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

True.

I think a column is a good idea!

Who's going to write that column then?

I'll nibble away at these points if that's OK:

"Post 17 (FM): a) What actions would you take to remove the Douglas Adams influence?"
Lead by example. Get rid of the attempts to sum up your U number to 42 from your tagline. Ask people who insist on cluttering up PR with whimsical and inconsequential entries (such as The Drawer) why we should be bothered to spend our time reviewing them and who they thought their audience was. There's no need to be nasty, but a lot of authors could be challenged effectively on their intended readership. If it's of appeal only to people who read h2g2, or if they are simply trying to ape Adams' style, then we should ignore them in favour of more substantial writing *and tell them we are doing that*. But it requires a concerted approach, and if we can't agree on that it won't work.

b) What should we actually be doing to get writers 'real, opinionated and provocative'?

*Drop the 'first person rule'* As has been pointed out earlier, it does nothing to stop rants or attempts to present opinion as fact. However, it would inject a welcome note of subjective reality into the writing. If you've ever been on an assertiveness training course, you are positively encouraged to use the first person in the way you speak: 'I think..', 'I feel..'.

It also helps you to establish your boundaries.
This is from my latest EG draft entry: 'In past years, I used to find the make-up of the audience of the Nottingham Broadway self-consciously arty to the point of being downright intrusive: one Derridaist reading of a film droned into your ear from behind is one too many. However, as the cinema has adopted a progressively more populist approach, the audience has become one which appreciates good cinema for its own sake and tends to value enjoyment over artistic merit.' Reading this, you understand exactly why I go to see a film there and exactly who my entry is pitched at.

More in a bit...

I don't believe that chucking out entries such as "The Drawer" is the answer. They may not be useful to you, at the moment. They may not be useful to me.

But we're not just recording things for right now. This site might one day become a valuable historical resource, chat and all.

And we're not just writing for our own culture. The BBC is used as a resource by people from *all over* to learn. The original premise is a guide for an *alien*, after all - so besides reasons why you go to the cinema, he might want to know what the purpose of the one stuck drawer in every kitchen is.

And if you propose to eliminate any traces of Douglas Adams, you'll upset a lot of people on this site, maybe even drive them off - the opposite of what we want right now.

>>Ask people who insist on cluttering up PR with whimsical and inconsequential entries (such as The Drawer) why we should be bothered to spend our time reviewing them and who they thought their audience was. <<


Hmmm, that's your prerogative to find it whimsical and not to comment.
However, I think the audience will love to read about it. There's something in it most can identify with.
I really think there is room for all sorts of entries in the guide as long as they are well-written.

""Post 17 (FM): a) What actions would you take to remove the Douglas Adams influence?"
Lead by example. Get rid of the attempts to sum up your U number to 42 from your tagline."

Oh come on. That doesn't hurt anyone. It's just a bit of fun.

I think FM's being a little provocative there, but it is a valid, albeit radical suggestion (would you enshrine it in the House Rules, FM?)

To be Devil's advocate for a moment, Does anyone agree with him to a lesser degree? For example, do these things display cliquishness, which may be discouraging people from joining the community? If so, are there other ways to combat it?


We'll discuss all of them in due course

Hootoo certainly does tend toward in-jokes, which may be offputting to newbies. And what really confused me at first was the tendency of people to keep changing their names, though others kept referring to them by the old ones - not to mention signing with smileys, it seemed like *everybody* was

But that's not a PR problem.

Oh, and I liked the idea in the Talking Point recently of letting people post a (premoderated) comment under an entry without registering, at least once.

When you've got all of this straightened out, Icy, are you going to send it to the eds for feedback and to see if they can implement any of it?

After this suggestions thread dries up (hopefully not yet), the plan is to review the suggested actions topic by topic (I'll probably create a new thread for each), and see if we can reach a consensus. At that point we should have a mandate to take to the Eds.

I'd like to think that with the backing of the volunteers taking part in this exercise they would treat it seriously.

In the meantime, if you know of any other researchers who you think would have an interest in this, then please direct them here.

"a) Re Allow people to say what they like in PR - What actions would you take in h2g2 to make this happen?

b) Re Reviewers to apply discretion - again, what would you do to make this happen?"

Make sure that if anybody comes out with a highly contentious statement, that they back it up. I haven't had any corroboration from ST for his strident accusations directed towards me earlier in this thread, therefore I know he's talking tripe. But I knew that anyway because (a) I know my intentions perfectly well - don't want to impose anything upon anybody, just give my perspective and (b) it's ST who's saying it .

"Post 27 (FM): Re Everyone writes about an aspect of their home town - how should we make this happen?"

Go out and *do* it. Lead by example, again.

