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

Looks good so far. A few minor suggestions:

"where you the Community help us to decide which entries go into the UnderGuide, the underground side of the Edited Guide."

Needs careful wording here. "The underground side of the Edited Guide" sounds like UG is a part of the Edited Guide.

The IMPORTANT NOTE section gives a concise description of the guidelines for the UnderGuide, but if there is any need for a longer set of UG guidelines (still up for debate?), then this would be the place to give a link.

"For a detailed explanation of all of the Review Forums system, please read the Review Forums FAQ."

Could benefit from a link to that FAQ
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/dontpanic-reviewforums

Link - yes. Not being able to access the GuideML for PR (I know there's a way...), I copied the text, and had to redo links - missed that one. Thanks.

Interesting bullet point markers... cold in Michigan?

Your second point is certainly taken. If / when we have a page of UG Guidelines, we might link to it from a couple of places in here. What you flagged is certainly one.

Your first point... is for further discussion. Alternate phrasings are welcome; anyone? Those opening paragraphs can be tweaked as much as anyone likes. They're all vision and bravado, and very little actual concrete content, so it's wide open what goes there.


GTB

Positively toasty in Michigan. It rose above freezing this afternoon, and there were only 2-3 inches of fresh snow when I got out of work last night.

I love it though. When I lived in Houston for a year, it didn't snow at all. I feel like when I tell people my age, I should say that I'm thirty years old but only 29 winters. (Is that why all the old folx go to Florida, to arrest their aging by never seeing another winter?)

The muse finally decided to help me out on this again.

Under 'How To Comment', 'Important Notes', the sixth bullet point is an all-new paragraph, not particularly based on anything from the regular PR page. I think it's an important one, too. Whaddya think?


GTB

That new section sounds good. I noticed that there are two separate "Important Note" sections. Could one of them be given a different label, or could the two sections be merged?

Actually, there are 3. All I did was copy the PR page, header for header.

This looks pretty near finished to me. Perhaps the wording in "the UnderGuide, the underground side of the Edited Guide." is something to come back to when we have an intro page for the UG. I like the sound of it as is but I'm not sure about emphasising the underground aspect when the UG's aim is to give entries what Ben calls their day in the sun.

I particulary like the whole '1. Comment on an entry.' paragraph .

Regarding point 6, I like that too. Especially the last sentence. Perhaps that last sentence could in fact be a separate point? The point about typos etc could come lower in the list, keeping the present 3, 4 and 6 together as they all interrelate.

I see only one issue left to sort out; "Check that there is not already an entry on this subject" Duplicate entries in UG, yes or no? If a second entry on a subject is from a different approach or in a different style I'd say both could go in. If it was very similar in all ways I'd say no. If it was very similar in subject, style and approach but of significantly better standard it's more difficult. I'd want to say yes. It could be left to the miners to decide each case as it comes up.

I don't know if anyone here has ever been to the PFFA poetry workshops (a scary place). One thing they ask there, (forcefully), is that would-be poets read and critique at least three other pieces, by other people, before submitting a poem for review. What do you think of the idea of asking, (nicely), that authors read and give feedback on x pieces for each of their own that they submit to APR?
Waz

"Regarding point 6, I like that too. Especially the last sentence. Perhaps that last sentence could in fact be a separate point? The point about typos etc could come lower in the list, keeping the present 3, 4 and 6 together as they all interrelate."

Agreed. Done.


The last section, on getting picked, needs rewriting to reflect the UG editorial process, which will differ from the EG editorial process. I may continue with the edits later today, or else soon after...


GTB

About "give feedback on x pieces for each of their own that they submit to APR" - I've had second thoughts on that and I'm withdrawing that suggestion. Writers who understand and support APR will do it anyway and those who don't would probably not do it well. it seemed like a good idea at the time. But it's not .
Waz

Draft done! That last link doesn't go anywhere yet, but all in good time...

Comments still joyfully welcome.


GTB

A957323 What do the Underguide-Volunteers do?
A957404 The Underguide-Volunteers Home Page
A957431 Why be an Underguide-Volunteer?


Just putting those links here so we have 'em handy.


GTB

Well, I always like to spread joy and fairydust wherever I go - so nice to know I can do it so easily today!

Bullet #2 in Notes on Commenting: - says PR not APR

How to Submit an Entry: - Para 1 is addressed at anyone, Para 2 is addressed directly to authors, it would be nice if the text made it clear. I found the seague disconcerting.

How long before...: "The UnderGuide Miners choose entries to be featured through a process of off-site voting" - this sentance is technically unambiguous, however if you read it sloppily (as I am - it is 7.00am here) then it can seem as if the entries are featured through the process of voting, not picked through it. Like the footnote, btw.

Penultimate para - "good old fasioned Edited Guide entries" - I am not sure about this phrase. I know why you use it, but it *might* be seen as being very slightly derogotory. I suggest you leave it in, and see if other people think I am being politically hypers-sensitive here.

This is good Tony. I am going to be interested to see the comments from Ashely and Anna.



Ben

Hi Ben!

Check... check... check, and.... yes, let's wait on point 4. We may be hearing from TPTB soon about this and the volunteer pages anyway.


GTB

"We may be hearing from TPTB soon"

Regarding "If you're looking for anything more than a few final comments on your entry, then please submit it to the Writing Workshop instead." I thought the writing workshop was for potential EG entries.

The intro. to it starts with "If you've written a Guide Entry that's not quite ready for Peer Review ..." 'Peer Review' being a link to PR page.

Can we use the WW, in which case we'd need to ask nicely for the intro there to be changed, or does this need changing?
Waz

as well

You all may be pleased to know that Anna has created a page and a process for cleaning up AWW.

A974522

Ben

Yay, finally some recognition for AWW. I'm apalled at some of these entries that need to get out, I'll get right on it.

Don't forget the process - discuss it gently with the writer if they are still on site - and then two miners need to vote the entry off in the AWW thread before posting to the page Anna has created.

As she mentioned - she wants the posts in batches, but I suggested creating a new thread either each month or each week of entries to be removed. That way we can post them one at a time, and she can remove them in batches. She has not yet commented on that.

B

I just made some minor edits to bring this page into line w/ what's happened in the last 3 months. If anyone sees any other changes that need making, just let me know.

It's good to be back.


GTB