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

Excellent!

One suggestion (which you may already have thought of, and even be implementing as I type this) - show the user this page, or the writing guidelines, after they click "Submit for review", but before the entry goes into a review forum? (NB, I haven't clicked that button for a while, so if this or something like it is already happening, please just ignore me! )

Thanks for listening, guys.

H.

I'm not sure of that, to be honest, but I'd imagine it would come under the 'needing hard code changes' banner. What I would like to do, once we've implemented this page, is add a precis of the points here to the 'Submit for Review' page, or make it that you can't proceed without ticking a box, which means you have to *think* a little more about which forum you submit to.

I totally agree with you that it's very annoying when people post unsuitable material to Peer Review (hence the very careful 'what we don't want' bit). This should help in some way. for all of your suggestions.

Jimster

*arrives from PR thread*

Looks good.



cya
spiff

I like this. Ex-O-Cet!

"If you like the entry - say so! Everyone likes compliments."

I like it!

Ugi

I just thought of something...

Shameless egotist that I am... do I get co-author credit on this, or what?

H.
Author of A642296...

I might be corrected by the others, but it's my understanding that we don't give author credits to help pages, I'm afraid. But the thread that you first introduced this discussion in will still be here, and so long as you don't delete it, your original revised text entry will also exist.

On a related topic, we've been discussing a possible rewording of the page Researchers get to when they press 'Select for Review'. I was thinking maybe having an explanation as to where each type of entry might go:

O 'Is it a one-liner or a humourous piece of fiction? The Alternative Guide is the place for this.'

O 'Is it an opinionated piece or an intentionally one-sided discussion? You should post this to the h2g2 Speakers Corner.'

O Is this a piece that you're having trouble finishing and could do with some feeback or other help? The Collaborative Writing Workshop may have the answer you need.

O 'Is this a work of genuine factual research that offers a balanced view of the subject? Why not submit it to Peer Review for consideration for the Edited Guide?'

Something like that. Again, I'm not sure at this time how easy it is to change that page, but if it's within our powers it's something I'd certainly like to look at - and would appreciate input on.


Jimster

"I might be corrected by the others, but it's my understanding that we don't give author credits to help pages, I'm afraid. "

Um...

"H.
Author of A642296..."

Anyone else not know why I signed off my last posting like that?

It's a Help Page. It says so at the top. And look who's credited with writing it!
(which I'm very grateful for, I might add, given that although it is a true reflection of my original concept, it required substantial rewording - unlike the verbatim quoting going on here)

I always try to give credit where it's due on my Guide Entries, and precedent suggests that Help Pages written (or co-written) by researchers do likewise. Why wouldn't you?

H.

*boots this up Jimster's list*



H.

Dear Hoovooloo,

Jimster's not in today, but he will be back in the office on Tuesday. He's sure to get back to you then...



Anna

Thanks! (can't you pronounce on this? he did say something about the other s correcting him...)



H.

"...would appreciate input on."

OK - some input then. This is a really good idea, I have been saying something similar for ages (although I actually suggested making them read the writing guidelines while submitting, which presupposes they're aiming for Peer Review, so your way is better ).

One small change I would suggest - to the wording of what's suitable for Peer Review. You have:

"Is this a work of genuine factual research that offers a balanced view of the subject? Why not submit it to Peer Review for consideration for the Edited Guide?"

I think the words "genuine factual research" are unnecessarily offputting. For instance, is a recipe a piece of genuinely factual research? Not really. It's just a recipe. But they get in all the time - as they should. There are quite a few examples of slightly more "off the wall" Entries which might have been put off by that phrase.

A few examples of my own:

A650675 - multiple remote controls.

A656859 - instructions on how to make a paper plane. Hardly "research".

A649749 - the Ultimate Martial Art. Hardly "genuinely factual", *on the surface* (although it does make an important point).

And others...

A583300 - The Joy of Socks.
A262289 - the Bunyip. Factual?
A593002 - Astral Projection. Factual?!
etc.

Rather than the above, why not just say "Does it meet the Writing Guidelines?", and provide a link. That's what the Guidelines are there for, after all - if an entry meets the Guidelines, it's suitable for the Guide. Isn't it?

It might also be worth saying that the entry should, if you're submitting it to Peer Review, be pretty much finished - 95% plus, at least. If you're most of the way there but want your colleagues to tweak it or supply a couple of minor details, PR's the best place. If you've bunged in some subheaders but have no idea what to put under them, it's Writing Workshop time.

Hope this helps...

H.

Thanks for that. I suppose what I was thinking of is this is the last chance for researchers to consider where they want to post their entry. So if we discourage people from posting to Peer Review because they're worried it's not 'factual research', they might post it to one of the Workshops - where hopefully someone will be able to say 'Hey, why not post this to Peer Review'.

It's a way of trying to get the workshops much more involved in the process (I have a suspicion some of them have just been used as dumping grounds in the past, so I'm making more of an effort to go into them and nurture some of those entries a little).

But we'll see how the changes to the Peer Review page go down I expect. The ultimate aim is to revise all of the Help Pages eventually. They were originally written to make do rather than be *The* last word on the subjects, so, like the Guide itself, they're an evolutionary process.



Jims

64?thread=6420" >F96720?thread=203777&skip=7

Er... did you mean to link directly back to this page?

Yes.

I was hoping you might notice that I linked directly to post 8.

I was hoping you might notice the point addressed directly to you.

I was hoping you might answer it.

H.

As Anna said, I'll be able to answer it on Tuesday. I need to speak to the others to see what the concensus is, and none of us will be in the office until then.

Don't worry, I haven't forgotten you.

Jims

OK!



H.

ahem

H.

Sorry I didn't get back to you yesterday - Ashley was off sick, and I really did want to canvas opinion from everyone.

The consensus is ... yup, that's no problem at all.

Anna is back from holiday next week, so we'll work out when we can replace the existing Peer Review with the new text after then.

Thanks again, Hoovooloo.

Jimster