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

This whole scheme presumes that UG will be allowed a small space on the
front page to link one featured entry daily or weekly (debate frequency
as necessary). It's not written into the Vision or short or long-term
goals here because without front page space, this whole scheme would be
just a complicated way to duplicate what CAC or the Post does already.
It's not a goal -- it's more like the premise.

This proposal can work unofficially, requires no changes to the site or
to any other volunteer schemes, with minimal effort by the Italics.

How to function within the existing review fora:
I'm working under the assumption that UG discussions would be viewed as
off-topic annoyances in Peer Review. If scouts or Italics said it was
okay, then we could incorporate the Peer Review forum into our process. Otherwise, we should be able to accomplish the same thing by asking authors of pieces we like to submit their entries to AWW for consideration in the Underguide.

We don't need a forum to be devoted to us right now. We can make a good show of it even if most researchers can't find their way to us in the beginning. As long as the UG scheme is unofficial, we'll need to go out of our way a little bit to find good entries and steer them in our direction. We can't change the whole peer review system or implement any technical changes to the site for quite a while, so we have to bring the mountain to Muhammed. We need Underguide volunteers to circulate through the PR system and the whole site so that we compensate for our lack of publicity and our underground operations. AWW may continue to be the ghetto of the peer review system for a while. We can overcome that.

In fact, try to feel the excitement of being part of a grassroots
movement while you still have the chance. Won't it be cool when people
start talking about entries they read in the Underguide and actively
bringing their stuff to us? Imagine if the Underguide later becomes
integrated into the official process, and you can brag about how you were involved back when it was unofficial, operating in the dark, how we clawed our way up from the depths.

Don't worry too much about the official system and how we can't change
it. Just workaround it now, and we might earn enough respect to change
things later. Don't worry about having a big "launch" or generating
loads of community interest before we even start. Give it time to grow. If we give them something to be excited about, they'll talk about it. If we tell them how exciting we're *going* to be and ask them to jump up and down about it, they'll recognize the odor of advertisement, and they'll change the channel.

Finally, if you read Anna's comments on some of the Underguide discussion threads, she keeps suggesting that separate review forums seems optimal to her. If we build it into our proposal that we want to run all UG entries through the main Peer Review forum, it may influence the Italics' decision to accept or reject our proposal.

Good stuff, Deidzoeb.

(...and I don't just say that because some of the ideas were mine. )

I'm down with using AWW, but I've had a couple of thoughts about that. One I've mentioned before (offsite), that it's still called (A)WW, and reminds one of the WW. APR would be a better name, if we could get that changed.

Now... It's a grim fact, but part of what makes PR and the EG so darn desired by writers is that so many entries *don't* make the cut. Every time something is chucked out of PR, it's more of an accomplishment for what stayed in. (Inversely, every crap entry that gets picked makes getting picked seem less worthwhile, but that's another whine for another time.) For that reason, our using AWW makes more sense, as far as preserving the... sanctity(?) of PR.

However, if we're going to make AWW our home, we need to clean it up, for one thing. Right now, Bossel (I think) is sort of 'the man', as far as cleaning up PR. Maybe he created the GR Manoeuvre to move that job off of his worthy shoulders; I'm not sure. Anyway, there's some process by which entries are regularly removed from PR, either to be moved to some other review forum, or just to be thrown into the darkness to wail and gnash their teeth. We'll need a process for cleaning up AWW and we'll need to use it. "Sorry, this isn't what we're looking for." "Sorry, this isn't what we're looking for." "Sorry, this isn't what we're looking for."

"Gasp! They must have standards or something! What *are* they looking for?"

This might be difficult without more in the way of Guidelines. . . I'm not sure.

Another extremely desirable italic action would be to get the AWW page rewritten to reflect its new-found purpose. Maybe that should wait until we've gotten started, in which case, I'm ready to get started! Do we have enough volunteers to begin? I'll be one Scout/Sub. Can we get some more yes votes and then an official Italic opinion on this?

Oh, as far as stuff you've written in the scheme with question marks, I like the idea of having UG entries edited by a UG Editors ID, and having the titles in the form "UG - Title". I can't really second those ideas though, because I think I firsted them.


GTB

Oh dear, this is going to turn into a love-fest. Let's just say that I agree with all of the above, and I am incredibly grateful that someone else bashed the dratted thing into some kind of shape.

