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

Of course it is all about intent. I mistrust pyrotechnics and have come to value simplicity because it leaves nowhere for the writer to hide. Or the reader, for that matter. But that's my hang-up.

I also think it's much much harder to write learly and without redundancy.. Does anyone remember Chaiwallah's haiku? Astonishing, they were. I'm sure we UG'd some.

So though I stand by my assertion that simple is better, I'll accept it's a matter of taste.

... clearly, without redundancy ...

Part of your question is easy to answer, Ben. Insofar as we're talking abou a Help Page, all that's needed IMO is:

"Rules for Approved Entries on h2g2

In order for an entry to be considered for 'Approved' status on h2g2, it must meet the following criteria.

1. It must be original work. Plagiarism is unacceptable.
2. It must not be written with the intention of hurting or otherwise distressing anyone.
3. Provided that these two conditions are respected, all writing in any genre may be nominated for inclusion in the Approved Guide. Its actual conclusion will depend on the collective approval of the h2g2 community".

This is an invitation to write pretty well anything, ie what I'd like to see people writing.

The choosing is far harder to define than the nominating, as you suggest. We both know that the QA system is tough, and probably impractical if h2g2 grows as we want it to. Sufficiency of objectivity as well as practitioner's stamina would make it imperative to have a rota of Quality Assessors.

Adapting the UG method, the best approach might be to have a pool of nominated Entries, each one remaining in the pool for a set time. Eligibility for Approved Guide inclusion would depend on achieving a given number of 'likes', which would be blind and OMOV. Acceptance would be subject to the agreement of an editorial panel, or the QA or similar.

To make this rewarding for writer and reader alike, we'd need a decent index/search facility. Entries that get nominated could be badged as such (and maybe scored with their 'likes' quota) and listed above general Entries, even if they don't make the Approved Guide.

Or maybe if we could code it there could be an ordered pool of nominated Entries, with their list position determined by an algorithm based on number of 'likes' and how recent they've been. Staying high enough up the chart for long enough (with set parameters for each attribute) then puts Entries into the Approved Guide. (Again I think there'd need to be an Editorial Panel though, or else we'd finish up with minimalist homage to nighthoover etc in the AG)

OK? I'm trying, you know (in both senses, natch). I'm not claiming to be super-gifted in systems design. If you want to wind me up (and who wouldn't?) you might try pointing out that my most valuable contribution to h2g2 continuation would be to start writing stuff like I used to. At least then I could retort that it's up to you lot to give me a showcase that would make it worth my effort.

Ah, now we are talking... You are having to THINK rather than criticise, and that's good.

I'm wary of LIKE buttons, because that way lies the lowest common denominator, but I may be persuadable on that one.

Here's the thing: if I want to read about Edinburgh Castle on my iPhone, say, I deserve to know if I am getting a review-for-tourists, some kind of narrative about its history, an amusing rant about how it's been treated in fiction, a photo essay, or a recollection of a disturbing but romantic sexual encounter at the Festival.

I can imagine sitting in Chocolate Soup happily reading any or all of them, but if I was in a hurry, I'd like to know which one was the *useful* one, and I would like it to BE useful.

Like it or not, smartphone apps are the way for us to fund ourselves, and if people are paying for a tin of content, then the content has to say what it does on the tin. Sale of goods act and all that. This just means labelling it right, though. My pals are late: I want to read random but entirely cool stuff about Edinburgh while I wait. My smartphone knows I'm in Edinburgh, so it offers me stuff tagged "Edinburgh" from both sections of the Guide, and I sit there happily reading about Conan Doyle and Burke and Hare and the birth of anaesthetics until they turn up.

So...

The more objective stuff, confined within some bounds of structure and standards in the Universe section

And everything else of excellence in the Life section.

Now here's the drop-kick: if we think in terms of our smartphone app user, sitting in a cafe planning their day with the tourist guide and reading cool stuff when their friends are delayed, we see that an awful lot of what is currently in the Edited Guide isn't tourist guide stuff at all, it's the cool but slightly offbeat stuff that should actually sit in the Life section.

So here's my suggestion:

TIGHTER guidelines for the Universe section, and move much of the Existing EG into the Life Section

EXCELLENCE as the onlycriteriafor thr LIFE section.

Entries clearly marked by section, AND by topic, so you can say

Show me:
* Anything about Edinburgh Castle or
* Only Life pieces about Edinburgh, or
* Only Universe pieces about Scotland.

