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

Hmm, I like the general idea, however, I've some doubts about the 'doability' of having the two guides run through one single review thread - PR...

The problem I see is that not everyone is going to be interested in 'creative writing' (UG) and not everyone is going to be interested in 'factual writing' (EG).

Add to this the problem that doubling the size of peer review could and probably will mean that some worthy entries get ignored solely due to the amount of traffic on the forum and in addition the possible programming snags of having different recommendation criteria for the two types of entry in one single forum (it was mentioned somewhere that potential UG entries would need two recommendations as there were more questions about personal taste involved).

I've a suggestion, off the top of my head, that could make it easier for newbies (and everyone else) to get stuff into the right forum...

When someone clicks on the 'submit for review' button at the moment they get the text...

If your Guide Entry meets our guidelines and is finished, choose Peer Review
If your Guide Entry meets our guidelines but is not yet finished, choose Writing Workshop
If your Guide Entry is currently just an idea, choose Collaborative Writing Workshop
If your Guide Entry doesn't meet our guidelines, choose Alternative Writing Workshop
Don't choose Flea Market, unless you want your Guide Entry to be ignored!

and a roll down list of review forums... which as we all know, can be very confusing and the easiest way around this for most newbies is just to pick the default value on the rolldown list PR...




If this page was replaced by a page giving the following choices...

If you wish your entry to be submitted for potential inclusion in the Edited Guide (For encyclopaedic, factual entries) CLICK HERE (See Writing Guidelines</LINK&gt

If you wish your entry to be submitted for potential inclusion in the Underguide (For creative writing) CLICK HERE (See UG Writing Guidelines</LINK&gt

If your work is currently unfinished and wish to either recruit help or just get more opinions on how to complete it CLICK HERE ( Writing Workshop</LINK&gt

The CLICK HERE links would then open a new page with the text entry box for comments and start a conversation in the relevant review forum.

Comments?
Doable?
Get stuffed Whisky?

What do you think?

Well, it does sound like an improvement over the current system. I like that suggestion a lot, actually.

I'm still concerned that the average researcher wanting to review entries will just continue to head for Peer Review. That's the page that the banner ad links to in Goo and Alabaster, and the one there's a button for in the other skins (IIRC). Peer Review is obviously 'where it's at', and we'll have better luck working with that fact than trying to change it. You raise valid criticisms though.

Some reviewers will only be interested in EG entries, others only in UG entries.

PR will get even more crowded.

The scout tools are set up for 1 rec/entry.

That's a lot of flan...

Selective interest - How do most people use PR? I read the thread first, and if it seems to be about an entry I'll like, I read the entry. Is this what other people do? If so, they'll know pretty quickly whether it's an EG or UG entry being discussed. Ideally, the initial posting will make that clear, and if not, the first posting by a veteran will do so.

PR getting crowded - right now, people submit non-EG entries to PR, and the only ways out for them are voluntary removal and the GR Manoevre. (How in the hell do you spell that?) We'd be providing another way out for non-EG entries - being scouted for the UG. Of course, more of them would also be submitted. Would the volume of UG entries equal that of EG entries? I don't think anyone's expecting that, though I could be wrong. If they're clearly identified in the threads, and if scouts know what they're looking for (I support distinct UG and EG scouts), then this problem would be minimized, I think, but it is something to think about...

Scouting tools - this is a very good point. The less programming we ask to have done, the better. Jim's a busy man, and working within the existing infrastructure would be much slicker. 10 out of 10 for style, right? There must be a way we could collect multiple recommendations, and yet use the existing software. How about this: every volunteer scheme has an email group. In the UG Scouts e-group, scouts could name their picks. Any entry receiving the requisite number of picks there (or in some other forum, wherever) would be scouted officially by someone, perhaps the first scout to have voted for it it, or some official 'picker', who might be the only one with actual scouting powers.



Other thoughts?... More flan? More sporks? A different metaphor?

After thinking a little more about what I posted I've realised that there are actually two separate points in post 1...

The redesigning of the "submit for review" process could be of interest even without any changes to policy on entries... it would certainly make it clearer where an entry should be submitted.

The second is whether or not to have separate review threads for the EG and the UG...

I'm not sure about the work involved for programming either alternative (UG scouts with a separate 'recommend' button) but I can see potential problems with either alternative...



