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

hmm.

scouted...

you ask if any one has a prolem wiv it going into the guide...


no one post to say they have a problem...

you reject it...

________

forgive if I don't follow the logic of the situation.

No one posted to say it was okay either.

Isn't that the point of a scouts reccommendation

Yes and no - you are not the only person in this conversation - there are many people with an opinion, so I wanted a consensus.

As I have said, I love this entry, it's still in PR, it can still be worked on, it can still be scouted at a later date, it can still go in the Edited Guide.

I'm waiting for the Community to speak.

and if they wanted to object you gave them the option & time, and then ignored the fact that they didnt object - as i said I fail to follow the logic

As I said:

"Just to let you know that this entry has been scouted for inclusion in the Edited Guide, but before I can accept it, I just want to clarify that y'all are happy that it is ready to go."

If Researchers had said that they were happy, then I would have accepted it there and then. Nobody responded. Silence does not mean agreement.

Just how many people would have to post agreement for the articl to have ben accepted ?

Two or three would be nice - enough to get a consensus of some description.

so why not put 3 reccomend buttons on articles in peer review?

PR is about interaction not voting.

but didnt you uust ask for a vote on this article?

Well, earlier I was pretty keen, but I muttered a little about balance - really just wondering if it was reasonable to have an entry on table dancing without at least mentioning the moral aspects. But I'm not sure that this is a problem: there's scope for a seperate entry on the morality of stripping, so why shoehorn that into this entry?

The other thing that gave me pause was the DNA style, which generally people try and avoid: lines like "Now if you just got off the boat from Alpha centauri or wherever, you might not comprehend what was just said, so here's an explanation in a pretty good intergalactic dialect ok?". But it's not too heavilly done, and it steers clear of outright lies, so I don't think that's a problem.

Those two stylistic niggles aside, I think this is a genuinely well-written entry, and it's informative, and it'll provoke lots of discussion, and hey, why not? Unconventional guide, right?

-Martin

I think this article is interesting (and not too saucy, if the testicular cuffs entry was ok, albeit pending), BUT I think it needs a rewrite since it's very chatty and informal. Although it is fun it isn´t 'guidey' IMHO...
cheers ismarah

I'm going off to sulk for a while

Thanks Lucinda

Thanks ismarah

ismarah - where dose it say guide entrys must be formal

I think this is OK for the guide - you learn something from it and I don't think its too near to the knuckle. As Lucinda says it tells you how to dance on tables for other people's pleasure without looking at the ethics of whether that is a good occupation or not, but not every entry needs to covers every angle.

You could change the title a bit to make it clear that we are talking about a specific type of table dancing here - after all you can dance on tables with your clothes on in some night clubs. That way, as with the testicle cuffs entry, no-one will click on it innocently and be confronted with something that offends them.

The tone is quite conversational - particularly the bit with all the "OK?"s in it, but I think it just about stays on the right side of the line for the EG.

Sprout

It doesn´t anywhere, to my knowledge. But as sprout said, all the ok's and things do not make for good reading. In my mind, it´s distracting. However, I feel that this entry does belong in the Guide, and am loudly saying so. Really, I´m sitting in the office, saying: I think dancing on tables belongs in the Guide. Of course, nobody here has a clue what I´m talking about.
Cheers Ismarah

*giggles*