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

In that case, I'd like to change my vote. I agree with allowing unregistered comments under Edited Entries.

While I certainly have strong opinions on most of these things, I'm not going to bother with voting. h2g2 is not and never has been a Democracy. Things change on h2g2 in two ways. Either the italics change something (and in my experience they rarely listen to input from the community to make these decisions) or the community changes by people setting an example. In either case, a vote doesn't change anything. At any rate - just because several people in a thread agree on one point doesn't mean it's in the best interests of the site.

Allow unregistered, premoderated comments in Peer Review.

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

I've long thought this (but not pre-mod), but with no technical help we've got no chance!

Apologies, Malabarista. I think I'd better remove that particular one from the vote and pick it up next time.

Please vote, Jordan. It looks as if the h2g2 community is going to have to make a strong case to the BBC to get them to spend any additional effort on the project. I'd like as representative view of opinion as we can get, and if we can get at least 25 researchers voting, say, then their collective opinion is far more likely to be representative of the community as a whole.

We had suggestions submitted from over 25 researchers, so I'm hopeful of getting at least that number voting. As well as identifying the good ideas, the voting will serve to prioritise them too.

People may be put off by the large number of suggestions to vote on, but as I said earlier, please take your time, and you only have to mention those which you strongly agree or disagree with.

Icy

I'm really not sure if I'm doing this right, as I am number dyslexic, but here goes:

Agree:

17/2 (although this has a downfall when it comes to PR guidelines, but I feel that opinionated writing gets the creative juices flowing)

17/3 (a given really)

17/4 (although this somewhat confuses me, because there are many EG Entries that include first person narrative, it's just how it's presented that is the key, and PR should help those kind of Entries out)

53/1 (the EGWW is a nice idea, but it does seem a little unused, unused forums should be upgraded or phased out, like the Update Forum, was )

62/7 (of course! you don't need everything there, or the fun of discovering it yourself is kind of missed out. Take for example geographic or science based Entries, or even recipes! Sure, explain how and why, but don't give EVERYTHING away! )

67/1 (yes, or if the Eds (or even Curators if given access) could update the examples every now and then...)

71/1 (I never thought it was, h2g2 is a community with a wide range of little bits and bobs)

5/1a & 5/1b (don't get me started on Scouting, but it needs a good looking at)

102/1 I think Gnomon linked to Azara's Guide to PR, perhaps that could actually be incorporated somewhere officially?)

2/1 (I think the submit for review button could be used on such Entries to put them into the Flea Market, then Researchers could truly collaborate more - community spirit is low at the moment)

6/1 Do the winners of EoftM actually get anything aside from a badge on their Entry? If not, I did hear that there were a few h2g2 t-shirts littered about somewhere...)

And I pretty much agree with all of Part 3 to be honest. ALl sound ideas.

Disagree:

17/1 (come on now, DNA is a drawcard, and always will be)

83/4 (no, we need forums for creative writing and Entries suitable for EG inclusion with work, I suggest the submit for review button be used to put potential EG Entries from the Unedited Guide into the Flea Market)

83/5 (excuse me?! not being used? I think a quarter of the Entries I've written have been Flea Market Rescues, not being used? I despair!)

85/4 (the eds have enough on their plates, it should be up to the community to really be self sufficient, and if unsuitable picks are getting through it's not the eds fault, it's the Scouts. Don't pick for the sake of it, please)

122/2 (see above comment)

10/2 (I disagree with this because I believe 'filling gaps' is like writing in an encyclopaedic manner... *wiki* style. No thanks. Just my opinion though)

Part one.

Agree.

4/3, 4/4, 17/3, 67/1, 75/1

Disagree.

17/1, 62/7, 71/1
_______________________________

Part two.

Agree.

12/2, 49/1, 102/1, 122/2.

Disagree.

24/1, 83/4.

Part three.

Agree.

6/1, 8/2, 10/7.

