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

OK, I think it's time for stage 3 of this PR Quality exercise: Voting.

These are the various suggestions that we collected on the "Quality of PR - Suggested Actions" thread - F3719964?thread=5500615

I've summarised and given each of these suggestions a reference number, which allows you to refer back to the original posting on the Suggestions thread, should you need to. So, for example, suggestion no 7/3 is the third point made in post number 7 of that thread.

Please post to say which of them you would consider a good idea, and which you would consider a bad idea (ie counter-productive). If you're not bothered either way about a particular suggestion, then you needn't mention it.

So, you might post a message saying something like:

Good ideas: 1/1, 1/3, 2/5, 4/1 ...
Bad ideas: 1/2, 2/1, 2/2 ...

By all means say why you approve or disapprove of them, but please be concise. Don't worry too much about precisely how these suggestions should be implemented - we can thrash this out later.

If you've already indicated your approval for them in the Suggestions thread, then I'm sorry but you must do it again here - I won't be counting any implied votes or otherwise from that thread. Please vote on your own suggestions, too.

If you suddenly think of a better suggestion than the ones listed, then please post a message to the Suggestions thread and I'll sweep these up at a later date. Please don't post them here!


I hope this is clear! Oh, I almost forgot the ground rule:

1. Don't add new or changed suggestions here - use the Suggestions thread.

Thank you for taking part!

Icy

***
Part 1: Writing process and style

4/3 Encourage writers to use the Edit window buttons if weak at Guide-ML.
4/4 Request a new feature to automatically convert special character codes into Guide-ML
17/1 Remove the Douglas Adams influence from the site.
17/2 Encourage 'opinionated & provocative' writing.
17/3 Encourage writers to underestimate the reader's knowledge rather than their intelligence.
17/4 Change writing guidelines to relax the 1st person rule.
52/3 Style h2g2 upon the Rough Guide series.
53/1 Reconsider the need for writing workshops, as these don't get the same level of attention as Peer Review.
62/7 Allow entries to be factually incomplete if necessary.
67/1 Choose new specimen entries to feature in the Writing Guidelines, as the existing ones are getting a bit old now.
71/1 No longer see the Edited Guide as the 'central project' of h2g2.
72/1 Pre-categorise newly-created guide entries into Edited Guide, Underguide, etc.
75/1 Have a pop-up box for entry options (eg "Guide-ML", "not for review", etc), as these are not clear to the newcomer.

Part 2: Review forums, reviewing process, picking and editing

5/1a Remove Scout deadlines (a Scout currently makes recommendations every 4 weeks).
5/1b Remove Scout minimum picks (a Scout is expected to recommend 2 or 3 entries).
12/1 Reconsider the Scout Peer Review clearout process (from time to time, inactive entries are moved into the Fleamarket, or 'back to entry').
12/2 Allow Scouts to make additional picks (see 5/1b above).
24/1 Post Peer Review comments in the 3rd person only.
49/1 Allow unregistered, premoderated comments in Peer Review.
62/5 Keep unsuitable entries in Peer Review rather than refer them to the Edited Guide Writing Workshop or the Alternative Writing Workshop.
62/6 Use the Scouts offline forum (Yahoo group) more to discuss contentious points occurring in Peer Review.
66/1 Create a new h2g2 Peer Reviewers offline forum, as not all reviewers are Scouts.
82/1 Adopt the Underguide Quality Assurance process into Peer Review.
83/4 Have one review forum, containing every type of entry (currently there are forums for the Edited Guide - PR, Underguide - AWW, Writing Workshop - EGWW, and the Fleamarket.
83/5 Abolish the Fleamarket forum, as it's not being used.
85/4 Require the h2g2 Editors to review their picks, as some unsuitable entries are slipping through.
102/1 Create a set of 'how to review' guidelines.
122/2 Publish nothing if there's nothing good enough to publish.

