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

Boy, what an uproar. I have read through the contributions about how the editors should keep faith with owners and contributors and do not envy their lot.

You know, I have to say that the owners, BBC in this case, seem as if they are a little discourteous in that they fail to acknowledge the reason why a piece was withdrawn.

Ok – call me dense but surely this is their prerogative? Anyone contributing to the site overall should/would already be aware that the ultimate decision on whether to ‘print’ or not rests with the owners, no matter the reason, those are simply the rules of the game.

Someone on the threads in response to this hullabaloo made the analogy that BBC are just like any other ‘parent – sometimes they notice you, sometimes their indifference is plain’ so which would you rather have?

Apart from recommending the BBC to attend a course in Good Parenting, this is the way things are on this site, and it is very much a choice of the contributor to accept it or to leave.

The guidelines are fairly simple. If you want to include something, you have to bear in mind the readership potential, including that they shall range in age groups as well as abilities, and comprehension.

It is then up to the editors to decide if there are any ulterior motives behind the piece offered which might incite, defame, injurious etc those who access the site – a very difficult task on its own, let alone to consider whether there is any merit artistically or otherwise about the offering.

Let’s face it, the contributor offers something in the hope that it will become part of the largess of h2g2, that’s an ego trip as much as anything else, no matter how well written, how informative.

So why not keep it simple. The bottom of the page makes the claim, very clearly, that the BBC has absolutely nothing to do in any shape or form with the views expressed in this forum and that it remains very much with the public contributors.

Yes it is a double standard when it comes to them pulling pieces for whatever reason. But that is acceptable. You don’t go to a publisher and demand they publish your work, you read the guidelines and submit according to those, and if the editors believe there is merit in publishing, all goes well, however if the owner decides, after looking over the piece, possibly at random, that it’s a no-no, then ok. You want the same power, go create the site of your choice.

I know that I wouldn’t visit a museum or a gallery that offered amongst its celebration of art the remains of an animal carcass, but that’s my choice, the same choice we all have when we attend anything.

Writers and contributors alike should be responsible enough to accept there are guidelines and adhere to them. If the content is deemed to be out of sync with the publication, you have a choice to look elsewhere for publication.

This is not our site. It belongs to the BBC. This is a public forum and exists within the restraints of law and morality in the circle of democracy and that surely is acceptable?

Interesting points

I have advocated some of these points in various threads, mostly because it helps my h2g2 livelihood (For a variety of reasons)

I do agree with the grid bashers here that think that the BBC is like a parent. It really only comes in when there's disciplining to be had

"recommending the BBC to attend a course in Good Parenting"



B

Ameuc conveniently misses the point that we do play by the rules, and the entries in question went through all the various parts of the process, was accepted as reasonable, and then pulled without explanation as to why.

what normally happens is that when an item is pulled, an explanation is given as to what the problem is, and the community then bends over backwards to remove the cause of that problem without compromising the entry too much.

it is the deviation from this established procedure which has ruffled all the feathers.

Because of the many decades of combined experience on the site, we seldom have problems with the rules because we the users know what sort of things cause difficulty. because of the lack of information, it has left a lot of us in the position where we are less able to provide this vital service and thereby having to refer more stuff to the various groups like the scouts and the italics for clarification.

We the users provide a lot of free services to this site, and all we ask in return is clarity of decision making. it really isn't that much to ask.

Hello xyroth,

I didn’t miss the point as clearly pointed out 2nd paragraph.

So the owners, from the messages in the thread, pulled several articles/contributions for various reasons and without giving a reason – so what?

The guidelines remain the same. Only when one loses confidence does one seek clarification, hence I use this site – to seek knowledge, clarification of what publishers might mean when they give me contradictory suggestions about how my work is ‘too modern’ as well as being ‘too traditional’ or not a similar content to the rest of their publication because they believe I did not read the guidelines – which is true actually.

I’ll give you an example. A publication returned my pieces with two lovely notes of suggestions and a letter as well as a free copy of their current publication. I was implored to read the content from cover to cover and submit something more in keeping with this.

A lot of the writers showcased were from all over the world and some poetry, to my eye, was pretty damn fine, and some, to my eye, appeared to run in similar lines to my own but one which really caught my attention was one I decided was the most terrible rendition of an emotion and was appalled to find it there, amidst the rest, which made me rethink and yes, question my own work.

This ‘poem’ ran for a length with the copious use of the ‘f**k’ word and how it felt to be f**king*.

I looked at the guidelines then and thought, well, this seems to be pornographic which certainly goes against the guidelines yet there the evidence lay – it had been accepted. Was I expected to write like this? Well no, I wasn’t and wasn’t about to even try.

The publication is by Seren and to be honest, they have slipped in my esteem so I choose not to try any further follow ups. My choice.