I am going to print it off at the w/e (yeah, right, next week more like) and see what I think would be practical answers to the questions which are still there.

Well done that Subcom!

B

I agree on renaming AWW and tayloring it to our needs, but could we make those long term goals? It could fall under "C. Vision, 2. Long Term Goals, c) Possible change of review forums to integrate the Underguide."

I worry that basing our whole short term plan around changes like that would give Italics an excuse (or reason?) to reject the Underguide before it even got off the ground. Even something as small as changing the name of AWW would require changes in a lot of pages around h2g2, and possibly coding changes for the "submit to review" function... which might mean waiting until the next new release of DNA. I'd rather adapt the Underguide process around the status quo than delay the Underguide until site changes are made.

Re: voting, there are a few questions to straighten out before taking a vote. I just updated the page for Plan D to show questionable sections in green. But to save y'all the trouble of clicking...

Should we mandate a gestation period for entries in AWW, rejecting entries when the author refuses to submit to AWW? Advantage: forces all entries to collect feedback. Disadvantage: might alienate a few researchers. I vote yes, force a week of gestation. It'll improve entries, worth the risk of alienating a few.

How many nominations must an entry receive to qualify for our purposes? I vote 3, just to block entries from being selected on the whim of two scouts. This is not an outlandishly high standard. If it works the way we did it in early days of AGG/GAG, then there will be a backlog of entries that receive one or two nominations, waiting in limbo on our list for some time, until some new scout reads it or an old scout changes her mind and gives the third nomination.

Should there be a system for scouts to vote out entries that others have nominated? This leads to a slightly higher standard, since entries must be actively appreciated by (2 or 3) scouts, and must not be rejected by an equal number of No votes. Could turn into an ugly conflict if the UG volunteers didn't get along well.

Do the guidelines need a thorough description of tone, style, standards we're looking for? I'm comfortable leaving this open, relying on subjective opinion of UG volunteers. 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. Advantage: keeps UG open to even the weirdest formats, tones and styles, plus it keeps guidelines shorter. Disadvantage: may frustrate researchers or subeds who want to understand what we're looking for.

Do we append some keyword to titles of selected entries so they can be easily identified and easily found in the search engine? I like GTB's suggestion of "UG -" at the start of entry titles, but am open to other suggestions.

Beating the volunteers into shape. I'd like to hear more about how the official scouting system works in this manner. Do volunteers get kicked out for failing to meet a quota? Do subeds need to be assigned a number of entries, or can they be up-for-grabs? Have you seen abuses in the Official scouting and subbing systems that we should prevent happening in the Underguide volunteer scheme?

Long term goals, I suggest we table detailed discussion of site changes and things like that until we have the short term plan up and running.

*bookmark*
~jwf~

I've had a full read now!

I: Is there a gestation period on PR? I don't think it's really necessary if you have to get three scouts to OK/veto it: that will probably take almost a week [Also keeping track of who has OKed/Vetoed a piece: how are we gonna do it?]

II: This seems like a good idea: what actually happens with the EG Scouts?

III: I think that perhaps it ought not to be 'official unofficial' policy that you need a direct balance, but if a scout doesn't think it should go in, it should be taken into consideration...so basically yes but no [though perhaps on an offsite forum?]

IV: No. What you have is more or less fine: I reckon that any guidelines beyond this will be added later when it's actually up and running: we'll work out the best way to work things...

V: UG is a good idea Just an additional thought, when something is added to the EG, you get an email to say it's on the front page, what will happen with the UG here?

VI: I don't think there ought to be an official quota, well not yet anyway: perhaps when there is a large number of entries to choose from. I know in the EG SubEds, they get assigned a piece, but I still think there is a need for a streamlined system, where one of the Scouts then goes on and SubEds the piece... so if someone only wanted to be a Scout, all they'd have to do was approve the piece they liked, but then they wouldn't take it on. I think with the Guidelines, the volunteer scheme is a lot of feeling in the dark, seeing what works and what doesnt.

This looks good to me but I've run out of time tonight to comment in detail. I'll come back to that later but I think I'd find it easier if we did have the 'mission statement' sorted out. I hate to say such a thing but... I need a little more clarity on the aims before thinking about the methods... sort of... can't believe I'm saying I want a mission statement.