Part 3: Encouraging new writing and promoting the site

2/1 Start a project to identify unedited entries suitable for the Edited Guide.
6/1 Publicise the Entry of the Month competition.
8/2 Identify and target non-writing researchers.
9/1 Identify and target non-writing 'old-timer' researchers.
10/1 Publicise the Challenge h2g2 forum.
10/2 Start a project to identify and fill the obvious gaps in the Edited Guide.
10/3 Publicise first-time writers in The h2g2 Post (ie revive Emmily's column).
10/4 Revive collaborative entries, eg: a) Revive the collaborative workshop b) Create a new Writers Lounge forum to plan entries.
10/5 Revive the Collaborative Topic of the Week.
10/6 Publicise the h2g2 Researchers Group.
10/7 Publicise h2g2 via other BBC messageboards, including a tailored welcome page.
13/1 Promote new collaborative entries via the Front Page.
27/1 Start a new project to get everyone writing about their home town.
33/1 Submit unedited entries which may be suitable for the Edited Guide into the Flea Market.
39/1 Publicise Edited Guide gaps and new Flea Market entries via the h2g2 Post.
62/1 Use the h2g2 Researchers Group forum as the repository for rewriting unedited entries, rather than the Flea Market.
62/8 Publicise Flea Market removals via a thread in the h2g2 Researchers Group forum.
62/9 Publicise the home town entries project through Challenge h2g2.
62/11 Researchers to self-publicise the site by e-mailing links to interested organisations.
62/12 Write h2g2 - The Book.
62/13 Use the h2g2 Researchers Group as an ideas repository.
68/1 Publicise h2g2 via BBC radio stations.

***

OK, I'll post my votes (apologies for it being such a long list of suggestions to vote on - please take your time over them, there's no hurry)

Agree with: 17/3, 53/1, 67/1, 5/1b, 66/1, 102/1, 2/1, 6/1, 10/1, 10/2, 10/3, 10/4, 10/5, 10/6, 10/7, 13/1, 27/1, 33/1, 39/1, 62/8, 62/11, 62/12

Disagree with: 17/4, 62/7, 72/1, 75/1, 5/1a, 24/1, 83/5

Icy

Ok, here's my

Agree:
17/3, 52/3, 83/4, 8/2, 10/7,62/12

Disagree:
17/1, 17/4, 62/6, 66/1

Blimey! Do we have to write in some secret code?

I'll only mention a couple:

10/6 Publicise the h2g2 Researchers Group. This might sound odd coming from the group's founder, but I disagree with this because, as I've explained in the thread, it doesn't serve any purpose at the moment. The hope that x writers would be able to keep up with a commitment to write y a month was a false one, and no one has been more productive as a result of its existence. I think it would be better as a kind of ideas centre and a home for suggestions such as the one about searching the unedited guide for hidden gems and the 'Writers Lounge'. Somewhere to go for inspiration and help with general research, perhaps. I'd welcome suggestion on how to redesign it, but preferably over there or on my PS.

62/12 Write h2g2 - The Book. Ain't gonna happen. It has to be put together by the BBC, and it's out of the Eds' hands. they'll keep asking, but it's highly unlikely this will ever come to fruition.

WHich do you agree with, Rich? (Include your own suggestions)

Good Ideas:
Part 1: 17/3, 67/1
Part 2: 5/1a, 5/1b, 12/2, 85/4, 122/2,
Part 3: 2/1, 10/1, 39/1, 68/1 (and get Simon Mayo to stop referencing W*ki every 5 minutes)

Ideas I don't agree with:
Part 1: 17/1, 62/7
Part 2: 62/6 (this should happen anyway) 66/1 (How many subsets of reviewers would we end up with? Apply to be a Scout or discuss in the PR Thread - it's not often Scouts need to take stuff offsite anyway and others doing so would weaken the actual Thread), 102/1
Part 3: 8/2, 9/1 (not because I know I'd be on the list ; rather because this is a fun site run for and in our free time)

JulesK

I don't have time to go through them in detail, Icy, because it's a Post week and I have my first camp on Thursday. I'll try to have a look when I get back.