Agree:

4/3
4/4 These two came from me, I think, so silly to change my mind now
17/3 - but remember that underestimating a reader's knowledge includes the fact that not all readers are from the UK...
53/1 And reconsider the form! Are people only interested in writing, or in helping out, too?
62/7 Of course you can't get every little fact in - but the "if necessary" bit is important!
67/1 Mix them, so we can get more of a consensus "House Style"
72/1 With the possibility of switching, of course! And if we'll be looking for more things to submit by other Researchers, I recommend a "work in progress for EG" category
75/1 Why not? Or links to entries describing them.

5/1a / 5/1b - within reason. Have the Scout either make a pick *or* indicate why not.
12/1 - Reconsider just means evaluate what works and what doesn't, always a good idea...
12/2 - yes, provided there are enough good picks - it will give us a better overview of how urgent the writing of more entries is.
49/1 In its revised form. Not for PR, for the EG.
62/5 Yes! Don't foist them off on the other forums if they're not suitable for those specific forums, just as a way of getting rid of them. If people just want to start a discussion, refer them to Ask instead. (I'd not recommend sending newbies to The Forum!)
85/4 Shouldn't this be happening at final editing already?
102/1 There are already a few good attempts out there... But let everyone keep their own reviewing style, people notice different things!
122/2 Definitely, should it come to that!

2/1 Yes! I didn't submit the first entry I wrote for *years*, because I believed people went and found them and you couldn't/shouldn't submit your own.
10/1 Good idea.
10/3 Can't hurt to encourage them.
10/4
10/5
13/1
39/1 Especially the Flea Market
62/11 Don't we already do that? I do...
62/12 Sounds like a good source for arguments. But maybe the EoM will help there.
68/1 And links from news pages - but only when they're appropriate! For example, there was a BBC article mentioning Mexican tortillas that linked to an Entry on Spanish ones - two very different things!

Disagree:

17/1 Remove the Douglas Adams influence from the site? Why? That's currently our "branding", one of the things that distinguishes this site from others!
17/4 Why? Entries that benefit from being written in the first person already can be. This just encourages people to think about the most suitable form.

24/1 "Post Peer Review comments in the 3rd person only." This was mine, but I don't agree with the form in which it's presented here. It was meant as an experiment for those wishing to cut down on chat and personal comments.
66/1 No. We should be able to discuss things in PR. Making a mailing group that's open to everyone won't really change anything, except that it won't be moderated and thus opens up the system to abuse. If you have something to say, say it in front of everyone!
83/4 No, for the simple reason that it would flood the space of everyone who is subscribed, but wants to work on a specific kind of entry. And people would just submit random nonsense anyway.
83/5 No. Rather encourage its use!

8/2 I will not go around "targeting" people. Encouraging, them, perhaps, but this sounds like an invitation to mob people off the site! Other Researchers' strengths may lie in writing fiction, or editing, or a lot of things other than writing for the EG.
9/1 Ditto.


Undecided, but worth a mention:

17/2 "Encourage 'opinionated & provocative' writing." - encourage the writing of it, yes. Encourage getting it into the EG at all costs? No!
71/1 Dangerous - then hootoo may become just another chat forum. Isn't the Guide - not necessarily the EG, the Guide as a whole - our raison d'être?
62/6 Doesn't this already go on?
6/1 I'm not sure I agree with the competitive element - that's too easy to interpret as a popularity contest.
write about involved, but might result in a lot of bland entries. Point out glaring gaps in the Challenge forum, see whether anyone agrees that they need to be filled. The guide doesn't work by filling gaps, more by going off on tangents
10/7 Those are messageboards. Are we just another messageboard?
27/1 Maybe as an introductory exercise. But many people will share hometowns, and many just won't know what to say.
33/1 Only if the Researcher has Elvised!
62/1 Why not simply refer the Researchers Group to the Flea Market?
62/13 Why all this trying to make the Researchers Group take the place of existing fora?