I: thought GTB said that scouts have to wait for entries to set one week in PR before they can choose them, but I could be wrong. For our purposes, we might also want to consider whether there is a heavy flow of entries or whether we're really digging for them. If they're a dime a dozen, then we can afford to let some of them ripen in AWW (or our equivalent peer review). If we're scrounging, then we might not have the luxury of waiting a week for each entry to absorb feedback.

Who keeps track of votes or nominations? On AGG/GAG, back when we used to haggle over entries more, we had a volunteer (moi) who updated the list to reflect people voting for or voting against various entries. Now we just use it as a place to remember entries that any of us liked, in case we run dry near the deadline.

A list for UG could be done on a webpage offsite, possibly on the established MSN group, by one or two volunteers with group "manager" status. (Not that we would necessarily have a "manager" heirarchy among UG volunteers, just using the MSN groups term.)

II: What actually happens with EG scouts? Status quo. They can participate in the UG if they want, but the UG should be able to function smoothly even if they don't want to. I'd love it if they got involved, but what do we do if we build the plan for the Underguide around them and they don't all want to be involved? That's why I think we should make sure the UG works as a separate system that can work on its own if necessary.

"when something is added to the EG, you get an email to say it's on the front page, what will happen with the UG here?"

Good idea. Should we put that in the process section? Author is contacted by subed via email or a message on author's personal space when the entry appears on front page?

I know I am going to regret starting this at ten to midnight - but hey - who needs sleep anyway?

Cutting and pasting from the entry to make this post easier to read, but longer...





> 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.]

agcB: Well anyone can put entries into a review forum if they are not marked 'not for review' or are not already in a particular forum. If they are 'not for review' we should respect the wishes of the author. If they are in the wrong forum they will be moved. Am I missing the point of your question. (It is 6 minutes to midnight, after all!)



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

agcB: that depends on how busy it is, I suggest we start with two, if we go for three we make kill ourselves before we are born.




> A list of nominated entries is maintained offsite

agcB: ARGH! A maintenance nightmare. If I suggest that we keep the nominations in the AWW thread. This would mean that there would have to be a semi-formal wording ('I am a miner for the Underguide, and I Nominate this entry') and we would lose the anonymity of the scouts. But it keeps it simpler.



> [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?]

agcB: The ability to veto is the role that the Editors have in the EG, and that the Post Team have in the Post. While we are feeding the Post there is no issue. I suggest that we lobby the Editors to take on this role when we get more official. It is a good question though.





> Do we need a better description of tone, style, standards we're looking for? I'm comfortable leaving this subjective.

agcB: so am I, for the time being. I think that if we have good but minimal guidelines to start with, and a miners with high standards, then the guidelines can become an evolving project. But I am lazy about creating 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.

agcB: Yep

> [Do we append some keyword to the title],

agcB: Yes, I think we should


> ...edit entries by a shared UG Editors persona.

agcB: Yes, again

>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?]

agcB: I would like to have the Editors approve the UG entries; I think that having a final approval by other subeds is a good idea, but likely to be too time consuming to be practical.

(Nachos actually)

> Add artwork.

agcB: This is definitely something we should aim for - perhaps the subed could trawl the existing blobs for something suitable? And when the scheme grows maybe we could involve some of the Community Artists. I know their images have to be blobbed, but I like the idea of art, and I like the community artist scheme.





> B: ORGANIZATION


>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.

agcB: this wouldn't be a practical problem, since the nature of all the volunteer schemes is that the work is - er - voluntary. So long as it was made clear that the volunteers could scout or sub or both it should work out ok.



> 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.

agcB: the role of the UG Editors needs some more thought. Is there a difference between the 'UG Editors' and the UG volunteers? Am I missing something again? Midnight:13, and all.




> [Do our scouts have a weekly quota?]

agcB: Imo - yes they should - though no penalties for not scouting.

> [Do our subeds grab selected entries they want to edit, or are these assigned? Who assigns them?]

agcB: start with grabbing, and move on to assignment if grabbing does not work. As and when this becomes more official the Italics would end up running the scheme alongside the EG schemes. So long as we know we can switch to assigning them, I think we should go with grabbing first.

> [Are volunteers penalized for failing to meet quotas or assignments?]

agcB: Absolutely not! They can of course be derided, abused, joshed, teased, and have scorn poured on them from a great height. But no penalisation here!