Good idea:
17/3, 53/1, 62/7, 67/1, 5/1a, 5/1b, 12/2, 85/4, 102/1, 122/2, 2/1, 6/1, 9/1, 10/1, 10/2, 10/3, 10/7, 27/1, 39/1, 62/9

Bad idea:
4/3, 4/4, 17/4, 52/3, 71/1, 72/1, 75/1, 24/1, 49/1, 62/5, 62/6, 66/1, 83/4, 8/2, 33/1, 62/12

Good with reservations:

17/1 Remove the Douglas Adams influence from the site: We should remove the references to Douglas Adams's work from any new entries, but we should keep his over-riding purpose and style.
83/5 Abolish the Fleamarket forum, as it's not being used: we should move the unsuitable entries "back to entry". They can still be picked up from there by an interested party.
17/2 Encourage 'opinionated & provocative' writing: as long as it stays within the guidelines. I've always tried to write opinionated Entries.
10/5 Revive the Collaborative Topic of the Week: as long as the task of compiling the entry is given to someone with experience

Don't know or no opinion:

12/1, 82/1, 10/4, 13/1, 10/6, 62/1, 62/8, 62/11, 62/13, 68/1

(A lot of these don't knows because I can't remember ever hearing of the h2g2 Researchers Group).

G

Good Ideas:-
Part 1:-

17/3, 71/1

Part 2:-

5/1b, 12/2 (When an abubdance to pick from), 62/6, 83/5, 102/1

Part 3:-

2/1, 10/1, 10/2, 10/3, 10/7, 68/1.

Bad Ideas
Part 1:-

17/1, 17/2, 17/4, 62/7.

Part 2:-
12/1, 49/1, 62/5, 83/4.

Part 3:-
8/2, 9/1.


ST.

71/1 - disagree. This site is supposed to be a guide. We just need to expand what goes in to have broader appeal. Therefore
17/2 - agree.
62/5 - agree. Nothing goes on in the EGWW anyway.
83/5 - disagree. It gets intermittent use. And it does no harm.
10/7 - agree.
10/3 - agree.
39/1 - agree.
62/12 - agree it's a nice idea but this could get humongously messy and therefore won't happen.
68/1 - agree.

5/1 Best Mate
10/1 Laughing Boy
12/1 Pedestrian
15/1 Lords a-Leapin
20/1 Bar

B

Worthy idea, Icy, but a bit of a loaded treatment.
For example: 71/1 No longer see the Edited Guide as the 'central project' of h2g2. So which EG is this? *An* EG should be the central project, IMO, but it’s probably not the one we’ve got, and certainly not the one that some Researchers appear to believe in.
Also, this voting model gives no opportunity to advocate a *degree* of change. I believe we have to prune hard to regenerate. Trying many suggestions would be better than trying few of them.

Anyway:

Part 1: Writing process and style
Good: 17/1, 17/2, 17/3, 17/4*, 62/7**, 67/1, 71/1
Not good on grounds of implementation difficulty: 72/1
Not good on grounds of harmful: 52/3, 53/1
Not fussed: 4/3, 4/4, 75/1
*Though the 1st person rule is not mandatory according to the Guidelines. It’s only reviewer pedantry that makes it so.
**Though it’s always necessary to some degree. The idea that any worthwhile Entry could ever be factually complete is preposterous.

Part 2: Review forums, reviewing process, picking and editing
Good: 5/1a, 5/1b, 12/1, 12/2, 83/4, 102/1, 122/2
Not good on grounds of implementation difficulty: 24/1, 62/5, 82/1, 85/4
Not good on grounds of harmful: 83/5
Not fussed: 49/1, 62/6, 66/1

Part 3: Encouraging new writing and promoting the site
Good: 2/1*, 6/1, 10/1, 10/4, 10/5, 13/1, 62/12, 68/1
Not good on grounds of implementation difficulty: 10/7, 62/11
Not good on grounds of harmful: 8/2, 9/1
Not fussed: 10/2, 10/3, 10/6, 27/1, 33/1*, 39/1, 62/1, 62/8, 62/9, 62/13
*better than either, we could reinstate the capability to put other people’s Entries into PR.

OK - I'll be sensible now. Generally, most of section three looks to achieve most of what teachers call SMART targets - Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-oriented. Well, maybe not the last one.

