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

(no to be confused with how long an entry should be)

This is something that we're dicussing accross a few threads, I think.

Annie and BH and Gnomon (to name but three) I think have mentioned comments in PR along the lines of "this entry doesn't have enough info" about the subject in it.

But as Idekino (and maybe Gnomon too?) mentioned, it is perfectly possible (and I think entirely reasonable) to have a general entry, an entry about one specific thing, another entry which slightly overlaps both but about another specific thing (eg: Bloggsville - General information about the town; Schools in Bloggsville; Sixth Form Colleges in Bloggsville; An Overview of Entertainment Possibilitis in Bloggsvlle; Restaurants in Blogsville; Phantom! the Blogsville Ghost, etc etc)

And I think we could encourage people to be a bit more firm in their replies to the "incomplete" comments. for example.

I put up An Overvew Entertainment Possibilities in Bloggsville. Someone writes in PR: "ah but you haven't mentioned the George III Theatre in Bloggsville which is now only used for the world Tiddlywinks and Maggot Racing World Championship every May, I don't think it's a complete entry without it"

So, I could say "oh, that's interesting, but too specific for me. You seem to know a lot about it, fancy writing it yourself or as a joint entry?"

That way we get two entries to the guide, the writer doesn't feel as they are being coerced into covering a topic they don't really feel belongs in the entry, and the PR poster doesn't feel fobbed off.

Any comments?

It's more important that the author gets what they want in the entry than that the Peer Reviewer gets what he/she wants.

I've an entry on the Peloponnese in Peer Review. This is a large area of Greece, equivalent in size to Wales or Massachusetts. I obviously don't know everything there is to know about it, so much of it has very little detail. Some parts, the parts I know about, are covered in much greater detail. I've no problem with this, as anybody can update it later to include the bits I missed, or can write separate entries about the bits I missed which can be linked to from mine.

So an entry should never be dismissed because it not comprehensive.

But should an entry be dismissed because it is too comprehensive? That's a harder question.

oooooooooooooo good question.

I don't have a clue as to the answer.

Does it happen then ? ( an entry being dismissed because it's too comprehensive)

I have an entry in PR which was deemed too comprehensive.

Jimster asked me to split it, and it ended up as three entries in one, because I added info asked of me in PR.

It's still there.

A717275 in case anyone wants to comment.

Good entries all get picked eventually - it's just a matter of waiting I wouldn't worry about how long they've been in PR.

I think the Edited Guide should evenutally aim to be a comprehensive guide to everything split into readable chunks. If an entry's too long to be readable we should certainily suggest that it should be split into smaller ones.

While there is no particular reason a short article can't be accepted to the Guide, there is that same bottleneck we have versus that other encyclopedia, in that third-person Editing takes up time and only allows a certain small amount of entries to be published every day.

Unlike that other place, H2G2 indulges in speculations on what it it like to know about the things it talks about, the social context of the knowledge, and often tries to make a practical application of the kind a hitchhiker-stranger to the idea might actually need. So if a short article has this kind of style; say it's like DNA supposed, it's about the food, value and heat retention of delivered food from that chinese cafe around the corner, then that article's few words count for hundreds. But if it is a factual listing, or a listing of 'found facts' (like, say, the kind of entry that Demon Drawer tends to specialize in) I think it's fair for the Reviewer to request the article be more complete.



There are three entries on 'Tables', all expanded upon and added to from an original idea. The author thought the Reviewers' suggestions were fun and ran with it, and as a result we do have two really long (but very interesting!) articles and another short one. This isn't the only instance in which this kind of request for a more completeness has resulted in some much better articles, but it was so fun to be in the PR thread for these that it was the one that really stuck in my memory.

Annie, your entry is about 5,000 words, but it is clearly divided into three sections, so it is very suitable for being split into three. Some entries might be equally long, or even longer, but have only one central theme and would not be as suitable for splitting.

I noticed something when looking for links the other day - I couldn't find (it might be there and I missed if, if so please let me know) an entry on Japan. There were lots of entries on individual cities or things like the tea ceremony, but no entry on Japan itself.

I think there is a place in the guide for higher-level entries that can act as a jumping-off point into other more detailed entries. The country ones tend not to be exhaustively comprehensive - how could they be? But they are good anchors for all the other country-specific entries. This wouldn't be so bad if we could link to subject areas within the guide (ie the C page) but we can't in case there is another reorganisation and stuff gets moved, breaking the links we've created.

I just had Edited an article on a Japanese Garden and did a search for Japan and you are correct, there isn't one. The reason there isn't an article on Japan isn't organizational though, it is just that noone has written one yet.

The Curators probably can do the meta-stuff you mention here, but I don't know if this is something they'd have time for or want to do.

I realise that no-one has written a Japan entry yet The thought just struck me as I was looking for one, to wonder if this sort of entry might be a bit too daunting to consider writing if we are going down the 'everything you could ever know' track for entries.

That's how I got the London entry into the Guide. I didn't want to write it, because I thought it would be too big, but despite some grumbling in PR it got in. It was longer at the end than at the beginning, but Jimster would have accepted it as a shorter entry.

"in that third-person Editing takes up time and only allows a certain small amount of entries to be published every day."

What creates a bottleneck and only allows three entries a day is not enough entries in the quiet times. So writing three 750 word entries would be better than writing one 1,500 as far as the h2g2 Front Page goes.

When subbing it takes longer to sub a long entry than it does short ones, so short ones are likely to be returned to the Eds quicker because the Sub doesn't have to wait until they've got an hour or so spare, they can squeeze it into a half-hour time slot (obv that's assuming no major probs on the entries).

So if people want more on the Front Page they need to write more entries, not fewer, longer ones.

I see what you mean Gnomon, do you have any suggestions about that Motown entry? I'm guessing people are put off reading it in PR because it's too long.

Would you post at the entry if you do? Thanks.

Gotta RL screams...

It doesn't just take longer to sub a long entry. It takes longer to Peer Review it as well. I won't read a long entry at all unless I have an hour to spare. I can skip through a short entry much quicker and give my comments; if everybody else is the same, the entry will fly through Peer Review and be picked much quicker too.

These ideas about shorter entries are good ones. What kinds of things can we be saying in PR threads that will give this idea to authors?



I am startled by Idekino's assertion about the limit on how many articles that can be added to the H2G2. I have always found lots of pickable articles to be in PR and have seen a number of threads attached to perfectly pickable articles with Scouts saying "i don't have any picks just now". When H2G2 went from 5 entries a day to 2 entries, it was claimed that this was because of a reduction in staff, not because the Entries weren't there. Are we really short of new Entries in PR?

The numbers were reduced because of the lower amount of staff, but there was always panic in the summer to get enough entries, and often the same around christmas time. So we're ok this time of year, but not at others - that's why they keep having picking frenzies I think - to build up more of a barrier between 'busy' times and 'slack' times.

You know, it seems to me that since Christmas we've been repeatedly asked to pick more entries, more so than in the rest of the time I've been a Scout. Am I imagining this?

Gnomon I'm taking the "Funk Brothers" out of the entry and submitting it as an entry in its own right.

Hopefully that will move things along somewhat.

"Am I imagining this?"

No, I've never seen any of these picking frenzies before... although I haven't been a Scout very long I have to admit.