A. Process.

[Short term plan for as long as the UG scheme is unofficial. May need major overhaul if we're later allowed to request technical changes to the site or to peer review system.]

1. Scout invites author of entry to submit it to AWW for consideration in
the Underguide.

2. Entry collects feedback in AWW for one week.
[Does this mean that we would not select an entry if the author refused
to submit it to AWW? Advantage: forces all entries to collect feedback. Disadvantage: might alienate a few researchers.]

3. Entries with enough nominations (2 or 3?) from UG volunteers move to subediting.

A list of nominated entries is maintained offsite (perhaps on the
established msn group site) to keep track of the changing numbers of
nominations for entries under consideration. [Should there be any possibility of voting out
entries by other volunteers? If an entry received a number of "no" votes
exceeding the number of nominations, should it be removed from
consideration? Or delayed until receiving even more yes votes?]

4. Subeditor works with author to polish the entry.
[Insert UG style manual here. Yeah, right. Do we need a better description of tone, style, standards we're looking for? I'm comfortable leaving this subjective. We show researchers a list of entries that we like or show them ones we've selected, and that will give them an idea what we're aiming for.] Add or adjust GuideML,
spelling and grammar, unless "mistakes" are made for a reason. Ensure that the entry meets Underguide guidelines. The final result would be a separate copy of the guide entry, which makes it easier for subs or Italics to edit, keeps entries stable for our archives,
and preserves authors' original drafts for posterity.

[Do we append some keyword to the title, or some phrase or notice at
bottom of the entry to mark it as Official UG material? Some workaround
to establish status for UG entries? Another way to mark entries with
our status would be to edit entries by a shared UG Editors persona.
Anyone who faked the UG Editors persona could be turned in for breaking
house rules, impersonating other researchers. Note that using a keyword or phrase in the title of every selected entry like "UG - Young Orks in Love" will also ensure that our entries can be found easily in the search engine.]

?. Italics approve or edit entry. [If they would approve the scheme
without this step, this could be left off. If this step were left off, should we have a step in which other subeds give final approval to the entry or vote on finished ones?]

?. Add artwork. [Does not seem feasible while the Underguide operates unofficially.]

7. Queue for Front Page, link to entry appears on bottom of Front Page, immortality.

8. Featured entry added to archives.

B. Organization

Underguide volunteers would mainly fulfill the roles of scouts and/or subeditors, taking other tasks as necessary. Any major changes to the Underguide scheme would require a majority vote of the volunteers. Having each volunteer work as both scout and subed would make a sleek system, but might discourage people from participating if they only wanted to do one task or the other. As long as the UG scheme is unofficial, we welcome participation by official h2g2 scouts and subeds and volunteers, but we cannot rely on them to be the only volunteers for the Underguide.

An "Underguide editors" id could be shared by UG volunteers to mark all selected entries. The personal space would form a center for
communications about the Underguide.

An Underguide volunteer may submit her own entries to AWW for consideration, but may not nominate or subedit her own entries.

[Do our scouts have a weekly quota? Do our subeds grab selected entries they want to edit, or are these assigned? Who assigns them? Are volunteers penalized for failing to meet quotas or assignments?]

C. Vision

(or "Ode to a small lump of Mission Statement I found under
my armpit one midwinter morn"). Insert inspirational quotes as desired.

1. Short Term Goals

a) Promote entries that fall outside the scope of the Edited Guide by giving them a link at the bottom of the front page.



b) Generate more interest in h2g2 among readers, by offering great
unedited entries that they could not find as easily before. This would
also encourage a previously undeveloped group of writers to articipate, since their entries would have a chance to be featured prominently.



c) Avoid direct competition with the Edited Guide (entries in the Underguide that meet the EG guidelines), since that conflicts with our goal of enhancing h2g2 overall, more than just our corner of the site.

2. Long Term Goals

a) Official Status for Underguide entries. Something that marks UG
entries as something special and keeps usurpers from claiming they've had
entries selected by UG. This status would show up differently in
search results, a badge or graphic.



b) Integration of the Underguide scheme into the official h2g2 system,
managed by Italics, if they like the idea. [Needs further discussion.]



c) Possible change of review forums to integrate the Underguide. [Needs further discussion.]



d) The Underguide as an option in the "submit for review" site
mechanics.

D. UnderGuidelines

1. House Rules still in effect.

If your entry breaks the House Rules,
then it doesn't matter how much we like it, they won't let us pass it
around here. Don't expect to publish Lady Chatterly's Lover in
serial form in the Underguide, even if you are DH Lawrence. And if you
aren't, that brings us to the next point...

2. No plagiarism.

There's nothing "alternative" or "cutting edge" about stealing other
peoples' work.

3. The Underguide does not overlap with the Edited Guide.

If your entry might fit the guidelines for the
Edited Guide, please submit it to Peer
Review first. They do a fine job with their territory, and we don't
intend to compete.

That's all! Anything else you can squeeze through those three rules*,
lay it on us. If you're looking for tone, style, format, standards,
it's pretty much all subjective. We want good stuff, but we can't always define what makes it good. We know it when we see it. As with all editorial groups, you can get a better idea of what we like by reading some entries that we admire {link to agcBen's excellent list of examples} or entries we've accepted in the past {link here to UG archives}.

E. What We Need From h2g2 Staff

1. A small space on the front page to link one featured entry daily or weekly. This could include a sentence summarising the featured entry, or just a link to the entry.

2. Final approval or subediting of each entry, if this step is needed.