I think we need to think of the smartphone users here, because they will fund our software upgrades

Ben

You guys are posting as writers.
As a none writer can it be said that writing is a means to an end and is not an end in itself ? In the form of fact it can be finalised, as literature it may be concluded, but as an interpretation of what you believe, see or feel can it ever be finalised ? In that the writer has to be the final arbiter.
You are thinking as writers when you suggest phases of development in writing within the h2g2 community. Step back and consider whether or not researchers need to be classified. What is magical about 16 years of age ? Why not a junior membership 14/16. Catch'em young.

If we are going to have such a 'universe' section, there is a massive job of updating such content ahead - we'd need a team of people focusing on that...

If someone is touching down at Katmandu airport, and browsing my Nepal entry whilst going through customs, they're going to be a little confused about what all these Maoists are doing in the government...

sprout

Absolutely. Perhaps the original Entry could be archived as a 'historical' Entry, but a systematic update procedure is definitely needed.

This is interesting: A395624

It seems to suggest that the first form of Peer Review had the whole pool of Reseachers able to recommend Entries for the Edited Guide, and that the job of the Scouts was to apply a quality filter.
It seems to suggest that there was once a criterion of writing excellence as a prerequisite for Edited Guide inclusion, and that the quality principle was upheld by the Editors.

All of this is pre-Rupert of course. The clearest info about the way h2g2 worked across the interregnum that I’m aware of is Fragilis’ ‘View from h2g2’ column (if others know other references, please tell me!): A416026

Under the BBC, Entry submission to peer review seems to have lost the recommendation connotation. Moreover, the thirst for encyclopaedic inclusivity seems to have squashed the quality ethos. The stats (diligently recorded by Fragilis) speak of a different time all right, with levels of activity many times greater than today’s.

What I want to ask is – could we/should we restore the A395624 Scouting principles in future, with Scouts acting more like the UnderGuide QA role and the general community acting more like its Miners?

Well, I think it depends on how you look at it. In a way, by submitting an entry to PR, any research is able to recommend entries to the EG now. However, I think you're right, that there was once an expectation of excellence, and that the process was seen in a different light pre-BBC.

I'm always reminded of the earliest extant h2g2 entry - A27 which has the footnote "We don't care what you say, as long as you say it with elan."

*takes notes*

I'm worried.

The debate about the future of the site is being dominated by the would-be taxonomists. I keep reading suggestions such as fiction and poetry belonging in a pigeon-hole labelled Arts and Entertainment.

Is it just me who doesn't want to see everything classified and put in boxes? Isn't the principal delight of h2g2 its unexpectedness?

Here are five examples of unclassifiable writing in h2g2:

A4034251, A10626149, A13284588, A182792 and its family, A2386721

There are many others. What's going to happen when the pedants can't put stuff in boxes? Are they going to decide that if they can't classify it, then it can't be worth reading?

Pinniped, The unclassifiable Entries would go in the 'Everything' category so not to worry, they will not be 'lost'. The classification system is already up and running now, as good or bad as it is, and it provides one with a way to quickly home in on Entries about a certain subject. The classificatio system is by no means a be-all-end-all solution and the discussion is already on to include 'tags' and 'sub-catagories' here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F1599166?thread=8065847&skip=100&show=20 No system is perfect but all we want is to have something that Just Works(tm) for the majority of the Community. The 'unexpectedness' of h2g2 for me lies in the 'Browse'/'Infinite Improbability Drive' button, the (A)WW and Peer Review. Even if an Entry cannot be pigeonholed it still fits in the 'Everything' box for... Everything Else. ! Martin --- Excuse the footwear induced halitosi

I'm not sure what to say about this, Pin. I've done a bit of taxonomy in my time, and one of the things I've discovered is that it helps enormously to let these debates take their course.

Here's why

1) no single person other than Mendelev can come up with a really great taxonomy - you need many dissenting voices to destruction test the models and create something that's workable

2) the concepts are complex, it takes time for people to play with them and really understand the implications

3) people find it hard to realise that other people really do think differently - not just that they hold different opinions, but that the mechanisms and whole world-views are different (this matters because taxonomies work at such a fundamental level in the mind, it's important to have the epiphany that the other person isn't necesarily wrong, it's just that their mind is wired differently

So my advice is let the debate run its course and see what happens.



To respond to your questions:

>> I keep reading suggestions such as fiction and poetry belonging in a pigeon-hole labelled Arts and Entertainment.

