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

Hi Jordan,

Editorial Process:

I agree with it being writer-submitted only.

Do we have a way of an Entry being removed from the Writing Workshop? Does it automatically get removed (retaining the conversation, of course, if people wish to continue to comment)?

I definitely like the three-tier approach.

Although the idea of the QAB deciding in private that's probably the way to go. Public or private, either method could go wrong.


Volunteer schemes

The idea of the Curator scheme makes sense, at least because it merges together the roles of Scout, Sub-Ed and Curator and quite a few people already hold at least two of those roles at once anyway. I don't know about getting rid of the Sud-Ed stage altogether as it's bad enough at the moment in PR with people nitpicking spelling and ignoring writing style and comprehension. To be discussed, perhaps. Perhaps we need more good reviewers, or for good reviewers to write a guide for the rest of us.

Curators will have to organise themselves to ensure that all the various jobs are covered, but I think that's probably a safe thing to expect from them.

Keeping the Guide up-to-date is a mammoth task, as we both know. Would the Curator role involve a rolling review procedure? I outlined something here: F20484620?thread=8086488&latest=1

I'm happy for all Volunteers to keep their badges permanently as long as they keep the group up to date with roughly how active they think they can be.

I agree that ACEs should have a much wider remit and could include a lot more Community stuff, similar to the Conversation Managers (e.g. Talking Point starters, moving conversations to the correct places, Collaborative Entry writers) role I envisaged. No need to split them.
Gurus and ACEs should not be mixed though. Mind you, if the new site is easier to use there should be less need for Gurus, as most queries about how to use the site would ideally be answered by anyone. So scrap that. If the new site is easy to use the Gurus should be absorbed into the ACEs.

Editors. Is there any reason these jobs shouldn't be picked up by the Curators? How do they become Editors? I know you've deliberately said that their job description is vague but given how much the Curators can do it seems odd to have Editors too.

QAB - As I've said elsewhere, I think having this process behind closed doors could be problematic, but probably less so that having a voting system or other such thing. Editors-Emiritus will have stopped being Editors for a reason so I think we should think a little more closely about how we choose these people, much like the Editors. Why do they have to be a seperate group to the Editors?

I hope these thoughts are useful.

This are useful comments, Vip. I appreciate the chance to address them.

I don't think the Gurus are, or really ever have been, a particularly active Volunteer Scheme. That's because anyone can (and frequently does) do their job. Part of the ACE's job has always been to answer questions for newbies, and that seems to overlap a lot with the Gurus anyways. I just think the Gurus have been redundant for a long time now.

Editors: yes, we need Editors, I think. They're going to be the ones who are actually responsible for moving things along. There also needs to be someone responsible for making decisions - such as whether an entry meets the Writing Guidelines. They basically need to be in charge of the Curators, but I'm sure they'll have another role as well, as a sort of representative to the site's business end about the Editorial side of things. When we made the UnderGuide, we expected the Editors to have a very minimal role, but it became necessary for them to be very important. A large part of the Editor's role is to provide the impetus for the volunteers.

QA Board should, I think be separate from Editors. The people who are willing to volunteer their time for the process aren't necessarily our finest judges of quality. I know this from experience. For a while when I was the sole UG editor, I had to fill the QA role, which made me very nervous. QAs should be able to just focus on this one, very limited role if they wish to, because it's an important one.
Like I said, these should be elected, so Editors-Emeritus can run just like anyone - it was just a thought.

*These* are useful comments. Sorry, it's still early. I only really ever get on h2g2 very early or very late these days, which makes for a great excuse when I spell something wrong. Or when I post prematurely.

As for getting rid of the Sub-Ed stage, I am a firm believer that the author should be the number one way to get rid of errors in his or her work. I know that no matter how many times I proofread an entry, there are always errors, and I think that's fine, but if an entry goes into review riddled with simple spelling errors, I think we need to just say "Run this through a spell checker" or "Proofread this yourself" instead of handing him or her a long list of errors.