> C. VISION

agcb: Agree with all you have said


> 2. LONG TERM GOALS



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

agcB: - I am being dumb now - but do we still need to discuss this among ourselves or do we take the whole thing when it is ready to the Italics and discuss it with them? In other words - what do you still see as needing discussion. (Timeline 00:19 now, and fading fast)



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

agcB: this is taking place, but it seems to be settling on the AWW, with a possible name-change to Alternative-PR.

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

agcB: AWW orA-PR if that is what it turns into.




> D. UnderGuidelines



> 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.

agcB: There should be the opposite of the GR maneover to shift things from AWW to PR - the RG maneuver perhaps?





> 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.

agcB: and in the long run a full-on Italics-run volunteer scheme.



Anyway - that (finally) is my two cents, for what they are worth. And it is now 00.32 and time good girls called Ben went to bed.

B

I didn't phrase that clearly when I said "Does this mean that we would not select an entry if the author refused to submit it to AWW?" Not a matter of who moved the entry into AWW, but whether we demand all entries go through a review forum before considering them for the UG.

GTB's suggestion sounded like we would require all entries to take a week in a review forum before using them in UG. (Maybe I misinterpreted too?) If a scout sees an entry marked "not for review," and invites the author of that entry to submit it to AWW (or whatever) for feedback, are we demanding one week of feedback, or would we still accept entries if the author refuses to run it through our review forum?

Now that I explain it, it sounds a little mean and authoritarian, but you have to admit that forcing entries to run the gauntlet of a review forum can only help. I can't see how it can hurt an entry, except that certain writers will call us fascists and withhold their stories because of it.

I'm not entirely sold, could go either way on this.



RE: list of nominated entries is maintained offsite = "maintenance nightmare." Nominations in AWW thread sounds okay. Could become unmanageable in long threads, especially if there are YEA and NAY votes in the AWW thread trying to outnumber each other. Come to think of it, it would not be very cool at all to post NO votes in an AWW thread where the author would feel like a victim of those damned shows "Pop Idol" or "American Idol". (Brits, please take back your nasty Simon whats-his-name, before we deport him for his acts of terror against our pitiful amateur singers.)



RE: "Underguide Editors" id. Maybe that should just be called "Underguide Subs" or something. I didn't mean to suggest yet another division among the volunteers. This would just be the shared id that subs use to make their final edit of an entry. We could come up with something creative, maybe "Polishers" if we're going with that mining theme? "Grinders?" Or would that be too silly to communicate what we were actually doing?



RE: UG scouts having a weekly quota, "though no penalties for not scouting." So we give them a weekly goal. Our salespeople just strive to meet goals, and like in Glengarry Glen Ross, "Third place is you're fired!" Never mind.



Integration of the Underguide scheme into the official h2g2 system, managed by Italics...
..."I am being dumb now - but do we still need to discuss this among ourselves or do we take the whole thing when it is ready to the Italics and discuss it with them? In other words - what do you still see as needing discussion."

You're not being dumb. Actually this may be a case where everyone else knows what they want, but I'm not convinced. I'm scared about this thing being managed by the Italics, and unconvinced that they'll do a better job. If we could run it with a group of volunteers, then should it ever be turned over to the Italics? I don't want to hijack the whole thing though, so if no one else has a problem with this, we can leave that as a long-term goal.

"and in the long run a full-on Italics-run volunteer scheme."

!!!!!!!!!

Whoa! Sorry about that. I must have drifted off and knocked my head on the keyboard. I was having this terrible dream where we established an alternative to the Edited Guide, and everybody loved it, but in the long run it became "a full-on Italics-run volunteer scheme."

Seriously they wouldn't do a bad job of it. I like what I read in the Edited Guide. But if this scheme could continue indefinitely as a stable scheme run by volunteers, what is the purpose of having the Italics run it, except to ensure stability? Maybe this goal could be stated more like a set of conditions -- If the volunteers can keep the UG floating, then let the volunteers run it, but if collapse appeared imminent, then we'd turn it over to the Italics? Maybe I'm just paranoid.

Isn't it interesting when we uncover fundamental differences of approach or goal?

My *personal* objective is to get the Italics to run the thing. There are a variety of reasons for this, and I am not going to say that any of them are good reasons, I am just explaining my thinking here.

