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

I thought the idea was to go for an update button - it'd be nice and user-friendly, and much more likely to persuade newbies to contribute.

Also the code is probably partly there from the subs tools (where guideml is copied)?

"I hate deadlines. Writing or updating an entry takes as long as it takes, no more, no less. It's not like h2g2 is a *job* for most of us"

I like deadlines (*resists temptation to quote DNA*) - they give the task a timeframe. It'd be really annoying if two people submitted updated versions of an entry at the same time. Not everyone, especially newer people, will check the forum to see if an update had already been started.

I take your point Lucinda, but I think we should try to make it as user friendly as possible as soon as possible. You and I could work the process manually because we have been here for quite a while now, but newer researchers might have a problem getting it right, and it would inevitably cause problems for the support people.

An update button would definately be nice eventually, but I don't think we should necessarilly wait for it. When we actually *do* this thing we might find it doesn't work quite as we anticipated, and we have to tweak it a bit (remember Peer Review and 'sinking gracefully to the bottom'?).

> "It'd be really annoying if two people submitted updated versions of an entry at the same time"

About as annoying as when two people submit entries on some topic to Peer Review at the same time. It happens from time to time. They collaborate, or one or the other gives way, or leaves, or whatever. It's no big shakes.

If a non-exclusive/etiquette-based approach *does* cause problems, then we can try a more rigorous approach, by all means. All I'm saying is give peace a chance...

-Martin

Oh simulpost.

I guess you're right Woodpidgeon. I'm certainly not going to complain if it's nice and easy to do.

I'm very wary of introducing a new scheme without the tools to deal with it well. I dealt with the Subs before there was an allocate button (I sent them the GuideML in an email) and I dealt with the Scouts before there was Peer Review and it wasn't pleasant. Not that Scouts and Subs aren't lovely, of course, it's just that the admin was a nightmare. Truly.

I am also still concerned about not having a deadline of sorts. The structure that there is in the Scouts scheme, for example works well, and it's flexible. I couldn't imagine what it would be like if we couldn't keep track of who picked what and when it was due. In running an Update scheme and having a workflow of say five entries a week updated and brought to the attention of the Community on the front page, there should be a vague resemblance of a structure. I do take your point that an update would take as long as it takes, but we can be flexible. Perhaps having a time frame would encourage Researchers to submit updates in manageable chunks. After all entries will be able to be updated more than once.

Re deadlines, I think Lucinda is on the right track. Conflicting postings would probably be quite rare, and would probably get sorted out between the competing updaters. Just as long as a calling card is left, you probably don't need a deadline, or a locking mechanism. If it came to a dispute, the first person to leave the calling card probably would have the right to do the editing, and you might say it in somewhere prominent in the guide. You might also create a guideline on how long to wait if an update does not get done by the first editor, which would also be useful in disputes.

How about if there was a reminder somewhere? Perhaps something like the comingup page with details about who's looking after a particular entry and how long they've had it. That way it's easy for everyone to see what's being worked on.

A guideline of, say, two months would perhaps also encourage people to do some preparation work before volunteering for a particular entry if they forsee a big job ahead.

I've no problem with that. It would be a useful check for people if they were considering doing a major edit.

PS - I just asked Editorial Feedback to make a minor change to one of my edited entries, and it was carried out by Ashley in less than 30 minutes! Go Ashley!

I'm all for having deadlines for whoever does the picks (pick so many updated entries by THIS date) and whoever does the sub-editing (return your entries having done the typo checks by THIS date). That seems a very sensible idea to ensure an even flow of entries. However, I don't think that the people who write the actual update itself should be bound by this kind of deadline. After all, they'll just be normal, unbadged, Researchers.

> "encourage Researchers to submit updates in manageable chunks"

? So they'd update the first half of the entry, get that picked, subbed, featured on the front page, and as soon as that happens they immediately update the second half of the entry, get *that* picked, subbed, and featured on the front page? Hmm, Don't like. I'd rather know that when an updated entry is featured on the front page, that it's *totally* updated, and as bang-up-to-date as any new entry.

-Martin

I meant that if a Researcher was taking an entry such as Mathematics, it could potentially take months for someone to produce a definitive entry. Entries will, naturally, go through several iterations depending on the thoroughness of the Researchers taking part in the updates.

I like the reminder idea - that might work well. That could also be an easy way of checking if any entries were being updated by more than one person (if we're going to allow that to happen).

Another idea - should there be a cancel button on the entry for if the researcher changes their mind?

*If* you're going to make it exclusive then yes, there definately needs to be a way for researchers to 'unlock' their updates if they realise they don't have the time/knowledge/experience/towel. If it's not exclusive, well they can just add a note to the calling card on the entry saying that they gave up, and there's no reason to go so far as having a *button* to do that, is there??

I'm thinking of creating a 'Not the Update Review Forum' as a dry run of some of the ideas here. If a few people want to actually try updating the entries they hate most, then we can discuss some practical examples, and we'll be a little more ready when there's an official scheme (as well as giving a head start to those entries). Anywho, if this is a really bad idea, do say so...

-Martin

Hmm, I don't think it's worth it unless we do it officially.

Well, if you can't be bothered, don't bother. But the 'Fun Run' and the Alternative Workshop worked unofficially, so might as well give it a go, eh?

Oh, it's at A788583

Because actions speak louder than words...

-Lucinda

Fair e-nuff!

Thanks Lucinda - this looks good I have a suggestion though. It would be worth adding 'Add the title of the entry' somewhere, to make it clear which entry was being updated.

Done. The title goes in the conversation title and in the entry itself. Just need to fill in the blanks in the guestbook, so it's simple enough, I hope.

Even for blondes!
-Lucinda