Post 30 (FM): Re Champion *anything* that serves to broaden h2g2's appeal and audience - What should we do to achieve this?"

h2g2 is being squeezed out. There is Wikipedia on one side and social networking sites such as Facebook on the other: both do what they do far better than h2g2. When it was first launched it was almost a decade ago and there was nothing quite like it. The online world has changed a lot since then but h2g2 has carried on doing the same old thing. If it wants to survive it has to evolve and it has to carve a niche for itself in the rather crowded world of Web 2.0. Where can you find the online equivalent of a Rough Guide, created by its audience, truly informative and well-written? Nowhere. How useful would such a resource be? Immensely. Which existing website is best positioned to capitalise upon this opportunity? You tell me.

Like I said, I'm trying to impose nothing on anyone. I just see a major problem with h2g2: it needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

FM, I'd prefer something a bit more concrete than that.

For example, do you want to see an Editor-led initiative to challenge everyone to write home-town entries (as they have done in the past for counties and universities?) Do you want to set up a more informal group within the community (like the h2g2 researchers did)? In fact there's nothing to stop you or anyone else doing that right now, of course.

For the 'Rough Guide rebranding' idea (for want of a better word), do you see this as being Editor-led or community-led? What sort of initiatives would get it started?

Hi Icy,

If I could refer you to Derek's comments in another thread about the future of h2g2 .......

>>These contributions are most definitely worthwhile. We actually collate them, analyse them and build up our case here in the wider Future Media and Technology department (within whose waters, h2g2 is but a very small fish).

Until recently, the site has been pretty much ignored. It has not been a priority. In-house, we do a lot of stuff to make our case heard; meetings, writing proposals, etc. Things can take an awfully long time in a massive department like this one. But recently - thanks in part to feedback like we have here on this talking point, and in conjunction with the other stuff we as staff can do within the department - there appears to be a change of heart about 'what to do with h2g2'.

Of course we can't guarantee anything, but we have a series of meetings coming up and we're hopeful to hear some positive noises which may well lead to positive change on-site. We've been desperate for this. We don't want change for change's sake, but we need to catch up with the times a bit, develop the site and give the h2g2 community more tools and flexibility to express itself. The key for us as staff - what our own 'powers-that-be' have to know - is what is the value of h2g2 to the wider BBC? For us, it's the community and the wonderfully high standard of interaction, writing, contributing, sharing and general behaviour that characterise it.

To survive, we have to bring h2g2 closer to the BBC and to its content. This may offer us some great opportunites to develop the site - maybe even using the h2g2 community as a test-bed for all BBC social media stuff. We really want to make personal spaces more dynamic, more fun. We don't want to replicate facebook, myspace etc. We want to keep what works on h2g2. But we have to change, we have to be valuable to the BBC. We have to help it develop. Our argument has always been that the BBC owns one of the most amazing, self-policing communties and that it should be 'loved' and valued more. We can't guarantee a single thing but we genuinely have been seeing a bit more love lately. Thank you, as ever, for the continued feedback. <<

FM, I'd be more likely to read your contributions - which I'm sure are worthwhile, you seem to have given this a lot of thought - if you'd refrain from personal attacks on other Researchers. Please.


Changes are good - but they have to be the right changes. Let's buckle down and think of some good ones

Let me get this straight .....

>>FM .... OK: allow people to say what they like about the Entry. If they think it stinks, then allow them to say so. Just require them to back up their assertions with arguments.<<


I believe this is what we have in PR - FM however prefers to slabber about entries not in the PR thread - but in other unconnected PR threads. He has been asked by the author of the entry he finds so tiresome to comment in PR and had steadfastly refused.


>>FM .... Well, here's another one: champion *anything* that serves to broaden h2g2's appeal and audience. Very simple.<<

Presumably this is *anything* that meets FM's standards as he has already stated that he doesn't feel the guide should include at least a few entries currently in PR.


>>FM .... Ask people who insist on cluttering up PR with whimsical and inconsequential entries (such as The Drawer) why we should be bothered to spend our time reviewing them and who they thought their audience was ... <<


Still waiting in PR FM - you ain't asking.


I wish I had more time to spend online at the moment but RL is a bit of a headache and the last thing I need when I come online is to see arrogance and self-importance on the scale voiced by FM - if you want to feed the troll, go ahead - I'm unsubbing.

*sigh*

I'm not getting drawn into this kind of name-calling. To be honest with you, I really don't care that much about the future of h2g2. It is not a major part of my life, not even really a minor part. I've mode more postings here in the past 24 hours than I have in the past 6 months.

My recent visit to PR showed me what a terrible state it was in. I just think it will be an awful pity when, not if, it goes the same way as collective and 360. I've suggested a possible way that I think this might be avoided. People can either listen to that part of my message or they can anally pull me up on what they perceive to be my self-importance and arrogance. Whether or not they decide to act upon it is up to them. I honestly don't care any more.

Finally, can I suggest that if people don't want to be attacked, they shouldn't pick fights in the first place.

Bye bye.

I'd like to apologise for the blank message. As you were.