As most of y'all know, my thinking is subject to change, sometimes at short notice, so I am wide open to persuasion.

Reasons for Italics to run it:

1) Kudos for selected entries - UG entries become equivalent to EG entries
2) Stability - the italics are paid to turn up at work M-F 9-5.30. The guide IS their RL
3) Time - see (2)

Reasons for the Italics NOT to run it:

1) Loss of control of the vision
2) Lack of flexibility

Yes, Deidzoib, I do see your point. However I suspect that we will have a lo-o-o-o-ong time before the Italics could step in.

This is an important debate, but not an urgent one.

What does everyone else think?

B

While I am here, I am going to read the actual thread, and see if I have any other comments. Then breakfast and the rest of the day....



GTB - Post 2

> Cleaning up AWW

You are right - one of the problems with the AWW is that it is the dumping ground between PR and the Flea Market. Presumably we could do the GR maneuver into the FM if the researchers are gone, but if they are still here but won't remove it themselves...

More thought required, methinks...

And you have a point, there are endless debates on PR about whether or not particular entries adhere to the EG Guidelines, but there is at least a set of Guidelines to test them against. Damn! I so like the idea of no guidelines, but to some extent that is because I am lazy.



Deidzoeb - Post 4

> Gestation period

Yes, it streamlines the process with the PR process which will make everyones lives simpler

> How many nominations to approve an entry

I have no experience of this; my instincts say two if there is not a heated debate on the matter (as there was in another time and place about 7CWS, for example). But really heated debates require an editor whose decision is final, as Shazz's is for the Post, and the Italics' decisions are for the EG. Or if there is a debate do we have a vote amongst all the scouts/subs? DO we go with a simple majority to get it in, or 60/40 or 75/25?

> Voting out entries

This would not be neccesary if there is an editor whose decision is final. But I am INCREDIBLY reluctant for a researcher to take on that role.

In fact this is the place where I do see the Italics having a role, even though their decisions are sometimes more conservative than I would hope for. I wouldn't see them approving 7CWS for the UG either. (Not that we should put it forward for the UG - no sense in shooting ourselves dead before we start).

My opinion? Maybe we could steal from the Modest Proposal / Transgressions Procedure model and have a system of voting. See comments above too.

> Open guidelines

My instincts prefer open guidelines, and I dislike doing analysis before there is something to analyse.

Advantages - wierd but wonderful entries
Disadvantes - heated debates, and a voting system

> Keywords on titles

Yes, and UG works for me, but I will go with the majority



Friendlywithteeth - Post 6

> Mails to the author

Yes - we should copy the PR model, so mail the author when the entry is picked, and mail again when it goes on the front page. Or more accurately posts in the U-Space, since we dont have access to the email tools. This should be done by the Sub.



Deidzoeb - Post 8

> A week's gestation

Oh come ON Subcom! A week is a blink of an eye on h2g2! In pratical terms nothing involving a set of volunteers, scouts, subs, and suchlike, is going to happen faster than that, and any researcher who thinks it might is in cloud cukoo land.

> Keeping track of nominations

Would it be worth having an AWW nominations page, one conversation per *nominated* entry, which is ONLY for voting by scouts and subs? Discussions about the quality of the entry are strictly off-topic and for the review thread itself? Would this work, given what cussed and talkative individuals we all are? Which brings us back to the MSN group, I guess, which has the dubious advantage of being off-site. Thoughts, anyone?

> EG Scouts

We should contact the EG Scouts and Subs anyway to inform them of what we are doing, and invite them to join the *separate* volunteer scheme.



Thats about it. Seems to me we need to debate the nominations/objections process a lot more - who, where, how many, how long, stuff like that.

Another couple of cents.

B

Oh dear, the backlog's getting out of control.

I just posted some ideas about UG Scouting at the MSN group before seeing the last day's worth of stuff in this thread. Silly me. I'll just reply to a couple of points right now...



Week Gestation - Yes, this is what is required in PR now. Entries can't be scouted until one week after they've been submitted to PR. The reason I included that in any UG outline I may have written is that I didn't think there was any compelling reason to change it - inertia, if you will. Now that it's been brought up as a debatable point, I don't feel so strongly about it one way or the other, I guess, though I would still default to requiring the week. Why? It seems to work. If things are coming in at some rate, and we're weeding and picking at the same rate, it doesn't matter whether there's a one-week delay or not, that's just mathematics. We'll still maintain roughly the same number always in AWW. Once some scouting system is set up, we can change our picking rate by tweaking variables in the system - either the number of scouts, or each scout's quota, or whatever.

