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

What HVL said.

I don't like the 'Rewrite Market'. I think the author might well take it as an insult, particularly if it is a comparatively recent entry. I forsee abuse by Researchers who object to the balance of an entry (eg, Why - A747047) or the scope of an entry (eg, Orcs - A419221).
It'd be OK if a subeditor or updater marks an entry as requiring an update, but I'm not sure it should be open to all.

In route 2, I think UpdateReview should be seperate from PeerReview, but yes it should be Scouted, Subbed, in the normal way. This may require addition Scouts and Sub-Eds.

For those who haven't seen it, there's currently some discussion about the proposals with Anna at A760402

The main problem with the idea of there being a seperate update - review is identical with the debate currently going on about a number of other similar schemes (most notably the writting workshop).

If it isn't seperate from peer review, then you get problems with peer review becoming cluttered with non peer review entries.

if it is seperate from peer review, you have the problem of trying to get anyone to come along and comment.

This is currently a problem for the writting workshop, and for university entries in general.

I would be interested in seeing any suggestions that deal with this wider problem of peer review vs everything else.

I think the problem with peer review is this, it is the only one of the workshops where you can contribute without having to offer to do something. But it is also possible it is because the banner ad takes you straight there and it is the most important, so where is the incentive to change page.

A possible way to give the update review the same importance is to split the banner ad, one side peer review other side update review. I think the idea of update review being another one where people can say there piece without having to offer to do anything would secure peoples patronage.

Researcher PSG

this suggestion parallels some of the others in other threads.

especially that to do with the writting workshop.

The main problem with having more than just peer review is getting people to actually go there and contribute.

The writting workshop has this problem, and so does almost all of the university projects.

It has been suggested that theidea of a revolving add goes where the peer review add currently goes, with one page showing the peer reveiw banner, and the next pages showing the banners for other forums.

The problem with this is that it has been talked about for ages, and still nothing has happened on it.

On the other hand, having everything in peer review gets tricky, and it gets hard to visit everything, especially when some of it is downright dreadfull.

This is an ongoeing problem that affects multiple parts of h2g2, and thus requires a broad level solution.

I don't think we can blame the banner ad entirely for the popularity of PR, I think it's more to do with the fact that PR is directly related to the content (or possible content) of the Edited Guide, and is where the scouts do their picks. This means that in terms of importance, PR stands ahead of all the others, which are just review forums for the sake of it, without leading directly to anything. The Update forum would be having more of an impact on the Edited guide, and so should get more attention, I think.

As well as having a much more direct impact on the EG, it'd have a cadre of volunteers. That'd help.

Yeah, that's basically what I was trying to say. That PR is a simple way to directly effect the edited guide, and so will update forum. The others require you to help with an entry and even then you have to go to peer review.

But I also think the banner ad helps.

Researcher PSG

I just hope we end up with the 'update copy of entry and submit to review forum' instead of 'nominate entry for update and work on it in review forum' format.

I agree, the banner is not the only reason for the popularity of peer review. so is the fact that the "submit an entry" default is peer review.

but I don't mind the popularity of peer review.

The problem is that there are various other forums that should be at least as important, and multiple efforts to direct traffic to them fail misserably, falling back to what is refered to as "the usual suspects".

Also there is a failty assumption in some of the comments in this thread that all roads lead to peer review.

university projects don't fit into the peer review thread, and neither do any other entries that need feed, but don't follow the peer review road into the guide (for example a lot of entries that are not suitable for the edited guide, but are still good entries).

oops, that should be "entries that need feedback". sorry.

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