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

Going back to "Do we append some keyword to the title, ...? " The keyword would need to have the right connotations to someone, not necessarily familiar with h2, using the h2 search. "UG" would only mean something to those already in the know.'UG Approved', 'UG Edited', 'Peoples Choice'...?

I: Keyword, I like UG as it's short and to the point...but I also get what you're saying, UG approved perhaps?

II: Off/On site voting. OK Methinks I've been won over to the whole offsite thing... but I do think that the scout who is going to sub [if that idea goes forward] should say Hi, I like this piece and I'm going to take it forward...in some ways it should be more personal that the EG as the works are often more personal...

"I do think that the scout who is going to sub [if that idea goes forward] should say Hi, I like this piece and I'm going to take it forward..."

Makes sense to me - personally I always prefer to work with whoever subs my entries.

B

Hi Madent,

"The Italics for the Underguide (there would have to be some) would fulfill only relatively limited roles..."

Would there have to be some? My vision of how it could best work would be with as little effort or input from the Italics as possible. Ideally, entries would be chosen and subedited by volunteers, weeded out for final selection by volunteers, and if the Italics trust the judgments of volunteers to choose high quality entries, all we would need the Italics to do would be to give a glance over our selected entries to confirm they fit the House Rules, and post a link each day on the front page.

Their role would be more like Moderators than editors for our project. If something looked too tasteless to appear on the front page (even if it fit the House Rules), then they may reject it. But initially, we would not be asking them to spend time evaluating and debating and choosing the best from entries we show them. We've even kicked around the idea that if the Italics do not require final approval of each entry, then the volunteers would basically do all editing and final selection of a piece, then we'd just present it to the Italics for posting on the front page. I doubt they'd go for that, but if the volunteers could be trusted, it would save time and effort from the Italics.

Like I said, that's just my assumption of how they would prefer it, but there's no concensus on this yet among UG volunteers, and we haven't asked the Italics what role they'd prefer to have.

Maybe I'm overreacting, but my expectation of what the Italics want is based on past discussions. Although the Italics have been very helpful this time around, and I think it was Mina a few months ago guaging support for a project devoted to fiction, these kinds of ideas have come up repeatedly in different forms for the last two or three years. When anyone suggested that other kinds of writing should be featured on h2g2, the Italics usually responded that the Edited Guide was their realm, and there was little time for anything else.

I'd like to set this up so that the Italics can have absolutely minimal effort, if that's the way they want it, so that volunteers will perform all the necessary functions. I don't think there's anything special that would doom this project without hired editors keeping it on track. It will depend on a core group of committed volunteers, like any of the successful volunteer groups that are still active right now, but those groups are proof that it can happen.

>> ..like any of the successful volunteer groups that are still active right now, but those groups are proof that it can happen. <<

And they just keep on happening.
The latest is A950492. Proof that there is a continuing need to satisfy the expectations of new researchers.

I have to repeat myself again:
"Only a more organised and officially supported Underguide could hope to right the scales of justice and balance the 'fact/formal' realities of EG with the 'fun/fiction' fantasies of an underguide entry. I hope TPTB will soon see the value of Deidzoeb's proposal and finally acknowledge the absurdist and creative nature of many HHGTTG fans."


~jwf~

I hope that the volunteer scheme is set up to maximize democracy and allow all researchers in, but would it be accurate to say that our choices represent the "Peoples' Choice?" More like the Volunteers' Choice.

'The keyword [appended to titles of entries we choose] would need to have the right connotations to someone, not necessarily familiar with h2, using the h2 search. "UG" would only mean something to those already in the know.'

First, are there any brief keywords that could communicate what we're doing? 'UG Approved' or 'UG Edited' would be confusing to anyone who didn't know what UG stood for.

Secondly, although it would be good to make things perfectly user-friendly to newbies, there are some things that they'll just have to figure out for themselves. Even new readers using the search engine might not know what the classifications Edited and Recommended and unedited mean until they read a little more about h2g2. I would think "Recommended" means something the editors consider better than all others.