I hope that generally made sense.



Here's the (still sketchy) scouting proposal I just posted offsite:

~~~~~~~
How about, each scout is allowed (but not necessarily required) a certain number of votes per week. They can cast them for or against entries in AWW. A vote for *can* have attached to it a "willing to sub" rider. When an entry has three *more* votes for than votes against, including one "willing to sub" vote, it's picked. Votes would be kept track of at a closed MSN Group like this one (only closed).

Votes would accumulate over time without disappearing after some deadline or anything. Whoever *first* votes "willing to sub" has subbing dibs on that entry if/when it gets picked, and if someone else really really wants to sub it, they would have to convince the first one to let them have it. Votes can be changed, retracted, have "willing to sub" added or taken off, etc, and this change would or would not count as one of that scout's weekly votes.
~~~~~~

There. Just a small, late night brainstorm. Tear it to bits, you animals.

Ben already said she doesn't like the idea of off-site. I think secret voting makes sense. (Actually, I don't think this proposal would be a bad one for EG scouts, either. OTOH, if it ain't broke...)



Clean Up

We'll need to let the current scouts know that AWW is no longer an acceptable dumping ground for non-EG-ready entries. Entries with absent authors go to FM, entries whose authors are in the building go to WW, until they're ready for submission to AWW or to PR, as appropriate. That's why AWW really ought to be called APR, to show that it's top-tier, like PR, not like WW.



I'm gonna stop now, until I've read this backlog more carefully. That was just some stuff I thought I'd go ahead and type.


GTB

Hey - I can be won round off-site! Especially since we already have the MSN group set up. All we would have to do would be to close it, and make it available to volunteers by application only, and there we go.

Making the WW the location for works in progress makes a lot of sense. In the early stages of writing a lot of entries can go either way, and a lot of them are quite clearly put in PR for the attention, not with any real expectation of getting them into the EG. (Unnatural Sexual Practices, anyone? )

So do we ask that the AWW becomes the APR? (NOT the UGPR - the pulldown is being put into alphabetical order we do not want to end up right at the bottom of the pulldown if we have that lovely strategic position at the top at the moment).

This bloody place is a time-hoover! I MUST go work!

B

Has anybody looked at how the whole concept of the UnderGuide might be best serviced as an entirely separate entity within the DNA community?

(BTW has anyone got a short and snappy idea of what the concept actually is?)

If the intention is specifically to create material that does not meet the criteria of the Edited Guide, then maybe it shouldn't be in there in the first place.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/hub/ provides an overview of the community.

It seems to me that the discussion that is taking place here is the sort of discussion that would take place to prepare an Editorial Proposition for a DNA site, see A786882

However, whether or not the UnderGuide goes forward as a separate DNA site within h2g2 any proposal to the Editors will have the best chance of success and of being accepted if it matches up to the principles developed by Mark in the above article.

Madent,

"BTW has anyone got a short and snappy idea of what the concept actually is?"

It's still being discussed and formed, so none of this is set in stone, but my view is that the Underguide would be a system of volunteers who find good entries on h2g2 that don't fit into the Edited Guide, and promote them on a link on the front page of h2g2. Some of the kinds of writing that don't fit the guidelines for the Edited Guide are poetry, interviews, fiction, personal accounts (first person), plays, satire, etc.

"If the intention is specifically to create material that does not meet the criteria of the Edited Guide, then maybe it shouldn't be in there in the first place."

Not sure what you mean by "there". You mean it shouldn't be in the Edited Guide? Agreed. I accept their reasons for limiting the Edited Guide in the way they have. But if you mean that material should not be written or posted on h2g2 if it's not meant for the Edited Guide, then we disagree on what they intend h2g2 to be used for.

Douglas Adams wrote in his 1999 "welcome" message at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/welcome-dna : "An online guide should be absolutely live, voluminous, self-organising, and individually responsive to each user." Then a few paragraphs later: "You can create your own Guide Entries containing anything you want, from your opinions of world events to a description of your home town, and it all goes to make up the h2g2 Guide..."

