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

Newbies will always press buttons before they are greeted. It's the most natural thing for them to do.

Some don't even read the official greeting when they receive it.

So, we have to do our best in PR and nothing is going to change that.

I didn't think of it till the UnderGuide came up, but the UG has an approach to quality that the Edited Guide might consider.

There's a Quality Assurance system in the UG, including an anonymous individual who reads all the Mined (equivalent to picked) Entries and weeds out those not up to the mark. The QA also advises Miners about standards. The statistics show that only about one Entry in twenty is actually failed, but more important the practice may serve to ensure that trivial Entries are seldom Mined/picked.

The criteria of quality aren't formalised but they (seem to) include some instructive principles. Newbies are cut more slack, for example. On the other hand, UG regulars (and there are only about 5 people with 5 UG Entries or more) are expected to show continuous improvement.

A former QA of great distinction once said "If there is nothing worth publishing that day, I would rather publish nothing".

I've tackled the problem of submissions being entered in the wrong place already, Nick:

'Instead of recommending the entry is submitted to EGWW, where it will be ignored, why not keep it in PR for more suggestions? If a new Researcher submits an article to PR when it should be in AWW, why not invite the UnderGuide guys over to help work on it rather than confuse the Researcher by telling them to move it about all over the place? There's no massive need to declutter PR at the moment, so I'm sure there is room for accommodating those few that shouldn't be there as long as the Researcher is active and making changes.'

I see your point, but I think it would be preferable to do it with a softening of attitudes rather than a structural change in the site. Established Researchers know where to put their articles, but if newbies really do see 'there is PR or nowhere' - I'm not convinced that they do, in fact - a gentler hand in PR would be more helpful. We just need to communicate better between the Scouts and the Miners, and give a bit more leeway before rejecting something out of hand.

In addition, and to answer Roymondo's question, when you go to submit an entry to any forum, you get a page saying:

Please read the Review Forums FAQ and Writing Guidelines [both with links] before using this form, so you can pick the correct Review Forum:

* If your Guide Entry meets our guidelines and is finished, choose Peer Review
* If your Guide Entry meets our guidelines but is not yet finished, choose Writing Workshop
* If your Guide Entry is currently just an idea, choose Collaborative Writing Workshop
* If your Guide Entry doesn't meet our guidelines, choose Alternative Writing Workshop
* Don't choose Flea Market, unless you want your Guide Entry to be ignored!

I'm not sure which bit isn't clear, to be honest.

***

I think, Pin, that what you're suggesting there is the role that the Eds used to fill for the EG. I say 'used to' because I don't think they do that any more; whether because they know we're short of Entries or time, but I don't think picks ever get rejected. That's up to the Eds for me.

'The criteria of quality aren't formalised but they (seem to) include some instructive principles. Newbies are cut more slack, for example. On the other hand, UG regulars (and there are only about 5 people with 5 UG Entries or more) are expected to show continuous improvement.'

PR could certainly learn from that.

***



Here's an ill-thought through suggestion for discussion.

Scrap all the review forums bar one.

We just have one review forum for everything. This would make all reviewing more content-based, and loosen the line between Edited and UnderGuide articles, and we'd have one place instead of having EGWW as a slightly-better-than-FM bin. We could work on the content of everything there, regardless of its ultimate destination.

The rule at the moment is that if the Miners think the Scouts might want it for the EG, they have to check first. So we get really daft situations where an entry has to be taken from AWW, put into PR, and effectively just have headers added before it's suddenly ok (I'm not thinking of that one again, but A22716713 springs to mind immediately). We also have this negative vibe of 'This is not suitable for the EG. Please remove it' - well, is there any good reason why we shouldn't just review the content and choose where it should go *after the reviewing*?

We're all intelligent people, I think. Everyone here can assess a style and work out if it should be an EG or UG Entry. I'd expect that from every Scout and Miner. So why do we need more than one forum when we have considerable overlap, and frequently ask people to move articles from forum to forum?

What we're doing at the moment is separating submissions at the 'author' stage; someone writes an article and chooses where it should go, and then we review it. What I'm suggesting is that the writer writes the article, then we review it and recommend it for a particular part of the Guide. We have a bigger pool of reviewers, a more dynamic Guide, and we're all working to the same end. And we'd probably get a widening of the Guidelines through simple evolution, as some borderline articles that would normally go into the UG get accepted into the EG instead.

The beauty from a writers' point of view is that you'd be just writing. You wouldn't have to worry about making anything fit anything; you'd just write and submit. We'd be reviewing the writing itself rather than its suitability for a particular part of the Guide. I think that would make sense.

If we could get a small group of Elentaris, who would help the EG by finding unedited articles and submitting them for review with a few changes, we wouldn't need the Fleamarket either. At the moment, it's a dumping ground; it serves no purpose. I'm quite excited by the idea of searching the unedited guide for good entries - it could be a lot of fun.