I also believe that changing some of the standards of conformity will reduce the Sub-Ed's job significantly. I might ruffle a few feathers here by saying this, but do we really need to use exclusively British English? I'm not sure about that. I don't know how they did things pre-Beeb, but the BBC was a conformity monster. I think we need to get away from that.

That said, if an entry manages to be picked despite being unreadable, I think an Ed could ask a Curator to take it under his or her wing, and fix some of the errors. Like I've said though, this should be the exception, rather than the rule.

I relish the chance to move away from British English. As long as terms that are not the same have a quick footnote for comprehension, I don't see why we can't use any form of English. It would add to the inclusivity of the Guide and allow people to write int their own natural style.
I would like the option to be truly multi-lingual, but I don't know if that is possible. I understand why the BBC banned foreign language postings, for the libel/insurance reasons if nothing else.

As long as we don't let the Editors become a bottle-neck I think that is sensible. They need to know what's going on without being the only way that things can more forward. But we can sort that out.
I'd also forgotten that we'd need representatives to go forward to the Business side of things with the new owner, possibly cascade down information, that kind of thing.

With the Sub-Eds, I think I was more concerned that PR will turn into a spelling review; as there won't be Sub-Eds people will feel that they can't leave anything to the author. Again, if we make sure that we try to train the reviewers as much as we train the writers, that shouldn't be a problem.

Looking good. I hope you get more comments as this is the stuff our Guide is made of.

Hey.
I tried to make a silly diagram of the volunteers; but it's not very enlightening.
http://docs.google.com/drawings/edit?id=1sEvWFOO5HteALDWtmiL9bqxA0jSAUDT0CI7pUzwkdMU

But I also added the QA board to the Entry Status diagram:
http://docs.google.com/drawings/edit?id=1kxgwrI_-2ZCVZusT25PKp07nQnWom3mFVjQPVVVlGds&hl=sv&authkey=CIOt4-sD

Does it work?

Hi

I could get into the second one but not the first one....

B

http://docs.google.com/drawings/edit?id=1sEvWFOO5HteALDWtmiL9bqxA0jSAUDT0CI7pUzwkdMU&hl=sv&authkey=CPrBujg

Oops, forgot to share. This should work.

I'm sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you.

Your diagram looks about right Milla, although we need another box for the Editors.

I have one final question: how many Curators and Editors do we expect to have? There has to be a balance between making sure we don't have a bottleneck and so many that it gets out of control.

No, apparently I have two. I hate to raise this, but we should also think about how we un-select someone from the Curator/Editor groups. Say, they were starting to take liberties with authors' work, or their standard of grammar wasn't high enough but they refused to accept help?

Sorry, three. Who can assign rights? Can any Curator give rights to someone (eep!); can only Editors or the Board? Or is it a techie... in which case we need a back up in case they go on holiday and we lose all ability to assign rights without them. Just a thought.

Well that ammounts to a very interesting proposal, subject to a review of the procedure I must say I am 100% in favour. Please count on my suppott and assistance if required.

Well done

Vip
Diagram; Included Editor/Publisher (not sure if name of role will change) and also Moderators. May be paid staff, or not. We will see.

Very important question of removing a person from a role.
I've been active in the union, and we once had to un-elect a person. It was painful.

We need a process on that.
We need a closed forum for discussions, and we need to document reasons. And we need to be able to remove persons.

I see a user account administrator role, and I would recommend this person to be completely out of any volunteer schemes etc. If h2g2 is purchased, this would probably be one of the staff. Otherwise, a volunteer. This user account admin should on request from persons already with the role to admit a new person into the group. Consensus from the group, I suggest. Same thing, perhaps even a majority vote for removal. Admin has no vote, perhaps.

Hello Milla

''Very important question of removing a person from a role.
I've been active in the union, and we once had to un-elect a person. It was painful.

We need a process on that.
We need a closed forum for discussions, and we need to document reasons. And we need to be able to remove persons.''


