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

~jwf~ I have replied at length to your post in the threat entitled UGH, and I have a date with a bath, a glass of wine and a good book, so this won't be long. (Why does ANYONE have showers? The wine gets watery, the book gets soaked, and you have to do the whole thing standing up, for goodness's sake!)

I for one am grateful for your dose of realistic cold water. I truly think that we are in a circular situation; in order to succeed whatever scheme is finally proposed will need an official stamp of approval, (ie official volunteers, official 'Edited' entries, etc), and the Editors, rightly, are not going to approve an unsuccessful scheme. If nothing sucks seeds like a parrot, which comes first, the parrot or the egg?

What I do see this round of discussions doing *as a bare minimum* is providing yet another layer of silt which will eventually turn into a sandbar which will eventually change the flow of the river.

At the next level it may suck in more volunteers for AGG/GAG/CAC, which in itself (I assume) is no bad thing.

It may strengthen AGG/GAG/CAC, providing a little more coherence and some extra visibility.

My objectives - I do not know about the objectives of the rest of the group - are for the BBC to implement an as yet undefined long-term proposal for an official parallel guide (Underguide, whatever) with official entries, and official volunteer groups. My short term objectives are anything which moves us nearer to that long-term goal.

There are a couple of things which - if they happen - mean I will unsubscribe from these discussions. The first is if the UG appears to want to rival or challenge the EG. And the other is if these discussions go in the direction of competing with AGG/GAG/CAC. I simply see no point in yet another bloody forum, and yet another bloody group.

Now, there is a glass of Australian Riesling with my name on it, a copy of a very old Terry Pratchett, and a bath full of bubbles. I shall bid y'all good night.

B

Night Ben, and watch that drowsy feeling in the bath!

I have been thinking about The Post generally, and have an idea that it is The Post and not AggGag that really constitutes the most solid basis for a recognised forum for the kinds of writing we have been discussing.

One very good reason is an item run it today's Post - A933897

in which they bemoan the pressures of wandering the underguide (in so many words) looking for cool stuff to run each week.

Now, we are suggesting that there be a better organised showcase for non-EG writing, but that's exactly what The Post *is*!

If it were clear to people that the AWW was the gateway to consideration for The Post, then it might liven up a bit of its own accord... well, if it *really* were clear...

i got company, godda go

Spiff - you are a genius. We feed the Post through the AWW. It is circular - people will only use AWW if they know they are likely to get glory in the Post, and AWW will only feed the post if the quality is good. But we can at least promote good entries into AWW, I guess.

*feeling hopeful*
a journey of a thousand miles involves footwork and blisters en route

B

Ben, there's a sort of workaround that can be done unofficially to grant status to entries in an unofficial way, requiring no technical changes from the Italics. Entries could include a line at the top or possibly a small table-graphic that identifies them as being officially selected by the Underguide. Then we maintain a list or archives where readers can confirm which entries were really selected. Fakers could use our keyword or graphic, but the list would prove which entries were authentic UG material and which were not.

and at the end of the day, not too many people would actually try to squeeze their way in...

well, initially... before it became a major entertainment channel...


what *am* i talking about?

Hi Everyone,

I'd just like to add that we going to be changing the drop down review box at some point *fingers tightly crossed* soon from the order it's in at the moment an alphabetical list:

Select one of the following
Alternative Writing Workshop
Collaborative Writing Workshop
Flea Market
Peer Review
Writing Workshop

Hopefully the impact of this will be that people will think more about where they're putting their entries, but because Alternative Writing Workshop is the first option, that might boost the traffic there.

I'm well in favour of two *active* review forums, as the end product is different for each. It would make it easier for Scouts and Underguide Scouts to find relevant Entries for their particular purposes...

The thing that makes a review forum active is the activity of the people who populate it. If there is a significant number of people with a common purpose, who focus their efforts and are dedicated, and the process is formalised (to some degree, I'm still not making any promises ) then I think you might have something with momentum.



Anna

That is good to know, Anna. It really should make a difference to how the forums are used by everyone.

Thanks for the info, it is good to know you are rattling around these threads, and this sort of feedback helps us keep on track and not go chasing wild geese.

B

> It really should make a difference to how the forums are used by everyone.

I hope so.

I am rattling round, and am very encouraged by the vision and activity...