_Advantages of having a single review forum_


* Less thread movement (you no longer have the potential stigmata attached to being 'kicked out' of a review forum)

* Less chance of a separate forum stagnating (there is already and existing pool of reviewers using the forum)

* Less confusion about where to post for review.


on the other hand...

_Disadvantages_

* Too much traffic (as previously mentioned)

* Driving away reviewers who are not interested in half the entries (idem.)

* Confusion as to whether the author wants the entry to be included in the EG (i.e. is open to suggestions on changes in style, content, etc.) or is hoping to get into the UG (where 'helpful' EG-style advice might be taken very badly indeed)

* Possible conflicts in the event of borderline cases... Scouts arguing among themselves whether this or that entry is for the UG or the EG when the author themselves doesn't give a d**n as long as their work gets 'some sort of recognition'.



On the whole I'm yet to be convinced that the single review forum is the way to procede... However, if it is decided upon that two distinct forums would be better then I think that the 'submit for review' procedure does need to be changed. (Even if its not for my suggestion)

I like the suggestions for different "submit for review" page, but think the wording needs a little more discussion. The Underguide won't necessarily be all creative writing, and it might include all kinds of writing that doesn't fit the scope of the Edited Guide. For example, first person accounts, interviews and opinion pieces don't meet the guidelines for the EG, but I wouldn't call those "creative writing" necessarily.

In defense of a single review forum, I want to add a little more to the advantages you list, and minimize or remove some of the disadvantages you listed.

I agree that using the current Peer Review system to include entries for the Underguide would cause less thread movement and less confusion about where to poist. I would also add that the number of different forums could be reduced, because the Alt Writing Workshop would become pointless. Everything in the AWW would be potential UG material, which mean it could remain in Peer Review, or get bumped out to the Writing Workshop or Collab Workshop if the quality was judged to be not yet adequate.

As for forum stagnation, there has been a lot of discussion in the past about Flea Market and AWW being so poorly attended right now that it might be worthwhile to close them. A separate UG forum would only make that situation worse. Unless a separate UG forum were promoted in a big way to compete with Peer Review, it would become another ghetto where people would not willingly submit their stuff, and might feel rejected if they were moved from Peer Review to UG or AWW.

To minimize some of the disadvantages you mentioned:

* Too much traffic. There might be an initial burst of extra activity, but I'm not sure that there would be double the current traffic. A lot of people who post to Peer Review either misunderstand the guidelines, or totally ignore them. (Last night I noticed one entitled "scrotum itch". Come to think of it, someone could probably write an acceptable entry for the EG on that title, but the one I saw was definitely not it.) UG would just be redirecting some of the traffic that's already there, and would not necessarily create a lot more. Either way, I guess it's speculation. There's no way of telling how much heavier traffic might get.

* Driving away reviewers who are not interested in half the entries (idem.). I don't consider this a problem because reviewers aren't that finicky. Look at the current state of Peer Review. If you're interested in reviewing articles about travel or cooking, what is your reaction when you see "scrotum itch" or "Why Christianity is wrong" or "Mudvayne - the utmost awesome band"? Reviewers already have to be open to looking at a wide variety of topics, and they can't always count on seeing things they like. Most reviewers seem willing to comment on any area, even if they don't have particular interest in that field. As long as we ask researchers to identify entries as being intended for EG or UG when they submit, it should be clear enough for reviewers to skip the ones they don't like. I don't think a substantial number of reviewers would quit because of this.

* Confusion as to whether the author wants the entry to be included in the EG (i.e. is open to suggestions on changes in style, content, etc.) or is hoping to get into the UG... This is a good point, but I think it can be reduced or eliminated by explaining things on the text of the Peer Review page, and by forcing researchers to choose one or the other when they submit it. There are surely authors right now who get confused when their entries are moved to AWW or Flea Market or some other forum, mainly because they ignored the instructions on the PR page or ignored the guidelines. It's bound to happen if UG used Peer Review, but it's not a show-stopper of a problem.

* Possible conflicts in the event of borderline cases... Happens already with the Edited Guide. I read most of the thread for "Seven Card W**kstain" in Peer Review, which became a long argument over whether it was fit for the Edited Guide. Scouts and Subs joined the debate on both sides. We should talk about this a little more, but I think we could minimize this problem if we maintained that all borderline cases should be tried in the Edited Guide. Then if the entry is rejected, it could be considered for UG.

