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

...I've noticed that sometimes a vivid or quirky writing style gets shot down in Peer Review. Granted, it usually happens when newbies write what they think is an homage to Douglas Adams, but still. It's hard to judge what should pass muster, and what shouldn't.

(Elan makes some folks nervous. I usually talk the way I write: with metaphor and hyperbole and other verbal fillips and furbelows. One of my bosses used to get very defensive about it; he *really* did not like it. )

Anyway...

Typos bug me. Yes, everybody makes them occasionally, and it's really difficult to proofread your own work, but when I come across an entry that clearly hasn't been at least run through a spellchecker, my first impulse is to quit reading. If what you've written isn't worth the effort, why should the reader waste their time with it? So, while I agree that a list of typos is kind of dismaying to see, the writer can avoid a lot of them by spellchecking their work. (I'm assuming here that the writer speaks English as a first language - if not, I'm much more forgiving.)


Oh well, I didn't mean to rant because I mostly agree with what Jodan says. We'll just agree to disagree about the typos...

(that was a rant? Pah. quizzical, my friend, watch this...)

Ah, but we don't disagree I think the author should spellcheck and proofread his work. The author should be the first line of defense, always. Along with the subs, they're best positioned to use the least effort to correct things (though it's more difficult to spot them) because they don't have to go through conversation forums and thereby double the work.

I don't think our authors do a terrible job of looking over their typos. For a while, I truly and honestly couldn't stand reading my own writing and I'd let the Peerers help me - after a while I caught on to the idea that it's just easier for everyone, especially me, to help myself.

Another point that's out there to be made is the editorial process is supposed to polish entries up for the front page. It's not there to double-check entries which are already ready for the front page. I envision the process as... kind of like an assembly line. The author puts it together and spit-shines it, but the Peerers make sure everything's straight and lined up, then it moves down the conveyor belt to two or three guys that make sure it's shiny and ready to be shipped out. Everyone's performing their function. Specialization is important when we have such a diverse group like ours.

That's why I say... if you want to fix typos and format things become a curator or subbie. If you want to look at the body of the entry, be a scout. If you don't want a badge, you can help entries out in the forums by frequenting Peer Review and Editorial Feedback.

One problem I see is that there's a tendency to believe that the sooner a typo or problem is caught, the better. Peer Review is first in the process, so that's become a typo feedback place. The interesting thing about this is that Peer Review is first for a different reason. It's first because it's the only place to evaluate the body of an entry, and decide if it's worthy of the guide. That's the most important factor in deciding whether an entry goes in the guide. It would be absurd if we accepted everything into the guide that was well formatted and typo-free, wouldn't it? Yet by focusing too much on those issues, I see Peer Review as putting too much emphasis on what it wasn't built for.



If elan makes people nervous, that's fine, but those folks probably are a bit out of place on the unconventional Guide, I think. I always marvel at the old entries that have such a distinctive brand of humor and seem to invest as much time in entertaining the reader as informing him... it usually ends up working out that both happen.

OK, we do agree.

One thing that makes me nervous is catching a factual error when I'm subbing an entry. Fortunately it has only happened a couple times in 1-1/2 years or so of subbing, but it still makes me wonder how many I've missed...

I agree about the older entries having style, and I say the quirkier the better. I picture the original 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' as having plenty of oddball or incomprehensible stuff scribbled by various species gadding about the stars, such as:

.......
The Rigel Restaurant Review
Do *not* eat at 'Rodney's Ringworm Roundup'; Rodney has no idea how to cook ringworms properly. Burn hydrogen instead to 'Rigel Roy's' where they do a nice breaded ringworm. Wash it down with Roy's unique version of the Gargleblaster for the ultimate dining experience.
.......

(Yes, I *am* trying to avoid getting to work. How could you tell?)

Quizzical the Silly Sub
('Typos Stop Here')

I think we're under more pressure to be useful, and that's harder to do if Roy gets vaporized by a stray death star or something (if you catch my meaning)

Well, you know, factual errors aren't really the sub's job to check, I think. Of course, if it's right there in front of you, fix it, but I'm not worried that there might be factual errors in the (few) entries I've subbed. Worried to death that the entries I've written are riddled with errors, I'll admit...