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

Ultra-Violets?





B

I may have to lighten the shade a little, depends how dark you have your goo,
Waz

Still don't get it...[sorry!]

I had used the generic term 'Underguide-Volunteers' on the basis that a simple find/replace would mean we could call them Miners, or Sappers, or Termites, or whatver.

Waz shortened it to UV.

I extended it to Ultra-Violets!

Et voila!

B

Right! I got it once I'd read the article properly

Oh, and on several different thoughts...

Role of the UG.... identity: I suppose the UG identity should only be used in official unofficial announcements: i.e. when an entry is unsuitable, or when it is accepted into the UG.

The Use of a graphic to identify it as a UG item: Just a random idea, which wouldn't require the Community Artists: I looked at Deitzoeb [Sorry if it's spelt wrong!] 's p.s. and I saw the graphic made up of the words, what a similar one was created for the UG? [Just a thought...]

There are freeware programs that allow you to take an image file (preferably a simple black and white image) and convert them into ASCII art (made up of letters and numbers to represent pixels of whatever density).

Let me know if you want help. I'm sure I still have that program. If you have an image, I could convert it. However, this would be a decision on the style of image we want, because with all the ideas that the Italics have been hospitable to so far, I'm confident they would allow one or two graphics to be blobbed for our use.

Still, we could develop something like this as a temporary measure until someone is able or agreeable to blob a graphic for us.

Another workaround is to use tables. This only allows small graphics about the size of a smiley, but it's versatile and easy for anyone to use. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A595118 for some examples and more info on how you can create table graphics that will show up on h2g2.

And I thought you'd spent hours and hours making a purdy and artistic picture

OK

Starting with Ben's priority thing to comment on, a few comments on the red and green bits of this.

1) I like the name miners.

2) I think we should definitely be looking for unsubmitted articles drifting around in the deepest reaches of the guide. From my own attempts at this I can say it takes a lot of time, but then you come across the odd gem which makes it worthwhile. Someone mentioned elsewhere the need for alive and Elvis authors, this is true, but hopefully some Elvises might return, when they get a mail saying that their article's been picked.

3) But, perhpas not quite the same rules of engagement for old conversations and journals. Firstly they're harder work to search. Secondly, I would say that if a miner comes across a poem or similar in someones journal or a conversation, and they are still around, they could maybe post to that convo, say they liked it or whatever, and encourage the author to put in an entry and submit it to APR. If it's from an Elvis entry, we need to think about whether it is OK to copy and paste from someone's journal in order for it to become an UG entry. The whole site is public, but I guess there could be occasions where someone would be happy to put something personal in a journal, but not to see it on the front page as a UG entry?

4) Who does what in APR. I think miners can do the full range of scout like roles? - letting people know what the right forum is, gently persuading unsuitable entries to leave, and so on. Maybe I've missed the point of this question?

5) Miners will need a gentler hand than people commenting in PR. Unlike an article on spinach, a poem cannot be 'wrong', I think. It can be liked by enough people to be picked, or not, basically? What we might find is that, just as the entries will be more personal, so might be the comments - "I really liked the first half of this entry, but I felt you repeated yourself in the last para" ot "that section didn't work so well for me". Down to the author how they respond to this audience?

6)I think entries should move out of APR once accepted. This will need to be done by the author - the message of congratulation from the miner or the MSN group, should include a line along the lines of "congratulations blah, please now move your article out of APR..."

7)I think - no sub-editor changes without the OK of the author, if they haven't gone Elvis. With Elvis entries, what do we do if the community thinks of a really good last verse for a poem, or some good points for a diatribe? Pros of allowing this - part of the community spirit and what makes PR work. Cons include the perils of creative writing by committee and seriously peeved Elvises, who return and think the Community has wrecked their work...

8) We should discourage non-guide ML. But, how about illustrated stories using blobs? I have seen two of these in PR recently, I guess this is OK for the UG unless it poses a problem to the Italics. I think we should be super tolerant on writing style. No changing from US english to brit-speak unless the author agrees, and not for Elvis authors if the US style adds to the piece. Tolerance of typos if they are part of the ambience, but not if they are just mistakes.

9) The UG prefix is key so we can search for a UG entry on being dumped, for example, when a forensic EG article just won't do...

More to come on the other bits Ben asked for comments on, later.

Sprout

1) I like the name miners.

>>I agree, in fact I stole the part of my nickname -mining 42- from when Ben's name was A girl called ben- Mining AWW

3) But, perhpas not quite the same rules of engagement for old conversations and journals. Firstly they're harder work to search. Secondly, I would say that if a miner comes across a poem or similar in someones journal or a conversation, and they are still around, they could maybe post to that convo, say they liked it or whatever, and encourage the author to put in an entry and submit it to APR. If it's from an Elvis entry, we need to think about whether it is OK to copy and paste from someone's journal in order for it to become an UG entry. The whole site is public, but I guess there could be occasions where someone would be happy to put something personal in a journal, but not to see it on the front page as a UG entry?

>>I think it would be okay to post from an elvis journal entry as long as we acknowledge them. This is of course subject to debate.

4) Who does what in APR. I think miners can do the full range of scout like roles? - letting people know what the right forum is, gently persuading unsuitable entries to leave, and so on. Maybe I've missed the point of this question?

>>I think the miners job is all of the above and raising awareness. I know that when I was first given a tour of this site, and asked what the AWW was, my friend told me, and I quote "It's where crappy entries go to die" There may still be a large group of people who didn't take the time to find out what AWW really is.

what do we do if the community thinks of a really good last verse for a poem, or some good points for a diatribe?

