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

I have to agree - if you are going to publish stats they should be accurate.

I wrote http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A538049 which is about Minox Cameras, and which was published in May this year, and http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A593732 which is about Viscose and published on August 21st.

While we are on the subject of jointly credited entries, do we have any timescale on when there will be three levels of researchers credited? I am very fond of Loonytunes, and the other guys who made suggestions to the original conversations which spawned http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A613054 but I confess my ego is dented that my name is just one of the many in the credits, and it looks as if Loony wrote the dratted thing. Puts me off a tad, but not enough to drive me away.

However the first two were my own unaided work, and unless I am missing something, should therefore be in your stats.

Since I am sure that you have not deliberately squewed the stats to exclude the awkward squad, please either explain how come there are inaccuracies, or review how you are generating the stats, and make sure that there are not inaccuracies.

*sigh*

a member of the small but vocal minority called Ben

I urge you all to read posting 110 from the researcher formerly known as Hoovooloo.

No I don't. I am going to repost it here:

*********************************************

Interesting reading indeed. My last Edited Entry (of three for which I didn't share the credit) was on the Front Page less than twenty four hours ago.

Twenty points and a cheap cigar to anyone who can spot my ID on the stats page. http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A640333

To save you some trouble, look in the "referred researchers" list. My ID number is bigger than that of "Lear" and smaller than that of "Bright Blue Shorts".

Good to see the Italics upholding their usual standards of competence and accuracy.

Hoovooloo has left the building.

H.

Yeah well I hope you come back Hoovooloo - I mean I can understand you being pretty damned p****d off at being missed out completely and all, but a few other (at least ) mistakes seem to have been made, and no doubt the editors will make some effort to correct them at somepoint soon, and if you dont come back you wont get to see your Modest Proposal in action (touching wood).

It would be nice to have you back..... vp

Ok. I would just like to point out that Hoovooloo is not a mindless member of some awkward squad or rent-a-mob.

What he has to say is always interesting because it is thought through, and not a mindless knee-jerk reaction.

He has never been partisan, mindlessly supporting one 'side' or another 'side'.

Instead he has always told the truth as he saw it, and he has had the balls to change his mind in public on various issues, as events unfurled or arguments were put forward.

It seems that events have got to the point where the apparent inaccuracies and apparent unprofessionalism of the BBC employees has stuck in his throat once too often.

I am profoundly shocked by this. And depressed. But I am not going to add any other comments. Sarcasm does not win arguments, and that is all I could manage on this one at the moment.

Hoovooloo. We miss you already. And the community will be less challenging, less rigourous, less humane, and also less funny for your absence.

The shame of it is that, in its new form h2g2, is too petty to hold you.

Take care.

a girl called Ben

Can I just appologise for terrible use of the word "nice" at end of above posting? Would be very sorry to see H never again, so nice is bit of an overly understated statement .........

I hate coming to this thread. Here is where the Small But Vocal Minority gather, state their concerns (almost unnoticed by regular researchers), and one by one drop h2g2 from their bookmarks.

Goodbye Barton. Goodbye HooVooLoo. You will both be sadly missed here. I wish you hadn't been pressed into this choice, but I recognise your opinions as valid.

May you find a forum with Zero Intolerance (or a real-life, likewise!)

x x Fenny (praying for a world with Zero Intolerance, online and off)

I am also saddened by the fact that Hoovooloo seems to have left. As far as cause and effect is concerned, however, he appears to have wiped his Modest Proposal and home space well before that rather inaccurate stats page was posted, so while the inaccuracy may have confirmed his decision it can hardly be counted as the cause.

I was really surprised that he wiped the Modest Proposal, after all the time he spent on it and after it had been taken up by the staff. Perhaps its reception in other quarters had made him lose faith in it.

Azara

I was a little surprised to find that the stats are inaccurate for me as well - I've written four entries (one pending) all by my lonesome, but I'm only listed as having written three.

Azara

I hit HVL's page earlier today, and read his account that his items had been continuously moderated and wiped during the past two weeks. It seemed that he'd taken his page down as tribute to September 11, reposted it the following week, and lost it to moderation without any changes to justify moderation.

Several of his Entries had apparently also been disappearing similarly, and according to his journal, these were without cause, too.

x x Fenny (Confused and hoping for Zero Intolerance through unbiased reporting)

Well, Lentilla,

Either they are inaccurate because the method used to generate them was inaccurate - in which case they would be inaccurate at random, giving erroneous figures for "bad" researchers and "good" researchers equitably. Or inequitably, if you prefer.

Or they have been deliberately skewed to make it seem as if the Small But Vocal Minority have contributed less than in fact we have.

I prefer to assume the process to be incompentent than corrupt.

*shugs*

a "bad" researcher called Ben

Lentilla,

"I've written four entries (one pending) all by my lonesome, but I'm only listed as having written three."

An entry that is pending has not yet been published. They only list published entries, ie, entries that have been across the front page.

I can't say anything about any other inaccuracies.