Agree - 17/2 (within reason), 53/1, 62/7 (by necessity, surely?), 67/1 (never hurts to audit), 72/1 (if at all possible), 75/1 (ditto), 5/1a and b, 83/4 (if manageable), 83/5, 85/4 (surely they do anyway?), 2/1, 6/1 (of course), 8/2, 9/1, 10/1, 10/2 (although not to the exclusion of other Entries), 10/3 (could merge with EoTM), 10/7 (if feasible), 13/1 (don't we do this anyway?), 27/1 (we've done this as well, haven't we?), 39/1 (merge with Emmily or EoTM or both), 62/9, 62/12 (although Lord knows how we'd go about even selecting appropriate Entries, let alone publishing), 68/1 (if feasible.

Disagree - 4/3 (Sub's job), 4/4 (ditto), 17/1 (madness), 17/3 (too vague), 17/4 (dangerous precedent), 52/3 (would narrow our audience/writers), 71/1 (what else is?), 24/1 (Good Lord! Are we robots?), 49/1 (Good Lord! Are we nuts?), 62/5 (why?), 66/1 (I get enough email), 82/1 (too vague), 102/1 (osmosis worked for me), 122/2 (might create [further] decline), 10/4 (the collaboratives were very variable in quality), 10/6 (groups are for minorities, not majorities), 33/1 (not if we abolish FM), 62/1, 62/8, 62/11 (not our job, surely), 62/13 (what's the obsession with the Researchers' Group).

Irrelevant/Don't See The Point - 12/1, 12/2, 62/6.

B

I won't say good or bad idea, I'll just say whether I agree with them or not.

Disagree
4/3 Encourage writers to use the Edit window buttons if weak at Guide-ML.
As an ex-sub I'd rather write the GML myself than have to repair bad GML.
4/4 Request a new feature to automatically convert special character codes into Guide-ML
Simply because we are unlikely to get new features, and I can think of loads we need before this.
17/1 Remove the Douglas Adams influence from the site.
Actually I will say this is a bad idea. For a start you've got to rename it, rebrand it, find a new URL, along with all the message boards. No chance.
17/2 Encourage 'opinionated & provocative' writing.
I'd argue that most entries are opinionated to some extent, but I wouldn't like to see*real* opinion pieces in the EG.
17/4 Change writing guidelines to relax the 1st person rule.
52/3 Style h2g2 upon the Rough Guide series.
71/1 No longer see the Edited Guide as the 'central project' of h2g2.
75/1 Have a pop-up box for entry options (eg "Guide-ML", "not for review", etc), as these are not clear to the newcomer.
12/1 Reconsider the Scout Peer Review clearout process (from time to time, inactive entries are moved into the Fleamarket, or 'back to entry').
24/1 Post Peer Review comments in the 3rd person only.
Too complicated! It's bad enough for some of us to do this with an entry!
49/1 Allow unregistered, premoderated comments in Peer Review.
Too disruptive to the thread when mods busy!
66/1 Create a new h2g2 Peer Reviewers offline forum, as not all reviewers are Scouts.
83/4 Have one review forum, containing every type of entry (currently there are forums for the Edited Guide - PR, Underguide - AWW, Writing Workshop - EGWW, and the Fleamarket.
83/5 Abolish the Fleamarket forum, as it's not being used.
Who says it's not being used? I've picked more than half a dozen from FM and got them onto the Front Page, and I'm not the only one. I like there being one place to browse through to find stuff.
122/2 Publish nothing if there's nothing good enough to publish.
If there is nothing to publish, there is no reason for h2g2 to be here. No to this one.
2/1 Start a project to identify unedited entries suitable for the Edited Guide.
10/2 Start a project to identify and fill the obvious gaps in the Edited Guide.
Too many of these already.
10/4 Revive collaborative entries, eg: a) Revive the collaborative workshop b) Create a new Writers Lounge forum to plan entries.
10/5 Revive the Collaborative Topic of the Week.
Too much work for number of Eds. If Researchers wrote them up, they wouldn't have stopped in the first place (and yes I have done a few myself).
10/7 Publicise h2g2 via other BBC messageboards, including a tailored welcome page.
27/1 Start a new project to get everyone writing about their home town.
When Paully did something similar, everyone complained. Plus, what if their home town is already in the Guide? Then what do they do?
62/1 Use the h2g2 Researchers Group forum as the repository for rewriting unedited entries, rather than the Flea Market.
62/9 Publicise the home town entries project through Challenge h2g2. As per 27/1
62/11 Researchers to self-publicise the site by e-mailing links to interested organisations.
62/12 Write h2g2 - The Book.