I don’t think the BBC are any different to any other ‘publisher’. If they like something which they have found upon these pages, they have made it clear they will lift it and use it in any which way they choose to – we all give them this right, and I don’t have a problem with that as more frequent publication of my work is what I am after, this suits my purpose, as long as my name is credited with the piece, it could be used on the back of a facsimile newspaper wrapping up your weekly fish and chips for all it bothers me.

The job isn’t made more difficult simply because the BBC decided to deny a piece publication. They may need some prodding when it comes to giving answers as to why, but hell, which parent does take time to explain given a bullish attitude from a demanding child? No one is going to get any answers it would seem unless the BBC want to take time out and give it – that’s their choice and maybe a bit of a bitter pill to swallow (love these old clichés, in keeping with tackling any subject about the BBC) but that’s the way it is.

We either accept it and move on or we shall leave, it really is as simple as that.

BTW, glad my comments about BBC’s poor parenting skills brought some chortles – it would be a very funny sight indeed – wonder if anyone can create a cartoon of this and put in on the Front Page of the Post? Anyone have any suggestions of who should represent the BBC?

"either accept it and move on or we shall leave"

this is exactly the problem. some of us don't want to leave, but are finding that the lack of clarification as to what was wrong makes it much harder to accept and move on.

if we were just entering one article for publication, and were not helping to edit the articles of others for publication as well, it might be o.k. to take that attitude, but when we have to try and give advice to authors as pre-editors (which is what peer review does) it becomes almost imposible with a blaring great hole in the guidelines.

the usual somution to this is for one of the italics (or at a push a scout) to pop along and tell those in peer review or who helped with the article what the problem was so it can be avoided in future. it is this whole and the lack of feedback about it which is causing the problem.

oops, that should be "the usual solution"...

Guidelines for Writers and Sub Editors h2g2:

1) Make sure your facts and spellings of names are correct.
2) Ensure the submission has a beginning, middle and an ending. No loose ends.
3) Explain clearly so that all readers know what it is you are talking about.
4) Write the article so it flows like honey throughout.
5) Focus on detail, including office title, country of origin – attention to details are a must have.
6) Keep it as simple as possible by focusing on the point of the article.

I kind of simplified them but the essence is clear. In fact I could simplify them further:

1) Before submitting make sure you have paid attention to detail, such as correct spelling of names and places, including details about who, why and what, keeping it as simple as possible for the reader to understand fully what the article is about.

2) Read it through, several times, does it flow all the way through? Have you put down as much detail as possible? Have you kept it simple enough for everyone to understand the point? If you have, then the editor should be able to whiz through it upon submissions.

3) Note to editors: If you don’t understand something, ask the submitter to explain.

H2g2 MI Guidelines (copy and paste job except for correction of spelling):
The current guidelines are as follows:
1. Keep it light. Just because it is logical, doesn't mean it should be boring. Add humour and anecdotes to make it interesting.
2. Describe the history. One of the best, and easiest, ways to make maths interesting is to describe the (sometimes chequered) history of a concept. It often makes a great story and image that fixes the idea in the reader's mind.
3. Give examples. Where it is possible, include examples with commentaries. Describe applications, give sample working. It often clarifies what you mean if you show the tools in use.
4. Give questions. Questions give interested readers the chance to try out what they have learnt and can give a lot of satisfaction. Include an answer page along with the article with working where appropriate so they can see how they did and what they did wrong.
Then there are the suggested guidelines in Updates 01 & 02:

Much the same as above with inclusion of writing style, and advice to write about what the contributor knows and stick to reality.

No where in the guidelines are there any signifiers of morality or restraint which pretty much suggests that anything goes, which anyone could take to mean literally.

BUT -

Turn to the help pages, after the Welcome Page and check out the Terms and Conditions and you find this:

‘You agree to use BBCi only for lawful purposes and in a way that does not infringe the rights of, restrict or inhibit anyone else's use and enjoyment of BBCi. Prohibited behaviour includes harassing or causing distress or inconvenience to any person, transmitting obscene or offensive content or disrupting the normal flow of dialogue within BBCi’.

In the House Rules, there is this snippet to be found:

• Unlawful, harassing, defamatory, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, racially offensive, or otherwise objectionable material is not acceptable. You'll notice 'profane' in the list here. This means that hardcore swearing is not allowed on h2g2, and if you do swear, an h2g2 Moderator may **** out all except the first and last letters. If you feel compelled to swear, then use the first and last letters and ****'s for the rest. Some swearing - such as quotes from poems or plays in reviews, for example - may be editorially acceptable, but in everyday communication, it is not. All the types of content above break these House Rules. Please don't post it, or you may find we close down your account if you keep breaking the rules.

So I would suggest that to ensure everyone knows exactly where they stand, amalgamate these two into the actual Guidelines.

If something has been contributed which is felt not to be acceptable because it infringes upon morality, then it will not pass the editor stage, and frankly the writer who contributed it should have already been aware of that.

What it then comes down to is what one may consider obscene; another might claim to be factual.

