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

Seems like that'd be easier that having to 'view history' to get the info. And it was edited by more than one person, after all.

It'd be also good to have the history either inline or out-of-line depending on how much of it there is. So if an entry's history is simply:

Original(link) Created on A
Picked by B(link)
Entered Guide on D

(no 'subbed by': that'd be in the 'edited by' section)

Then that'd be in the entry data box, but if it's bigger than that, then you'd have a pop-up box. The same would apply to the credits section - so if there is one editor and one researcher it'd be inline, but if there are ten or more people with credits, then there'd be a pop-up box.

Personally I don't see the value in normal Researchers being able to see previous versions, with the exception of the original (unedited) entry. Obviously it's a nice feature for updaters and editors, but I don't see that normal people are going to want to look at out of date information - and it might confuse them.

Good points.

I can't imagine regular Researchers would need or even *want* to see the whole version history of an entry.

I've got a personal bias against pop-ups, but even having a long list of editors and researchers wouldn't be too terrible - the length of the Researchers list on some of our Collaborative Entries is pretty intense, but it doesn't offend.



- X

That's true. The date when an entry was last updated is interesting, because it tells you how up to date the info is, and the list of contributors is interesting, providing it's short enough, because you can talk to the people who wrote the entry. The original entry is useful really only when the system has failed, and it was recc'd while it still needs major changes.

Long lists of contributing researchers I personally find completely useless, and irritating because it shuffles useful info off the bottom of the page. Hence my desire to have them as pop-ups... or perhaps an expandable/collapsable tree-like structure.

I'd say it's best just to have long lists too. As has been said, some of the collaborative ones already have long lists. I don't think it makes the page look cluttered, all it shows is that the entry has been worked on by a lot of people. I think it becomes a bit intimidating when a lot of the people on the list have long nicknames (advertising clubs and so on), but that's a seperate issue and a solution to that has already been suggested on the feature suggestions page.

But yeah, it should be possible for more than one person to be in the 'Edited by' list in the same way as the 'Researched by' list. (And I'm sure this suggestion has been on the list for a while too). I was a bit miffed when I subbed an entry that ended up being an update to an existing one, but only got a researcher credit because the original sub-editor retained the credit instead...

I'm guessing it's probably a technical issue that there's only room for one editor credit (to do with the way the database is set up), but it could be changed...

I agree. Although frankly, I'd just be happy to get *any* kind of credit on the entry for doing the updating -- as of now, our names don't appear at all on the entries we've updated (although in one case I ended up doing some research and adding a rather huge chunk of text, and petitioned to have myself added as a researcher/author/writer).


Mikey

I think there was a proposal in feature suggestions to have a whole tier of crediting levels (ie. 'just made a minor suggestion', 'helped quite a bit', 'wrote the entire thing', 'edited it', 'updated it', etc..).

Perhaps a bit of overkill if you ask me, but it could work alongside a new update system...

You could always list Researchers and Editors in order of their level of contribution. That'd solve the big problem, without overcomplicating the entry data box. If you have ties you could mention the newest Researcher first, in order to demonstrate what a friendly, newbie-welcoming place we are.

As opposed to the current system of oldest first, which smacks rather of conservatism...

I think that's a great idea - it seems kinda silly that you can only have one editor.

Hi Everyone,

Sorry I've let this discussion slip over a number of weeks. I've now read all discussions here relating to the proposed updating scheme and I've responded in the forums of entry A760402 (an excellent entry summarising the themes raised here, put together by Frankie Roberto). It would be great to see you there and hear your thoughts on the next proposal.

Thanks
Anna