_Submit for Review wording_

I totally agree, as I said, I wrote post one off the top of my head without much prior reflection, maybe 'creative writing' is not the correct phrase...

HOWEVER, one thing I think is very important is that there is some kind of 'positive' definition of what should be in the underguide... a negative 'anything that doesn't fit the scope of the edited guide' implies that the author has read and understood the writing guidelines for the edited guide... which is far from being true for a lot of cases and a negative description would just leave us in the same situation we're in now - stuff getting sent to the wrong forum because people haven't read or don't understand the guidelines... (or simply have a differing opinion of their own work than is taken as 'standard' for the edited guide.



_Reducing the number of forums_

We can reduce the number of forums whatever we decide upon: once the UG becomes reality the CWW can be integrated into the WW and the AWW can be integrated into PR/UGreview
so in either case we go from 4 review forums (PR WW CWW AWW) to either two or three (PR WW & a possible UGPR)



_Forum Stagnation_

Stagnation could be a problem, but there again, that's got to be one of the reasons for having the italics involved. Lets get a link on the front page to the review forum and a reworded 'submit for review' page to hopefully put it on an equal footing with PR... I'll admit its going to start off a little smaller, purely because there isn't an existing bunch of reviewers already subscribed to the forum (as would be the case if PR was used).


_Too much traffic_

I'll give you that the traffic issue is very difficult to assess
However, from the biaised point of view of a EG scout it would make it a lot more difficult to weed out the dross from PR... I'm not saying that UG stuff would be dross, but it would double the work needed to get rid of something... Not only would a piece have to be declared unfit for the edited guide, but it would also have to be declared unfit for the UG, meaning cooperation between two bunches of scouts and joint decisions (probably requiring a third, joint yahoo group - accessible to all those involved so you'd have EG scouts discussing stuff on their E-group, UG scouts discussing on their E-group, plus a third e-group for everyone which sounds a little too complicated for my liking.



_Driving away reviewers_

On further reflection, the comments I made their are probably unfounded, except if there were problems relating to my previous point (getting rid of the rubbish).



_Confusion_
"This can be reduced or eliminated by explaining things on the text of the Peer Review page, and by forcing researchers to choose one or the other when they submit it".

Sounds awfully complicated to programme... If I get what you mean then the submission procedure would end up with the first posting in the thread being something along the lines of:
-----
Annnnnn - Entry Title
Post: 1

Posted n Hours Ago by Researcher nnnnnn
Entry: Title - Annnnnn
Author: Name - Unnnnnn
For inclusion in: Edited guide/Underguide

Authors Comments go here
-----

which would need another choice to be made in the submission procedure, but which, admitedly, would do away with discussions on whether it was aimed at one guide or the other... could cause a bit of a ruckus if entries were 'poached' by one of the other schemes scouts though, unless the entry was made 'recommendable' to only one of the scout groups (which is yet another programming problem).




_Borderline cases_

Whatever we do we'll always have the odd "I want this to go in the Edited Guide or else"... The number of such cases is only likely to reduced by the success of the Underguide - it might become "cooler" to have underguide entries than it is to have "Edited Guide" entries, it's more the confusion caused by the required extra communication, both on and off site, by two groups of volunteers that worrys me... Whereas keeping the two sets of entries separate gives both sets of volunteers strict borders of what they are responsible for...

One other point to think about is that I'm sure most of us will admit that not all EG scouts are angels and incredibly discrete when it comes to stuff that isn't suitable for the edited guide but who are efficient, useful and knowledgable as far as the current PR organisation goes...

*puts on tin helmet to avoid the flak after that comment *

There could be a conflict of ideology between EG scouts and UG scouts, we're not necessarily going to have the same type of personality interested in being an EG scout as would be interested in becoming a UG scout, and with overlapping responsibilities, this could cause some friction



Please don't get me wrong about anything I've said here, I love the idea of an 'Underguide' and I'd love it to have as much kudos as the edited guide, my sole concerns at present are as the title of the thread says 'One single review thread' for two completely different areas of the site.


Whisky
(Who's wondering what he's doing here as he recently handed in his scouts badge coz he hadn't the time to do it justice)

quit lurking ben... there's no way I'll believe you're an 'uninterested observer' in all this

Hey I *am* interested, but I keep on being swayed by both sides of the argument! Personally I like the simplicity of one forum, and we need to keep this as technically simple as possible. But you keep on persuading me otherwise.