***

'The h2g2 Book - great idea. What proportion of it's content should be Edited Entries though? I'd suggest 50% tops.'

I've emailed the Eds with my suggestions, and I'll let you know the result. When I get an answer, I'll open the idea to the community for further suggestions. Clearly, anything included would need to be from active Researchers so we could get proper copyright permissions, and it would need to include EG, UG and Post articles. If people think it's a good idea, it's definitely worth my time.

Right, it's all in hand then. Good luck.

"New talent aside, how about some of the older Researchers start contributing more - how to we get the old timers back and interested again?"

Replying to an early post, but I want to answer this question.

POST TO THEIR PR THREADS!

PLEASE!

It's why I stopped writing. Personally I'd prefer not a smiley, because it doesn't tell you anything, but even posting 'ok' in the thread if you've no real comment make it seem worthwhile.

I can't see the point of writing if nobody is reading, and while I can't see that anyone is reading I can't see the point of writing.

As for PR, it has been so full of the same names, that yes, I haven't bothered to post - usually because their threads are full of their mates chatting, or they already have enough people commenting. If there is one place offtopic posts shouldn't be, it's in a PR thread. If I really like the subject, I will post regardless, but that is not often these days I'm afraid.

Newbies get the shitty end of the stick in PR so often that I can see why none of them bother to try again.

I'm afraid my other ideas of what the problem is can be laid fully at the BBC's door. Scout picks are accepted without the Ed reading the thread, which is why entries are picked before they are ready and other entries are 'ready' but really not suitable for the EG - unless the whole idea of the EG has changed, in which case it should be advertised somewhere so that new people can contribute easier. I am also ashamed to say that if an entry is edited by 'h2g2 Editors' it always needs Curating and that's shocking.

The only answer to the BBC's side is to point out each and every mistake.

I think I posted this earlier, but I'm going to post it again.

There SHOULD be sub-standard material in Peer Review. Lots, and lots, and lots of it. There should not be poor material in the Edited Guide, though. PR is a quality control mechanism.

Why discourage "bad quality" from encountering a quality control?

My oh my, I do not know what to say now to all of this, other than that I was asked to return to this thread by Icy (as I was asked to contribute in the first place), that I am very pleased to have stirred up some debate and that virtually all of us have arrived at the same consensus: that h2g2 is in trouble.

Well, I've made some suggestions about what could be done. Whether or not any further consensus is reached is another matter, but I'm happy to go along with whatever we end up agreeing on.

It's in even more trouble now!

You have driven one of our most talented writers off the site!

Don't encourage him, lil.

I'm gone!

>>the subject of discussion is more important than how people feel about that's being said

It's probably too late for me to add to this discussion, but I have to take you to task for that heartless and ludicrous statement, FM. _Nothing_ is more important than how people feel about what's being said. h2g2 is a living, breathing community which does what it does by people working together. Everyone's feelings are the most important thing. If you insult someone and drive them away from the site, then you have harmed h2g2 more than any amount of bad entries can do.

If you insist on spouting such rubbish, I'm going to have to shun you.

I suppose I should make my suggestions for Peer Review, but I don't really know what to suggest.

Peer Review seems to be working well except that we don't have enough submissions. As far as I can see, the quality of the ones we do have in Peer Review is pretty high; there's a good mix between largely factual and short humorous ones; and the reviewing that goes on in Peer Review, from what I've seen, is relevant and to the point.

So the only real problem we need to address is that small number of people who feel competent or bothered to submit entries. What is it that discourages people?

1. They feel that they have to be expert writers to put something into the Guide -- not so. Some entries are very poor quality when put in first, but the authors are willing to make changes based on suggestions, in which case the entries will improve rapidly. Some are even picked while they still need a lot of work, and handed over to a competent sub-editor, because the information in them is worth having in the Guide.

2. They can't think of anything to write about. This is where Challenge h2g2 should come in. Any time you identify any gap in the guide you should either write an entry yourself to fill it, or post it in Challenge h2g2. I remember noticing there was nothing in the Guide about the phenomenon of blue food, but I didn't have time to give the topic the time it deserved, so I put it in Challenge h2g2. It was only a day or two before another Researcher took up the challenge.

3. They don't like being criticised and other people imposing their ideas on their work. Get over it - h2g2 works by cooperation. Even the best authors can benefit from suggestions from others. That's what the "Peer" in Peer Review means - the people reviewing your article are as good as you, so you'd better listen. If you really think that you're so much better than the reviewers, then just wait and see do the scouts agree. But you're missing a valuable opportunity to improve both the entry and your writing skills.

That's a bit of a rant. The only real suggestion in there is that we all should make more use of challenge h2g2. We should post to it when we see a gap, and we should all be subscribed to it so that if someone else posts a challenge, we'll see it.

If I think of anything else, I'll add it later.