But not JUST in those ways. Also by topic, and maybe by mood or intent.

>> Is it just me who doesn't want to see everything classified and put in boxes?

Possibly.

>> Isn't the principal delight of h2g2 its unexpectedness?

Not for me, but clearly for you. Different strokes for different folks. And unexpectedness won't pay the bills. I was telling some colleagues why h2g2-on-Android (or an iDevice) wouln't be a 2nd rate Trip Advisor. We're in Zurich at the moment, as it happens, and I described the sort of content we have, and said 'but how about if it offered you that sort of stuff, but relevant to Zurich or Switzerland?' and they got it, visibly, in front of my eyes, they got it. So perhaps the tagging can be used to HELP the unexpectedness, by making the content both relevant AND unexpected at the same time. "I'm in Zurich - surprise me"


Ben

The other thing is that it is rare an Entry will be in one category alone. The author could also have a say over which category the Entry is placed in.

Unexpectedness is all very well (and usually a very pleasent purprise) but if I wanted to find something, I would need to know where to look or I wouldn't even start.

If anything needs to be classified it is h2g2.
Unless you put h2g2 directly into Google, how often is it singled out ?
How many guide entries edited or otherwise come up in Google ?
It is a mystery to me as to why putting 'Udderthorpe' in the Google search box takes you into h2gs.

Finding an unexpected gem is wonderful. Most of my personal space is a big "Infinite Improbability Drive" button, which I press frequently when I have some spare time. But there's nothing wrong with categorizing things. New users on h2g2 won't be ready to expect the unexpected.

I don't think that categorization is as important as it's being made out to be, however. There are a lot of fundamental issues I'd rather discuss.

But then, I've got no time for either at the moment. Don't tell anyone you saw me here

Jordan an h2g2 version fo Stumble Upon. -Could you post the code at myspace.

OK Ben. Jodes was more diplomatic a couple of posts back, but I'll say it my way.

You are at an advantage here as usual, as one of the very few who can do Baby AND Bathwater. I just hope that in the end you decide to prioritise the Baby.

I said what I said in this thread for a reason. The writers are the ultimate arbiters because they're the lifeblood of the site. They were from the beginning and they will be always. Just honour them, OK? Because a contribution in writing means something here, right?

>> The writers are the ultimate arbiters because they're the lifeblood of the site. They were from the beginning and they will be always. Just honour them, OK?

Pin, I do worry about this, but I enter the circle in a different place. As I see it, we will stand or fall by virtue of our readership, and for that we need

* writers to produce fabulous content
* readers who come back time and again to read it
* a variety of ways for them to find it

What I am hearing from you is that you need freedom to write what you want and you believe that to be true of all writers, and you like serendipity when you are reading, you like reading without pre-conceptions about genre or subject matter.

So here's my First Question for Pin:

Have I heard you right? I don't want you and me to be talking at cross purposes.

If I have heard you right, then my response is "not only but also". I have a vision of noohootoo where we *not only* accomodate those styles of reading and writing *but also* accomodates other ways of writing and reading.

So here are my Second and Third Questions for Pin:

Do you believe that's doable at all? and

What have you read so far on the site that makes you think it's not what we're aiming for?

I am asking you the questions because I want to know what you think. Your answers may change what I think.



What *really* worries me in all this is the generation effect. First there were the people with the five-figure user numbers, then there were the people who arrived before the BBC took on the site. Now there are auntie's children who've only ever known the site under the BBC, but soon there will be the noohootizens. And if we are to re-energise the site for them, we need a LOT of noohootizens, but what happens to the rest of us? How will that make us feel?

So I worry about how to make the site a good place for all generations of users. That's not "I worry about it" in terms of "the next move in the game is to say 'I worry about it' and then the polite thing to do is for Pin to say 'oh ok then' and back down". It's "I worry about it" in terms of "I think it is probably the most important single thing we need to get right". Technology is only technology, the beeb are working on the lawyery stuff and I trust them with that, we can redesign processes until they run out of our ears, the talk-community can move itself over to facebook, but the writing-community is the core of the site because without content we will be nothing.

So here are my Fourth and Fifth Questions for Pin:

How do we make the site somewhere that existing researchers want to stay and contribute to AND make it somewhere that new reseachers will join and stay?

The other question is at a slightly higher level:

What do we need to do to make h2g2 a great publishing site?

In fact, these are not just Questions for Pin: if you are lurking, unlurk and post. I *really* want answers to the last two in particular.

Ben