So I am just watching you and GTB ding it out between you.

To be honest, I don't mind *what* we do so long at it works. You guys are better at this one than me.

B

To be honest I think creating an extra review forum is not that technically difficult...

I'm more worried about the running of PR when there are two different ideologies trying to work in parallel.

Actually, part of what I've put forward here (the rewording of the submit for review page) would probably be better of in Feedback as its more of a general idea for improving the site than specific to the introduction of an Underguide... But I'll leave that for the moment and see how things go.

"Sounds awfully complicated to programme... If I get what you mean then the submission procedure would end up with the first posting in the thread being something along the lines of:"

No, maybe I was not clear. It shouldn't be that difficult. I meant almost the same thing that you said earlier when you suggested modifying the "submit for review" wordings. The Underguide would be just another option when the person is classifying an entry as ready for PR or AWW or WW or Flea Market.

The author chooses from options like the ones you described.
If your piece [meets these conditions], then click here to submit to PR.
If your piece [meets other conditions], then click here to mark as potential UG material and submit to PR.
If you would like some more help with polishing your piece, click here for Collab Workshop or Writing Workshop, etc.

If that was too technically difficult to program, or if asking for technical changes is unworkable, the work-around is simple: spell it out on the Peer Review page, requesting that authors mention in the body of their "authors comments" whether they intended a piece for the EG or UG. (Maybe we could say EG is default, and they only need to write something extra if they're aiming for the Underguide?)

Yes, some people will ignore it or miss it. That wouldn't be the end of the world, since it is not currently the end of the world when people ignore guidelines and ignore everything else when they blunder into the Peer Review system. (See "scrotum itch", might have been bumped out of PR since I last saw it?)

"could cause a bit of a ruckus if entries were 'poached' by one of the other schemes scouts"

At the moment, I'm tending to believe that the Underguide should actively discourage any overlap or competition with the Edited Guide. If an EG scout thought that some piece could make it into the EG, we should relinquish it. Let them try it. If rejected, we can pick it up later. If accepted, then there are plenty more fish in the sea.

Another point against competition between the two is that the Underguide scheme might sound more hospitable to the Italics if we make it clear from the outset that we would not be competing to grab any of the factual entries that would fit into the Edited Guide. They might deny the whole thing if it sounded like we might use potential EG entries when we felt like it.

I'm curious to hear more thoughts on this topic, if there are any advantages to competing with the Edited Guide, but for now, I'm leaning away from it.



From what I've read, the problem with separate review fora is that it would confuse authors and only PR prospers while the other fora go neglected.

The problem with a single review fora is that it requires scouts to communicate and debate over which category an entry belongs to.

Other scouts or subs reading this, which seems the bigger problem to you?

I'm not a Scout or a Sub so I don't understand the technicalities but in principle I feel that sharing resouces for the two guides will act against any tendency for the community to divide into one that supports one guide and one that supports the other. So that would be my preference but I appreciate it might not be practical.

Our discussion is suddenly a lot more theoretical.

F432?thread=238692&post=2832441#p2832441
agcBen asked Jim Lynn whether it would be likely for any technical changes to be implemented for the Underguide.

He wrote:
"I'd be very surprised if this was likely to happen in the forseeable future given the major amount of work that would be needed (changing everywhere which displays status to understand the new status, developing tools which allow the status to be set, permissions to allow a new group to set this status on articles, etc.

You're better off concentrating on actually choosing and promoting these articles internally - it would be possible to define something in the GuideML which marked an article as 'The People's Choice' for example, they just wouldn't appear as such in lists (like search results etc.)."

So our immediate plan ought to be a system that includes no changes to the review forums, no technical efforts to be made by the Italics. These questions will still be important in the long term, in case we can request some technical changes down the road. But right now, we should make a plan that can be run with the existing structure.

That said, we could still create an unofficial UG peer review page as a center for scouting, an attempted review forum. I don't know whether we would be allowed to use the main Peer Review forum as a bunch of unofficial freaks coming in there and telling the EG scouts, "Never mind, we got it from here."

So at this point, I'm flip-flopping. Maybe later we could share Peer Review, after putting through some technical changes. Until then, I think we should have an unofficial UG review area.

Good morning. Deidzoeb mentioned my name.


Competition:

We should NEVER, NOT EVER compete with the EG.

