referring to methods one and two before you explain what they are."

Yeah, I had it at the bottom originally and you are right about quoting the methods before explaining them, but that is what the joke in there is all about. The one that goes -

"If it had been down at the bottom, you'd be able to see the footnotes anyway." With a footnote that says "And what fun would that be?"

If you don't need to go down the screen to see the Fnotes, it doesn't really work.

The whole section may have to go. On the other hand, it's short enough so that a reader should be able to ignore that para, read the 2 methods and come back to it. Any other thoughts? For or against.

Thanks again for feedback. Keep 'em comin'!

Spiff

Well-written pieces should flow like honey. The excessive use of footnotes makes an article lumpy.

.

How about inserting a row of below the explanations?

That way you can explain the techniques first, without having the footnotes in sight.

A list of twelve countries scattered over three continents flows like tinned potatoes. Putting the potatoes back in the mash makes badly mashed potato.

I have no idea what that last comment was supposed to say.

Spiff: I have a new position on the paragraph order: It'll work fine the way it is. Better to read a later paragraph and skip back up than to not have that information, which is useful.

: (correct me if I'm wrong spiff) The whole point of the entry is to have lots of footnotes, so that people can see the theories being presented in actual life. Its an *interactive* entry!

Sorry . The posting that made no sense to me was by Wazungumza .

Aragorn, point taken.

What I was trying to say, albeit badly, is that an article about footnotes should carry a word of warning about why people should avoid, if at all possible, the use of footnotes.

Something like this....

DOES IT FLOW LIKE HONEY, or does it stick in the craw? Anything that causes the reader to pause, even momentarily, is bad. The sequence should be perfect, the facts blindly simple. Nothing should be there that jars, or causes the reader to look back to an earlier paragraph.

It was rather surreal.

To repeat Looneytunes' posting in more prosaic style: When subeditting, I have removed footnotes when I found that incorporating them in the text didn't stop the flow. What may be an aside for the writer, who knows the ins and outs of his subject, may be a vital piece of information for the reader who is confronting the subject for the first time, which he needs to have pushed at him, rather than him making the voluntary move to go and get it. I don't usually bother to read footnotes. Having learnt to read with books, I never really register things like smileys, footnotes or other decorative items. OK - books have footnotes, but usually they refer to secondary literature and you can look at them later. Except in Terry Pratchett, where the footnotes are part of his style.


So the removal of footnotes, and the inclusion of the text of the footnote in the main body of the entry is an entirely subjective thing and there are no set criteria for removing them - at least at the subediting stage.

I knew about no. 2. No. 1 doesn't work with my Netscape version either.

It is not a superfluous entry at all - not knowing these tricks is not a sin or a sign of lack of intelligence.

Hi again,

So, browsers: IE, Opera (all versions?), Netscape, but not all versions. Apparently not 4.76, at least. Thanks. Any others?

The value of footnotes in entries. Hmm. Not really sure I want to get mixed up in that particular issue here. Perhaps I could put it in a foo.. Er, no. Praps not.

Strider - Alright me old China!

Waz - I followed the mash allusion and thought it was rather good. As for the footnote controversy, I refer my right honorable fried to the reply I gave a moment ago.

*notes down 'The Mash Allusion' and 'The Footnote Controversy' as potential titles for forthcoming short story*

Bossel - thanks for the suggestions . Still pondering, but I can leave it in for the time being to let others dis/approve.

Z fish - A satisfied customer.

Loonytunes, Does it flow like honey... (like it )

- I know what you mean, and I like your suggested para; but I think I'm gonna steer clear of the issue altogether.

- I needn't (but do) confirm that the footnotes in *this* entry are intended to illustrate the point.


Trillian's child - quite alright with what you say, although I *do* think that on a forum like this (well, if there is another forum like this one!) they can work quite well.

I wondered what you meant by:
"It is not a superfluous entry at all - not knowing these tricks is not a sin or a sign of lack of intelligence."

'not superfluous' - has some use. OK, that sounds good.

But, the part after the dash? I certainly hope there is no suggestion in what I have written that this is what I purport.

Ta all

Spiff *off to bed*

It doesn't work with the aol web browser either. (aol must die!)

-Strider

I'm just wondering if this belongs in the edited guide, or in some part of the help menu.....Its good information for those without the initiative to figure it out (or without the powers of perception to notice the arrow cursor changing into a hand in the manner of an active link) but an entry in the guide about part of the guide...I don't know it just seems kinky...and what if the guide changes and this information becomes outdated? Oh well....I have to play the devil's advocate sometime (all the time)

One thing this entry has inspired me to do is to write an entry of my own about "How to clean a mouse so it won't be sticky and difficult to get on the exact spot you want" (probably with a shortened title) I guess that is also information that could be useful to those without it

Hiram, about 18 months ago I wrote a thing called "Guidelines For Writers and Sub Editors at h2g2". (That's where the "flow like honey bit mentioned above comes from). Mine was accepted for the Edited Guide as, I guess, this one will be.

What will probably happen is that this article will be edited inhouse (as opposed to being sent out to the volunteer subs) and be categorised in the help/guidelines section of h2g2.