Have a good weekend.

Anna

Hi Anna,

great to have your input at this stage, .

Just a thought about the whole 'archive' thing... I'm thinking that one of the downsides to the current system of showcasing good material in The Post is that despite the existence of an excellent Post Archive, it seems to me that it isn't something many people would 'browse'. Not the way you can browse through the categorised EG Life the U & E on the frontpage.

The AggGag Archive (indeed, this should link - <./>AGGGAG-Archives</.> Ah, it did when i put the thingummies in! :-d) organised by Lucinda had a slight advantage: a run-down of specifically which items were in the column, with a few words of explanation. I suspect this became something of a burden for hir (Long may your pronouns be gender-neutral, Lucinda, ).

I have seen a CAC archive too, though i don't know who has taken over as Worshipful Crusty Archivist...

But we would want something a bit more visible, i think - perhaps as the main page. Something people really could come visit and find a wealth of fun/interesting writing, possibly presented in a range of 'categories'.

There is another question, (but this would probably require something specific done to the search engine, so i'm just dreaming for the mo) - It would be really great if high quality entries could be sorted from the total chaff in the search engine.

So instead of just 'Edited' or '[this space intentionally left blank], a search could indicate 'Selected' or 'Alternative' or 'Underguide' or 'Check this out!' or whatever, but something to give it a status as worth reading. That would make a huge difference to the search, i think we'd all agree.



I think one problem is that by the subjective nature of non-EG writing, one difficulty is in the selection process.

Sorry to bang on about a 'dead' subject, but i *do* think that the 7CWS episode is a good example.

What is the process that filters the wheat from the chaff. Who decides? This requires more than just scouts picking factual & informative out of the PR pool. The volunteers are the key. It will almost inevitably become a clique who publicise what they like. Indeed, that sounds like a pretty fair description of CAC right now. Although we're not *even* that cliquey!

A real quality Underguide selection scheme would have to look back to our original intentions with AggGag - a genuine debate over each entry to be 'selected' and a minimum consensus before it can be scouted. That is how PR was formed, i guess, but there has to be a minimum of debate before such a system can gather the momentum required to feed even one item a day to feature on the Front Page.



Perhaps i am just rambling now, but this is a separate question i've been mulling over; what are we suggestiong appears on the FP, exactly? An individual entry with a few words of intro? Where on the page? Near the days published EG entries? or near the The Post banner?

Or should it be a case of ploughing our collective energies into providing The Post with material, and then bumping up The Post's presence on the FP? Also potentially a cool thing to do for all concerned.



ok, i must be rambling by now, so one last thing, , it has been said in more than one way that the only way the PTB can commit to a scheme that involves a regular feature on the FP, is for the scheme *already* to have enough momentum to *guarantee* consistency.

Can we guarantee consistency? Not yet, i don't think. We don't need editorial rubber stamping to constitute ourselves into an Underguide Scout volunteer group. We can do that off our own bats, with the acceptance requirement to be a regular presence in the AWW, and a regular selection for The Post. Hmm. Perhaps also to occasionally step in to PR or WW threads that don't fit the EG but suit our porpoises, and invite new writers to the happ'ninest Alternative Writing forum on the web!

And someone mentioned the idea that if you just happen to spot a newbie with some fun/good ideas, don't be backward in coming forward, drop them a line with a link to the AWW and The Post.

er... I'm not sure where all that came from,
gotta go do what i should've been doing all day. Got an hour left,

cya
spiff

hmm, just having a look in PR, and wondering whether to mention AWW to the 'To, the, Turks' author...

it's certainly alternative, and most definitely won't be going in the EG!

"what are we suggestiong appears on the FP, exactly? An individual entry with a few words of intro? Where on the page? Near the days published EG entries? or near the The Post banner?"

There have been a few suggestions for other names, but if there's still a concensus in favor of calling this the "Underguide," it would make a neat visual pun to have our bit at the BOTTOM of the front page. Whether that bit involves an intro or just a link, I don't know. Anyone else fancy the Underguide being promoted Under the rest of the content on the front page?