GTB is right.

agcB

I hold up my hands - and I'm not using the h2g2 Editors persona here, as the inaccuracies are completely my fault.

I thought it would be extremely useful and interesting to produce a table of Edited Guide stats, as the discussion about whether prolific writers are leaving is an important one, but is hard to discuss without stats to hand.

Jim is on holiday, so I wrote an SQL query to pull out this information. I'm the first to admit that my SQL is not perfect, but I did a random check on a few people, and the figures looked like they tallied. It was the end of the day, and the minute I put the stats up, I left the office.

They're obviously wrong, and I wholeheartedly apologise, and accept all the blame. I'll endeavour to get accurate stats up there.

Sorry you felt this was the straw that broke the camel's back, Hoovooloo. We're really been trying to make things better, especially in our dialogues with you...

I'll post here again when/if I can get those stats to reflect reality. I even got the figures for 'Mark Moxon' completely wrong...

Hi.

I've put the stats page back up, and I now believe that it reflects the real story. If there are any inaccuracies, please let me know, but I found the problem with my query, and the results look right now.

Apologies again for any annoyance caused by the erroneous page. I doubt I can stop already disgruntled people accusing me of trying to fix the stats, but that definitely wasn't the case. I was just trying to be helpful.

For those who are interested, it seems that since the new Subs/Scouts tools were put in, the Researcher list is stored differently. Now the Editor is automatically added as a Researcher too, which didn't happen before. This had the upshot of the query ignoring any entries put through the new system (215 of them), as the count of 'Researchers' always gave at least 2 (the Researcher and the Editor).

The new results reflect this change.

Sorry again and I hope that this time this proves interesting and *accurate* reading.

Well at least I feature this time - but can you confirm what is being shown here.

I have five edited entries on my space, and am credited with 3 on the stats page.

Two of the entries (A494525 and A527799)were put together from threads I participated in, and which - to be honest - I would prefer not to be credited with at all, but there you go. I assume that these are the two which I am not credited with on the stats page. Fine and dandy, sugar candy.

One of the entries which shows on my personal space (A613054)I put together from a thread I started, crediting the other participants. It was then edited by Loonytunes, and in the final 'edited' version I am just another researcher. I understand that plans are afoot to give the writer in this sort of situation the credit they are due, and I bide my soul in patience. But according to the description originally given on the stats page, I should not be credited with this entry, since - in the edited version - I am just another grockle.

Can you please explain in words of one sylable for a researcher of very little brain whether the methodology should include this in or include this out?

The two remaining entries were my own unaided work, and so appear correctly.



A second point is that it depends on what you call 'leaving' - surely the date of the most recent post by the author would show whether they are still active on site.



Sorry about this. I am professionally unable to see a statistic without checking out its parentage, where it was last Thursday, and what time it left the station to walk home.

Having said all that, this IS a good example of the sort of statistics the site needs, and a good way to build open trust between all partys here.

Is it a live page, like the /info page, or is it a one off? It would be good if it could be live.

a sceptic called Ben
*asking real questions, not rhetorical ones*

Argh! Looks like something's gone wring again. Back to the drawing board...

You should have two, not three, and I'll try to find out why you have three.

As for the date of publishing, that seemed a reasonable way to pick out those who are still writing entries, as the debate was about those who have stopped writing entries, rather than those who have stopped posting.

Back soon, I hope. If it fails once more, then I'll give up.

Aha - I have found the reason. For some strange reason, your entry A593732 on Viscose has been stamped official *twice*, so it counts twice (this is the action that gives the date of publication). In theory, this shouldn't happen!

I'll try to sort that problem out...

Mark, there's still a problem. Now I'm listed with 15 entries to my credit. I'm subbed that many, I'm sure, but I've only *written* 3 solo entries. Santa Fe, Pistachios and Fractions. Not prolific, but *varied*!

When sorting entries subbed under the new system, are you sure you're always counting the researcher and not the sub? I think it lists us in order of U###, sometimes the researcher first, sometimes the sub first, so that might take some fiddling. That's just an amateur guess, of course.

OK, I'm not going to be able to sort this problem out, and the only way I can guarantee accurate stats without spending the entire afternoon with my head in an SQL book is to put up a simple list of who has written how many entries. Which isn't quite what I had intended, but it's better than an inaccurate but more sophisticated set of results.

I'll do that now.

Ooops, sorry.

Please don't give up. We really DO need something like this. It is immensely useful for us all.

If you come to a halt, then could you ask Jim to do it on his return? There is a threadful of people who will provide and s out of gratitude.

The reason I put in my comments about the last posting is - as a poster rather than a writer - I feel that the debate about 'who is the most valuable' is skewed towards the writers. (And I have said so in this thread already). There are many posters who have written very little but who have contributed greatly to the community.

In fact I find the whole concept of researchers who are more useful than others pretty damn offensive. But I do find it interesting to know which researchers are the most prolific.

So that comment was not actually pointed at the italics, more at the writers who find the posters frivolous and fluffy.

a frivolous piece of fluff called Ben