The EG is what this site is all about, and it has a (fairly) clearly defined set of objectives and principles. The EG is also what Anna, Ashley, Jimster and Chris are all about too. We should respect the fact that anything which undermines the EG also undermines them. Don't do it, kiddies. Also the EG is great in its own way. My vision has always been to extend and develop it, not diminish it.

So - if something is scouted for the EG - they get it. Of course they do.

This, unfortunately, means that the UG will be seen as second best, especially during the long dark teatime during which the UG entries do not have an official status. (More on that in a moment).

This also means that the UG scouts need to be sensitive and diplomatic. (Which should be entertaining to watch, considering what a bunch of independent-minded beggers most of us are! )





Technical Constraints:

Jim dashed my main goal, which was to square the circle of obtaining an official status which is not 'Edited'.

The Editors are rightly reluctant to open a door which cannot then be closed, by extending the boundaries of the EG.

I was hoping that we could say 'Oh Look - here is Another Door to Another Room - there is no need to change the EG'. It now looks as if we cannot say that.

But:

One of the things which I percieve as being make-or-break in terms of selling this to writers in the community is the kudos of having an equivalent to 'Edited' status for the selected entries. (And I know that some disagree with me on this - and I have been wrong in the past, of course).

So - yes - I am very disheartened by Jim's post. On the other hand it is a spur to make whatever we come up with even more robust.

Do you think there is any chance that we could persuade the Italics to go with Edited Entries where 'the Peoples' Choice' or 'Parallel Guide' or whatever is included in the GML?

What do you reckon?





Forums:

If there was a likelihood for achieving official status for the UG entries parallel with the 'Edited' status, then I would say 'go for PR' on the grounds that it is the busiest forum, and it is simpler for the authors, even if it is trickier for the scouts. Mind you, I have been reading Whisky's comments and find a lot of them persuasive...

However - UG entries are going to remain unofficial for a while yet. Which makes it more than a little dodgy to use PR. Which brings us back to the AWW. Which brings us back to the start of this whole debate. "Why is the AWW still such a dead end?"

The sound you can hear is my teeth grinding.





Ok - What have we got?

1) The idea of a parallel or underguide which supports extends and suppliments the EG
2) With its own guidelines and standards
3) And its own volunteers, either combined scouts and subs, or separate scouts and subs
4) The goal of an official status for entries similar to but different from the 'Edited Entry' status
5) The goal of direct link(s) on the FP for one or more UG entries per day
6) A debate over the best forum to use, either PR or a specific UG forum

Anything else?


What we *also* have is the examples of the Post, and AGG/GAG/CAC, Fiction Central, Archangel Kes's Poetry Page, whatever spook did with Fiction, and various other attempts at putting something together.

So my questions now are:

1) What makes the Post so successful, and how did it get that way?
2) What made AGG/GAG/CAC work?
3) How does what we want to achieve differ from AGG/GAG/CAC?
4) *Does* it in fact differ from AGG/GAG/CAC?
5) How do we get support, momentum and kudos for a scheme, the keystone of which is official recognition for an entry, if we cannot have official recognition for an entry?

So there you are.

Two eurocents, and a bitty extra.

B

Hmm, not looking too good this morning is it...

I've a pile of work on my desk you wouldn't believe so I'll get back to you this afternoon

I continued my thinking about how to go forward here, if anyone is interested:

B

http://groups.msn.com/TheH2G2Underguide/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=31&all_topics=0

mornin all,

just reading through this thread, and there are some direct questions re AggGag at the end there...

***** WARNING - LONG POST AHEAD ***********

Well, one thing that makes The Post successful is the enthusiasm and hard-work of the Editors!

But how did it achieve readership initially? It must have been 'promoted' in some way.

Which brings us to AggGag; essentially, AggGag was born out of a conversation very much like this one, where a few researchers sat around agreeing that PR and the EG was all very well, but what about all the quality non-EG material? Where was that to get an audience? And indeed, why wasn't there more discussion of non-encyclopoedia type pieces?

Eventually, it developed into a kind of mini-scout group for The Post (which could happily have run most of the stuff we dug up as 'one-off' items if the author had dropped them in there).

Quite often I have said to authors in PR, 'Look, this on isn't really EG material, why not check out AggGag in The Post?' and before i knew it, an entry i had ear-marked for our column had it's own place in The Post, after the author had taken my advice and worked it out for themselves...