RE: finding UG entries via search engine. GTB or someone recommended a simple workaround that would allow researchers to find Underguide entries in the search engine. Simply append "UG" or some keyword or phrase to the start of every title that we select. For example, "UG - Why Spiff Is So Cool". Then researchers could search for "UG", or look at the alphabetical index, and find all of our latest selections. Again, people could counterfeit their status by putting our keyword in their title, but it would always be possible to confirm this by checking it against a master list or archive or whatever.

I truly like the idea of an 'Underguide' button at the bottom of the front page! I like the name and the apparent intention. And in the interests of the establishment as well as the anti-establishment, I heartily recommend a discussion of what it might entail.

It certainly has the potential to assuage hostilities toward the PR system and it would acknowledge that other forms and attitudes are at least welcome at h2g2.

It could link directly to a Forum page called the "Underguide" which might be an official recognition by the powers-that-be that there has been a history of confusion about the purpose of Peer Review and the nature of the Edited Guide. There, one would find a(n) historical synopsis of these problems that researchers have been discussing. It could further acknowledge that other approaches are possible and encouraged.

In its most basic form it should at least serve to provide links to all these alternative areas that have sprung up over the years, from Speakers Corner to h2g2 Fiction, to <./>AggGag</.>-CAC, , the AWW and any other anti-EG or non-EG pages. (To keep it non-political and in the interests of 'more fun and better writing' perhaps groups such as the Zaphodistas - whose legitimate complaints concerned many other very important issues of moderation which have since been mostly addressed - could be overlooked if the focus is to stay on literary and creative activities.)

It could also feature a 'selected' non-EG-eligible entry of the day (or week) chosen either by the editors, the PR scouts or even an 'editor' or 'committee' chosen from any of the alternative literary forums.

But most importantly it should link to an 'AWW' type forum which, if there were but one instead of the many (I believe the AWW should be the one), could be as active and rewarding as PR is to those who follow that path. Given more 'official status' this writing forum for the more 'fun and fiction' and less 'fact and formal' entries would encourage conversations about writing, similar to Peer Review. And the declared and intended potential for further promotion of entries there would provide and <./>AggGag</.>-CAC with more and better material and also become the source of a daily (or weekly) Underguide featured entry.

peace
jwf

No argument re: Zaphodistas. Our complaints were always about House Rules and restrictions, what was allowed or prohibited from writing on h2g2. What the Editors chose or rejected for the Edited Guide never really entered into the discussion.

Perhaps you have just clearly defined exactly what the Underguide should be about, because "What the Editors chose or rejected for the Edited Guide" is the cause at the heart of several alternate groups which have long continued to appear and rise to gain a limited following with each passing wave of new researchers.

With the unique exception of none has ever been officially supported, endorsed or promoted directly by the powers that be. Yes it is also true that <./>AggGag</.> was recognised and given a 'named link', but in other cases non-compliance groups have been openly discouraged. But these groups are the ones who would be at the heart of an Underguide. They simply need a unifying theme and direction. First, the creation of a central 'Underguide' Forum and a Front Page 'Underguide' button needs to come from TPTB.

I firmly believe that once an Underguide achieves 'official' status it will unify many of the alternate literary groups and create a lively new literary forum, 'second only' to PR.


~jwf~

I'll stop marauding through the backlog now!

[Suggested] Things to do.

Revitalise AWW

Create the UG infrastructure: this includes a definite set of aims for the UG, and how we attempt to achieve this. Eventually, this will include a set of guidelines, but I think that they will come after seeing how things work, what works best and what doesn't.

Lobbying everyone who will listen...and those who won't anyway

*perhaps, if I pop this thread back up the lists, we can continue this discussion*


~jwf~

Please check out Underguide Scheme, Plan D at A943670 if you haven't already seen it. It suggests how the process might work, how the volunteers might be organized, short term and long term goals and guidelines. It's based on earlier suggestions by agcBen and GTB.

Revitalising AWW will hopefully come as a side effect of the Underguide getting exposure for wacky entries on the front page. I'm not worried about it as a goal in itself.

The Italics' proposal of putting the pulldown into alphabetical order so the default is AWW will revitalise AWW with out much effort on our part. My question is should the name remain AWW or should we ask for the name of the forum to be changed to APR?

B

I haven't read all your proposal Deidzoeb, but what I read is very good

Maybe I should split it into separate pages? It is fairly long to scroll down, and it's already broken into outline format. I was afraid people would read the first page and wouldn't click through to the others.