Agree
17/3 Encourage writers to underestimate the reader's knowledge rather than their intelligence.
67/1 Choose new specimen entries to feature in the Writing Guidelines, as the existing ones are getting a bit old now.
5/1a Remove Scout deadlines (a Scout currently makes recommendations every 4 weeks).
To a certain extent - some Scouts just pick when they find something worth picking (or they did) and the Eds were ok with this, but if all the Scouts took the same month off then that could be a problem.
5/1b Remove Scout minimum picks (a Scout is expected to recommend 2 or 3 entries).
12/2 Allow Scouts to make additional picks (see 5/1b above).
62/5 Keep unsuitable entries in Peer Review rather than refer them to the Edited Guide Writing Workshop or the Alternative Writing Workshop.
Pretty sure we've always done this anyway!
62/6 Use the Scouts offline forum (Yahoo group) more to discuss contentious points occurring in Peer Review.
85/4 Require the h2g2 Editors to review their picks, as some unsuitable entries are slipping through.
If nothing else, please get this done!!! At least then we know something has got through because the Eds agree it's suitable, rather than them simply accepting and it getting through. There's one on my space at the moment they thought better off, and it's just sitting there, leaving the poor author (still active!) in limbo.
10/1 Publicise the Challenge h2g2 forum.
13/1 Promote new collaborative entries via the Front Page.
33/1 Submit unedited entries which may be suitable for the Edited Guide into the Flea Market.


Undecided
53/1 Reconsider the need for writing workshops, as these don't get the same level of attention as Peer Review.
62/7 Allow entries to be factually incomplete if necessary.
Not sure what this means - most subjects will be factually incomplete simply because they aren't a book.
72/1 Pre-categorise newly-created guide entries into Edited Guide, Underguide, etc.
Not sure what this means?
82/1 Adopt the Underguide Quality Assurance process into Peer Review.
Not sure what this means?
102/1 Create a set of 'how to review' guidelines.
Don't these already exist on the PR page?
6/1 Publicise the Entry of the Month competition.
8/2 Identify and target non-writing researchers.
9/1 Identify and target non-writing 'old-timer' researchers.
10/3 Publicise first-time writers in The h2g2 Post (ie revive Emmily's column).
Would rather see them bigged up on the Front Page.
10/6 Publicise the h2g2 Researchers Group.
39/1 Publicise Edited Guide gaps and new Flea Market entries via the h2g2 Post.
62/8 Publicise Flea Market removals via a thread in the h2g2 Researchers Group forum.
62/13 Use the h2g2 Researchers Group as an ideas repository.
68/1 Publicise h2g2 via BBC radio stations.

Slightly concerned to see the degree to which Mina and I agree...

"...but if all the Scouts took the same month off then that could be a problem."

Surely it wouldn't be too much to ask of the Eds to act as Scouts in absentia?

B

I don't think they'd have time to read through PR to find decentt entries, then check the PR thread to see if there is agreement.

Seriously - what DO they do all day?

B

>>What do they do all day?

"Spare a copper, guv"

Agree: 4/3, 17/2 (but balanced with non-opinionated writing), 17/3, 17/4, 62/7, 67/1, 72/1, 5/1a, 5/1b, 12/2 (Scouts should be able to pick whenever and whatever they think is suitable), 62/5 (see 83/4), 62/6, 82/1, 83/4 (strongly in favor), 83/5, 85/4, 102/1, 122/2, 2/1, 6/1, 10/2, 10/4, 10/5, 10/7, 13/1, 39/1, 62/12 (if it could happen), 68/1 (if it could happen)

Disagree: 17/1, 52/3, 53/1, 71/1 (but expand the EG to include a greater variety of styles), 24/1, 49/1, 8/2, 9/1, 10/6, 62/1, 62/8, 62/11, 62/13

Don't care: 4/4, 75/1, 12/1, 66/1, 10/1, 10/3, 27/1, 33/1, 62/9

49/1 Allow unregistered, premoderated comments in Peer Review.

That's not what I meant, actually - I meant allowing comments under *edited* entries.