>>If a part of a poem or story doesn't really "work", and it's an elvis, then I don't think we have the authority or responsibility to fix it. We should leave it alone or just leave it with Elvises.

Hi there, I'm going to have a go at updating this in line with discussions elsewhere, Ashley's proposals etc, and the comments made here, at the weekend.

I'll just pick up on one thing for now - point 4). What I meant was who oversees and tidies AWW up. I wasn't sure who in the AWW carried out the scouts PR role of patrolling and of clearing entries that are going nowhere out. I believe now that in fact no one does this. And that the consensus is that when AWW becomes APR the miners role will be in line with what both of have said and they will also have the job of tidying up.

Waz

I'd do it right now, but I'm an incredibly lazy person

hates tedium too

I think I still prefer "miners." It evokes an immediate image of what we're doing. "Ultra-Violet" is a cute pun, but it's kind of abstract.

"Secondly, I would say that if a miner comes across a poem or similar in someones journal or a conversation, and they are still around, they could maybe post to that convo, say they liked it or whatever, and encourage the author to put in an entry and submit it to APR. If it's from an Elvis entry, we need to think about whether it is OK to copy and paste from someone's journal in order for it to become an UG entry. The whole site is public, but I guess there could be occasions where someone would be happy to put something personal in a journal, but not to see it on the front page as a UG entry?"

This sounds like guidelines for miners, but if we are going to be sensitive, then we need to make some formal rules about that. Keep in mind that the rules on h2g2 seem fairly dog-eat-dog by comparison. Since all researchers have signed over their copyrights to BBC, it is possible (though not necessarily friendly) for one person to copy another's entry, make any changes or additions they feel appropriate, and submit it for the Edited Guide. You can't really complain because you gave up your rights to it when you joined and posted it here.

So technically, as far as the House Rules go and from what I've read about past judgments or questions, we could take any poem or writing from a journal or conversation thread on h2g2, give appropriate attribution, and copy or manipulate it as we feel. Wouldn't be very nice, but we could get away with it.

If we want to ensure that we're more sensitive then that, we should make some internal rules about it. (I don't think these kinds of rules would need to be part of the writers' guidelines for the UG, because most of them wouldn't care or understand about these things, whether we use "flea market" type entries or not. It would not apply to anyone intentionally submitting things to UG.)

"no sub-editor changes without the OK of the author, if they haven't gone Elvis."

I'm not sure if that would be a good idea or not. It's sort of related to what I was just talking about, that we won't be violating house rules if we make changes, but we might not make many friends that way. Technically, say someone took my entry on "Furniture Whores and Debit Card Toilets", and made a copy, edited it, and ran it in the Underguide. First, my original copy is not changed, it's just overshadowed by the new version. Second, I still have the option of starting a conversation on the edited version and asking people to read my superior copy (giving a link to my original version). Lastly, editors could point to the House Rules and BBC Terms and Conditions, saying, "when you agreed to this, you gave up any right to complain about getting edited."

Does anyone know if this happens often with the Edited Guide? I was displeased with the edits to my Waffle House entry that went in the EG, and I started a conversation there suggesting that people read my "funnier" original. I'm not sure if this is a unique situation, but obviously the Edited Guide has survived a few disgruntled researchers.

Then again, maybe we should strive for a higher standard of relations with contributors.

If it's from an Elvis entry, we need to think about whether it is OK to copy and paste from someone's journal in order for it to become an UG entry

>I've been going back and forth on this issue (And I hate to use the word ethics) but I simply don't think that it's a good idea to do this to an elvis. (Not that they'd figure it out) that's my opinion

Second, I still have the option of starting a conversation on the edited version and asking people to read my superior copy (giving a link to my original version)

>There are two types of editings, grammatical and content, (Which includes censorship, additions and adding/editing out facts) If we're going to take Elvis entries, I think it's only right to edit grammatically.

I like Miners too, and possibly Gem Polishers.

I think that we may have to get public consensus on that: would people mind if their pieces were plucked from their journals and used in AWW? I, for one, wouldn't mind someone nicking my poems from my journal, but I'd probably prefer it if they left a message in said journal and asked me to do it myself. When they are Elvises, to be quite honest we should do it, just as if they left a piece in AWW and then left. Who knows: they might actually come back as a result! [The email may need to be reworded to explicitly say that it's on the front page: when I got my first email for my geography piece, I didnt realise that it meant it went onto the front page, so I missed that out :-S]

If they don't want it in the UG though...hmmm. I think we cross this bridge as it arises to be honest.

I agree completely, how many times is this situation going to occur? I've just got the "what-if"s

I've made some changes. Mainly tidying up the searching commenting bit and bringing the nominating part into line with GTB's UG processes page A967115. I haven't got into the subbing or minesweeping in APR parts yet.

I've amended the bits about searching in journals and forum threads in line with ideas of them being searchable, but with a need for caution, being expressed on this thread. Or that's what I've tried to do.

I haven't used quoted Sprout's example of comments""I really liked the first half of this entry, but I felt you repeated yourself in the last para" ot "that section didn't work so well for me." although I thought of it. I referred to the advice on the APR page instead. Is that enough or does it need restating here?

And the violets are all gone stomped on by dirty great mining boots.

Waz

Once we get some leadership, he or she re-write these pages under the persona, right?

Not sure on that one Jodan, but I think you're right. All the Underguide pages will need to be under the editing control of the UGPersona I assume.

I have made some changes on subbing, incorporating GTB's UGProcesses and taking account of comments here.

Can anyone point me to the AWW Minesweeping discussions?
Waz

This A974522?

?