Let’s take a subject which causes the most mischief: Sex

For instance, if I was given an article to edit about how to make sex more exciting with the use of heavy bondage gear, I would ask the writer to adjust the content accordingly, and if necessary do some liberal editing – the article should be fun, pleasing, a little erotic and informative – there are many women’s magazines out there with similar content to learn from.

If on the other hand an article was given to me promoting the idea that a sexual crime was commendable, and suggested ideas of how to commit the crime – then automatically this would be pulled, with all the ramifications this would involve as not only is this obscene material, it is also illegal.

If the article submitted is in-between these two extremes, then it becomes a matter for the editor on duty to consider and would be based on his/her own personal bias.

Then if the BBC steps in and says, well, no, this one gets pulled also – then the editor realises that they have transgressed, and should note that articles along similar lines should not be considered in the future.

You can not force the BBC to give you an answer, you can ask and if they were at all courteous, they should reply, but if they don’t, you still remain with the choice to take it or leave it.

Those six are from A258112 aren't they?

Those are one person's guidelines, not the editor's guidelines.

I did include the guidelines from the link you offer, although I have included the main guidelines from the other related sources as well.

For clarification, these are the guidelines for Writing for the Edited
Guide, which are much the same:

For more detail, carry on reading through this Entry - but for the moment, here's a quick list:

Write about reality
Be original
Fill in the gaps
Plan your entry
Write about what you're interested in
Research your entry thoroughly
Be instructive, informative and factual
Write in your own style
Try to make your entry balanced
Don't try too hard to be funny
Write Entries of appropriate length
Avoid writing in the first person
Try to use good spelling and grammar
Do not copy from other sources


I have to say that I had to search for guidelines and lots of topics came up, so if you know of other links which reflect a better position than I have offered, please do add them.

Loonytunes' guidelines are good for sub editors as well as authors, but they mostly apply to writing issues such as clarity, grammar, style, formatting etc.

Glad that's cleared up!

however it still leaves the original bone of contention unanswered.

the entry was edited, so was acceptable to both the editors and the community in general.

the entry was bounced by some nameless individual in the bbc.

the modified entry has been watered down until it is almost impossible to take offence at, but the author is bluntly told it won't go in.

at no point along the way is there any indication as to what is the problem, so it makes it impossible to know what effort will be wasted on future entries.

all they need to do is say what is wrong. there are established procedures for complaining, removing entries, and making the author aware of what the problem is, but the staff repeatedly refuse to use them.

This is generating an amount of bad feeling on the site which is completely unnecessary if they would only use the normal methods for dealing with this entry in any of it's forms.

Then let’s have some constructive proposals on how to force the BBC staff to comply.

That is the main issue surely?

How does one force another to become more courteous in the future?

Unless the users of the site are able to sway the BBC staff to conform then no matter how many complaints, this issue is not going to be resolved and everyone, including me, will have wasted time and effort in trying to clarify exactly what guidelines are supposed to be administered.

It is futile to try and instigate change unless the majority votes upon the change, which is what is happening, however, this still does not mean there will be a change in the fundamental way that the BBC approach a similar situation in the future, and that is my point.

BTW, just to confuse this cooking pot further, in the House Rules it states very clearly that anything ‘sexually orientated’ will be considered inappropriate – so how many entries have actually been posted incorporating a sexual theme?

I don’t know about you, but if I were seeking answers, I would ask the BBC to remedy this situation of contradictions by asking them why have they allowed articles, already posted with this theme, which clearly contravenes the Rules and, if they could ratify exactly what is considered inappropriate because as it stands, there are too many contradictions of what is and is not acceptable.

Maybe that would get an answer?

All that has happened so far is that any articles pointed out by people as being more "sexually orientated" have also then been pulled.

The HouseRules are clearly not the whole truth on this matter because the classification/category system has sections for sex. That didn't happen by accident. Some italic had to manually create those.

Of course it didn’t happen by accident.

Nothing sells so well as sex. That’s why I was surprised to see the rule, or especially the exact wording, leaving no grounds for manoeuvre and yet, despite this, items including sex are accepted.

I think the guidelines should incorporate a phrase along the lines of,

‘Material of a sexual nature is acceptable as long as it’s relevant to the article, does not incite criminal activity and is not gratuitous’.

That leaves wide scope while, hopefully, showing pornographic content etc will not be considered.

At the end of the guidelines, a note to include a warning such as; ‘If an article is deemed unacceptable by the BBC, despite being accepted by editors and peers alike, it will be withdrawn.’

At least then, if an article is pulled after undergoing the process of group review, the contributor shall know that it is the BBC who ultimately refused to publish it, and not their peers.

re: sexually orientated

See this thread, dated July 2002:
F55683?thread=191924&skip=27

-myre

A nice freudian slip by the editors spotted over here.

F132185?thread=304554?thread=&skip=0&show=20#p3881924

Yes, they definitely had the right (accurate) word the first time.