AggGag was just looking to pick up the good stuff that slipped through the net and ended up drifting around, either in the Flea Market, AWW, or just on an author's space. And sometimes when you stumble across a first interesting entry from an author and showcase it, they turn out to be a source of further material; either from themselves, or people they know and talk to here.

Gaston was great example of this. Here was a researcher with a terrific writing style that was getting very little out of h2g2 because it simply wasn't set up to cater for a creative writer. But at least when we turned up and said, 'Hey Gaston, that travel story is great, can we run it in The Post?', he seemed to feel that *someone* was reading and enjoying!

We ended up running everything he wrote here, and it is only a shame that our efforts weren't enough to make him want to carry on.



I'm rambling, so back to one last thing that i know i intended to say here:

Some people seem concerned that we won't get any great backing from the PTB on this kind of project, but i don't agree. AggGag has always had interest and support from the Italics, and indeed Mina has tried to follow up the interest that they know exists in non-EG writing on h2g2

I think that it's down to researchers to make it happen, much the way Subcom D has said in the past. We're no challenge to the EG, but we could be building a pole for people who want to write other stuff, and read other stuff.

this last point is, i believe, the key to the other question about the AWW *still* being a dead-end... Loads of people drop any old nonsense into PR and get patient replies telling them that it's fine to write nonsense (especially if its quite good nonsense, ) but PR isn't the place for it. The problem is, in effect, PR is the *only* writers forum that will attract much attention.

I use the WW as a pre-PR testing-ground quite often, and i know some reviewers will read what i post there and feedback, and in turn I try to make sure that i do read and respond to stuff that appears there as i would in PR.

Even this low-level of traffic appears to be impossible in the AWW. For at least 2 reasons.

Primo, there is no 'end in view' in posting to the AWW. We have suggested a remedy for this; some kind of front-page recognition for a selected entry (perhaps one a day).

Secundo, it's not like PR where you can try to help an author 'improve' their entry... or is it? Not at the minute; but it could be. As it is, the usual thread is either just the author, or perhaps a couple of Aggist posts saying, 'Hi, i read this and i like it' kinda stuff.

But it *could* be better, and *would* be the ideal alternative to PR for submitting something to considered for that week's Front Page AWW Selection Spot

If people were in there 'backing' one piece or another for the 'honour' of appearing on the Front Page, things would be much more lively, in there, i reckon. Or i'd like to think something like that could be achieved here, with so many potential contributors.

But where does The Post fit into all this? and indeed, AggGag? Well, separate but parallel...

Oh god, i'm rambling *again*

spiff

Thanks Spiff - I did not know most of that about the history of AGG/GAG and how it worked, and I really wanted to understand it in order to understand what does work and what doesn't.

You are right - the Italics are politely supportive, but rightly, want to know that there is something lasting to support.

Oh Shazz - come and tell us about the dim and distant past of the Post, when it was nobbut a twinkle in anyone's eye...!

B

oh, Ben, did you spot this rather good resumé of the Chuckler Experience from our boy Dei? - A932717

Ohh! Thanks!

B

And if h2g2 should live a thousand years, they will say 'Ours was the finest!'

I don't want to get into a pissing contest here about whether it should be UG or Agg or Iggy, for a rose is a rose after all. Behind the egos and efforts of the founding fodders of AggGag was a genuine intent to accomplish everything mentioned here, to create an alternative to the EG with a forum for fiction, creativity, humour and individual personal expression.

But Subcom's dissertaion on the evolution of AggGag into the current CAC system is absolutely true. For lack of organisation and no clear path for newbies to join in our 'existing conversations' we settled into something less than our intentions and far less than the creative writers and interested members of this site deserve. But like before (and probably after) us, upon whom we depend for an audience, we have championed a lot of 'Flea Market' material, nursed a lot of wounded egos and lamented the loss of researchers who went away mad.

The remedy, involving more people and getting better organised with a wider discussion group is harder to achieve, but if it means creating yet another 'working title' (an UG instead of an AGG) to offer an alternative forum for those entries that 'fail' the EG, then count on my support.

While I am still inclined to hope that AggGagCAC can and will eventually become 'the other' PR system, any alternative guide by any other name works for me too. For me personally, the core mission of AggGagCAC is to be reactive to the rejection aspect of the EG. Once properly organised with enough hands helping the cause it can grow into a truly cooperative creative writing workshop.
peace
~jwf~