Yes this could cause problems however I don’t think so, if you want to avoid any chance of bad feelings perhaps the following could be done.

Perhaps all badge holders could continue during change over in an advisory capacity. Then they could be confirmed a the role(or the new or revised one). I think a name change would be good here, maybe the ACE’s and Gurus could be called perhaps Community Guides (a more appropriate name for the job), then those who retire could perhaps they keep the old BBC badge on the PS as an as a reward for/indication of past service.

All badge holders could be considered for the new roles but this would not then be a guarantee of automatic acceptance.
I also think that there would be a natural loss of around 40% who would want to re-apply for the new posts anyway.

This might assist the transition process I hope the idea helps.

I've also had a re-think and although this is something that needs to be thought about, it's not something to be discussed at this stage.

All those who already hold posts are probably OK to transition straight over. Current Scouts I think may not have a place (although they can apply to be a Curator, perhaps), but I agree that a 'retired' badge could be left to reward them for their service.

Milla,
In the Diagram you show the Moderator to be reactive to 'Yikes'-ed posts only.
I think the Moderator should also react to posts that are caught by the automatic filters, although one could argue these are 'Auto-Yikesed'.

Are posts yikesed by the filther? I thought it would just stop you from posting them in the first place.

Can I also ask who does the 'Liking'? Is it everyone? If so, would articles about things with a large range of appeal, say Doctor Who for instance, automatically be 'liked' more than articles about something less well known but better written?

<BB<

Oh, good question....

Good point Vip.
1. How would the 'Like' button influence:
1.a search results
1.b acclaim
1.c elegibility for the Showcase
1.d and such ?

2. Do we want to incorporate the "Like score" in search results ?

3. Do we elevate the relevance of the search-result in a Category ?

4. Do we display the number of "Like"-s in the PS ?

1. How would the 'Like' button influence:

1.a search results
A - not at all if you mean Google - undefined if you mean the internal search engine

1.b acclaim
A - I don't know what you mean by this

1.c elegibility for the Showcase
A - it wouldn't

1.d and such ?
A - ?


2. Do we want to incorporate the "Like score" in search results ?
A - I don't think we could with Google, though I don't know enough about standard APIs for these things - It's an interesting thought for an internal search engine

3. Do we elevate the relevance of the search-result in a Category ?
A - I don't understand the question

4. Do we display the number of "Like"-s in the PS ?
A - yes in the entry but not in the personal space.

Do we want to incorporate the "Like score" in search results ?

No a like button is not right for some types of specialist entries. A did you find this helpful, or rate this entry or how about a record your visit, button as a traffic record is useful.

But a like button is a bit to twitter for the serious researchers when Wikipedia do it it will be a sad day.

I think it was <BB< not me who posed the question, but I'm game for an answer or two:

1. How would the 'Like' button influence:
1.a search results
--not at all, unless you are searching by 'most likes' rather than by topic

1.b acclaim
--the Entries with the most likes (say in the past year? they should disappear off after a while to let new Entries stand on an equal footing) could have a page somewhere, maybe from the Front Page ("Click Here for the most enjoyed Entries on h2g2").

1.c elegibility for the Showcase
--not at all. That needs to be independant.

1.d and such ?
--Uh...?

2. Do we want to incorporate the "Like score" in search results ?
--No. Search should bring up relevance to the search term. Perhaps the amount of likes could be displayed next to the name of the Entry or something, but it shouldn't affect where it comes in the search.

3. Do we elevate the relevance of the search-result in a Category ?
--Uh, you don't search categories in the same way. If we retain our current practice of listing alphabetically there would be no way to do this. Again it could have a number next to it, or be highlighted in some way, but I'm wary of biasing readers towards a topic; I want them to choose.

4. Do we display the number of "Like"-s in the PS ?
--I vote no to this.

Can we have a word other than 'like' do describe this? I just have problems with coming up with something better... How about 'Enjoy'? Perhaps Share and Enjoy, which could link in with the Share buttons with FB and Twitter?