So I'd say DNA invited all users of the site to specifically create material that does not meet the criteria of the Edited Guide. (Not sure what the guidelines for the EG looked like in Sept 1999 though? Maybe opinion was accepted back then?)

The site is big enough to hold lots of wacky writing. It's already here and will continue to be here whether or not a volunteer group encourages it. All we're doing is making it easier for readers to find good stories or other writings, and making an objective for non-EG writers to aspire to.

RE: Editorial Proposition for a DNA site, I got really excited when I started reading that page, until I saw where it said "client." Does that mean a person has to present money along with an acceptable editorial proposition?

GTB,

I like the suggestion of scouts being able to request subbing duties as soon as they vote on it, and keeping votes tabulated offsite (so that scouts can discuss it freely without damaging authors' egos). What is the strategy behind limiting the number of entries a scout can pick each week? Is this meant to prevent scouts from voting in favor of every entry that comes along? Sometimes in CAC, Bossel goes wild and unloads 30 or 40 entries he's found, but that's usually a good thing.

This reminds me of a similar problem we noticed in the early days of CAC. Some of us would recommend entries, but when it came time to write a few sentences as a teaser or intro to get people interested in reading it, no one would be interested. Our thinking about intros and nominations changed a little after that. If you like it enough to nominate it, you ought to at least be able to write an intro for it. And in the opposite direction, if an entry isn't even good enough to inspire someone to write an intro for it, is it really worth using at all?

So I like your suggestion that each entry must have three votes PLUS a volunteer willing to subedit. If no one is willing to subedit an entry, not even the three scouts who voted for it, then is it really good enough to use? [Not sure if that kind of rule would lead to higher quality selections or lazier subs. ]

"What is the strategy behind limiting the number of entries a scout can pick each week?"

It controls the rate at which entries leave APR. You've got some number of entries entering APR each week (on average), right? Some number of them are junk, and they get weeded. What's left over are good submissions, entries that have a good chance of eventually being picked. A certain number of those appear each week. Ideally, we'll pick roughly that number each week, too. (Otherwise, APR will grow and grow over time, or shrink away to nothing, right?)

If there are a set number of scouts, with a set number of votes per week, then entries will basically be picked from APR at a set rate, which we can control. (If APR gets too big, we add more scouts, or give them more votes. Conversely, etc.) I guess it would work like that, anyway. I dunno if we want to set a quota for scouts, or give them a max number of votes/week. If we set a quota, should we also say that some number of their weekly votes have to include the "willing to sub" qualifier?


GTB

Btw, Anna has said that she will help us sort out AWW/APR nearer the time.

F74130?thread=235340?thread=&post=2905560#p2905110

Subcom,

My understanding is that developing an "Editorial Proposition" in the manner outlined by Mark will deal explicitly with the volunteer scheme.

"Some of the kinds of writing that don't fit the guidelines for the Edited Guide are poetry, interviews, fiction, personal accounts (first person), plays, satire, etc." Agreed - this is basically where I thought you were all coming from.

As to "there", I did in deed mean h2g2. I can accept that you might object to that but basically I am coming from the point of view of having looked at the DNA community as a whole.

The collective, sense of place, book of the future and 360 all represent particular viewpoints on material that when DNA wrote his message would have (and to a certain extent did) form part of the Guide. Some of it could even have made Edited status in h2g2 but it was all out of place.

What seems (to me at least) to have happened is that the original concepts that were captured so eloquently by DNA are really applicable to the DNA community as a whole and that h2g2 is now seen by the editorial team (if not some parts of the community) as being a specific interpretation of that concept with a unique point of view. That is, h2g2 as an encylopedia of factual information, written and presented through DNA in a quirky and uniquely h2g2 way.

Whereas this fledgling proposition for an Underguide is something entirely different in terms of its content but quite obviously built on the same technology.

The client bit got me, as well, but then I got to thinking. What you are discussing is something that the Beeb will be interested in - because to a certain extent publishing through this site confers the Beeb with certain rights to use the material.

If the community present a sensible Editorial Proposition that doesn't crash headlong into the house rules (which will have to apply), and will provide the potential to foster creative writing talent then I suspect that the Beeb will jump at the chance to take up the proposal and put it into place. You never know they might even be trying to think up a way to do that already.

As an added bonus those behind the proposal might even get to run it.