After all my b*tching about disclaimers when BBC first invaded h2g2, I never thought I'd suggest this. But maybe attaching our own "disclaimer" to the ends of UG entries would be appropriate. Just a few lines on every entry briefly explaining what it means, with a link to a central UG page where they can read more about the process? If we were paranoid, we could also state that their opinions do not necessarily represent the opinions of UG vols or anyone else.

How about 'Underguide Entry' - it is not much longer than 'UG Approved' and it is a bit more explanatory. I agree that we can't spell everything out for newbies, or the whole thing degenerates into a spelling bee, but a disclaimer is a good thought.

B

Subcom

That is pretty much my expectation of the role of the italics in the Underguide. They will be there to administer the system. The UG Editors would be a community team.

There are bigger issues re guidelines but one that's just occured to me is spelling; British, anything goes, spellchecker's choice, subed's choice, author's choice?

I don't have an American/English dictionary and usually find giving the spellchecker free reign adds interest to a piece.

My view is it should be British English, as per the EG.

B

>> My view is it should be British English...<<

LOL
Well it would be wouldn't it.

Now, me, I aint bothered, how summit's spelled, slongs I can read it and unnerstand was been said. Y'know waddi mean, nudge, nudge.
Point being: Spelling is often a huge part of the creative process and some authors are gonna be quite unhappy if we arbitrarily correct their favourite puns and dialects. Each entry must be judged on an individual basis and if mis-spellings were intended or represent a regional or national variant then the author must have final say on any spelling 'corrections'. If U C waddi mean.

~jwf~

"if mis-spellings were intended or represent a regional or national variant then the author must have final say on any spelling 'corrections'."

Presumably this is true already, to the limited extent that it affects the EG?

I agree with you of course ~jwf~

B

Posting to quickly - sorry.

The main reason I think the standard, where there is one, should be British English is because the EG standard is British English. I would go with US English if the standard was US English. (Whenever I work on US-run projects I use an US English spell-checker).

For neutral entries, where there is no particular reason for using localised spellings, I think it should be British English in order to fit in with the standards of the EG. Final acceptance of the project by the Italics and all that.

B

This is one of those issues that makes it very important that UG Subs be in *close* contact with Authors. I would suggest getting Author approval on *every* change. That should be in the code of conduct for that volunteer group. Many authors will say, "fine spell it British style, my creative work is the content, not the lack of a 'u' in colour." Others will want their spelling choices to be respected as part of their style of expression. The UG should be big enough for both. I have no problem with British spellings as kind of a 'soft default' - meaning that British spellings would be suggested (not required) as replacements for American spellings, and not the other way around.


GTB

"Author approval on *every* change" - yes. If changes are made at all. The 'A' in AWW is for 'alternative' and IMHO AWW pieces should be kept 'as is', warts and all. Missing commas are part of the writing and so are tpyos and missing .

I think there should be a balance between the two: the whole point of the UG [or my impression of it] would be that it was as high quality writing as the EG... which could mean gently ironing out those warts...

Well, if the Sub asks the author whether they'd like their commas aligned, apostrophes arranged, spelling corrected and Britishized (or Britishised), and they say yes, who are we to tell 'em no? Some people *like* what subs do to their entries.

Indeedee: that's why they are there in the first place...

I believe we have seen both sides of this argument. And there seems to be a great divide on the issue. From the Aggist purities of Sir Bossel to the 'SUB'stantial pride of the experienced 'subs'.

My own view is closer to GTB who said:
"The UG should be big enough for both. I have no problem with British spellings as kind of a 'soft default' - meaning that British spellings would be suggested (not required) as replacements for American spellings, and not the other way around."

Yes 'suggested not required'. Then if an author cannot 'justify' his punctuation and spelling, either as 'art' or 'symptomatic', and refuses to allow correction then ..well ..I've said it before, there'll always be an Aggland.


~jwf~

A Community of Diversity!