I especially like point three

I could add that there seems to be a general attitude that you have to be active in PR to post your own entries there, and vice versa. I don't think that's quite right. Nature's authors aren't always nature's editors.

Maybe we need to introduce a more Marxist attitude: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need...

Meaning do what you can, and put your priority on helping out those who especially need the help. "Old hands" need help, too, each entry is unique - if it wasn't, they'd know better than to submit it!

>>h2g2 is a living, breathing community which does what it does by people working together.<<

That is well put Gnomon - and is really the nut of it. h2g2 will certainly change and whether is evolves or devolves will depend on just how well we do work together - and how intentionally fun we make the work.

We're on solid ground as long as there is that spirit of 'let's see where this is going' rather than 'this ought to be going HERE and all you idiots are going THERE - what's the matter with you?' as some would have it.

Oh my I'm late to this party.

I am going to give my thoughts, in no particular order:

1) getting away from Douglas Adams and The Books - yep. Totally agree. Combine it with making this place a bit more like a rough guide thing. I joined because of a comment by DNA in an interview where he said he thought it would work like this:

Someone would be in a strange town, and want a coffee. In the street they are currently walking they see a cafe - quickly they consult their handheld device and see that someone has written a review. On the basis of that they can decide if they want to go in, or search the online guide further.

What I found this place useful for (although it wasn't an entry it was in Ask) was when I went on holiday last year, I asked people for advice of what to do in Abergavenny. And didn't have enough time to follow all the excellent suggestions.

That is what the guide is good at. (and yes yes, I should have gathered it all into an entry but I don't write these days)

2) do away with the EGWW. Really, how does that work? PR is empty, why not have all entries in there. If an author shows willing and people post often to an entry where the author is active, it will hover in the first two or three blobs. Inactive authors will fall to the bottom and - here's the important bit - neglected entries will be put in the FM by the scouts. (I had a bit of a go at them about this recently, so I won't go into it again)

Actually... that's all i have to say. There have been some good ideas in this thread.

Oh and I definitely agree with Gnomon - PR isn't a bear pit, the people who write the entries are living breathing people and don't deserve to be ripped to shreds.

"If you insist on spouting such rubbish, I'm going to have to shun you."

Whatever: I think you'll find you won't have to put yourself out too much to do that, as I'd more or less given up on this site anyhow.

Thank you for helping me to come to a final decision about it, anyway.

Ah, right, because of course unsubbing means you have the last word

Just in case you're still here, FM - I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I have nothing against you personally. And many of the comments you've made above were helpful.

But the packaging is extremely unattractive - whether it's true or not, personal digs at people make it look like you have nothing constructive to say or any logical arguments - not to mention you'll be antagonising people. Of *course* emotions will run high. If you don't care about emotions, then stop bringing them into it! Stay on a fair and unpersonal level, and you'll see we can have a much better debate.

Your style makes me question your motives - somebody who's really interested in debate will not go around trying to hurt other people, but stick to the subject in a calm and rational manner.

I, for one, will refuse to even consider the further content of any post on this topic in which anyone is personally attacked - no matter who that is.

Heads up - we have an article in PR by a newbie - not even been ACEd yet - that is clearly not suitable for the EG as it stands, but could be an interesting article if it were actually researched and stopped trying to imitate DNA.

A good opportunity to put into practice what we've been discussing.

I don't think all this unsubbing is going to get us anywhere.

There are a lot of people who feel passionate about h2g2, well thats good, unfortunately passion divides people.

Perhaps if we all took our personalities out of this it would be better.

I've upset ST with a comment in Peer Review, well that's going to happen sometimes. Perhaps my problem is that I don't really care about h2g2 - sure I think it's nice, and there's some great people here - but there are also some bigotted fanantics - there's even some on my friends list. I also think there are some people who went to goody bag once too often on this site. That's fine, the weird way that people can have different personalities in different threads fascinates me ~ but apart from the woman who made death threats on my family because I questioned her comparison of Princess Diana and Mother Theresa, there's nobody I wouldn't love to meet in the pub.

Possibly some of us would end up outside the pub, but I don't think so.

Unsubbing is not the way out - either defend your view or agree with your detractor. If you're not going to agree - then leave it at that and talk about something else.

I think if there's one place on the site people should be frank, forthright and truthful, it should be PR. Not to say that we should be blunt and unpleasant, but good reviewing needs to risk upsetting the author - I know, because that's how I learned to do my job. I spent my first month at work having every single thing I wrote handed back to me covered in red pen, but my writing (both at work and for fun) improved a hell of a lot for it.

It's great for all concerned when you can say "this is great, that's wonderful, I love what you've done here" but there's always going to be times with almost every entry where you need to say "this doesn't work, I don't see the reasoning behind this part,, this bit is factually inaccurate."

If that's going to lead to unsubscribing or removed entries, people need to toughen up.
If that's going to give particular people carte blanche to be unpleasant, they need to grow up.