Part 1: Writing process and style

4/3 Encourage writers to use the Edit window buttons if weak at Guide-ML. - Disagree, it's not that hard to learn.
4/4 Request a new feature to automatically convert special character codes into Guide-ML - Disagree. Let editors do this
17/1 Remove the Douglas Adams influence from the site. Disagree - see no benefit to this.
17/2 Encourage 'opinionated & provocative' writing. Agree
17/3 Encourage writers to underestimate the reader's knowledge rather than their intelligence. Nope. Disagree - one of the features of the site is that it assumes ability and intelligence. I'd say write to illuminate, not just inform.
17/4 Change writing guidelines to relax the 1st person rule. Not really needed - there have been several personal entries.
52/3 Style h2g2 upon the Rough Guide series. ~Disagree
53/1 Reconsider the need for writing workshops, as these don't get the same level of attention as Peer Review. ~ Don't really care. If it keeps some people happy leave it be.
62/7 Allow entries to be factually incomplete if necessary. Factually incomplete ? Nobody can write everything to do with a subject - I don't understand what this is about.
67/1 Choose new specimen entries to feature in the Writing Guidelines, as the existing ones are getting a bit old now. Agree
71/1 No longer see the Edited Guide as the 'central project' of h2g2. But it is.
72/1 Pre-categorise newly-created guide entries into Edited Guide, Underguide, etc. Nope ~ Disagree.
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. No - Why do newcomers have to be spoonfed ? If they can't be bothered to find out what the site is about before they post, they deserve what happens.

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

5/1a Remove Scout deadlines (a Scout currently makes recommendations every 4 weeks). Reconsider them - not remove. I don't want one scout picking all his mate's stuff and flooding the guide.
5/1b Remove Scout minimum picks (a Scout is expected to recommend 2 or 3 entries). Reconsider them - not remove. I don't want one scout picking all his mate's stuff and flooding the guide.
12/1 Reconsider the Scout Peer Review clearout process (from time to time, inactive entries are moved into the Fleamarket, or 'back to entry'). Seems to work fine when someone is actively doing it.
12/2 Allow Scouts to make additional picks (see 5/1b above). Agree - allow EXPERIENCED scouts additional picks - start with 1 then earn more. (And lose them if your interest wanes.)
24/1 Post Peer Review comments in the 3rd person only. Disagree.
49/1 Allow unregistered, premoderated comments in Peer Review. No. Unless you're going to allow the author of the piece to remove them.
62/5 Keep unsuitable entries in Peer Review rather than refer them to the Edited Guide Writing Workshop or the Alternative Writing Workshop. Return them to author.
62/6 Use the Scouts offline forum (Yahoo group) more to discuss contentious points occurring in Peer Review. I'm not a scout and can't comment.
66/1 Create a new h2g2 Peer Reviewers offline forum, as not all reviewers are Scouts. Why ? What can't I say in the thread ?
82/1 Adopt the Underguide Quality Assurance process into Peer Review. I'm not familiar enough to have an opinion.
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. I don't know.
83/5 Abolish the Fleamarket forum, as it's not being used. Why demolish anything ?
85/4 Require the h2g2 Editors to review their picks, as some unsuitable entries are slipping through. Then the sub-edits are failing and we need to question if the process works at all.
102/1 Create a set of 'how to review' guidelines. Probably a good idea.
122/2 Publish nothing if there's nothing good enough to publish. Well - what about choose something from the diary if there's nothing 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. Do it if you want to.
6/1 Publicise the Entry of the Month competition. This just isn't flying - last month 11 of us voted.
8/2 Identify and target non-writing researchers. Why ? There are many aspects to the site. Allow the community side to grow, don't scare them off by making them think they have to write.
9/1 Identify and target non-writing 'old-timer' researchers. No - effectively they've made their choice.
10/1 Publicise the Challenge h2g2 forum. No - or rather do it if you want, but I don't think this will increase entries significantly.
10/2 Start a project to identify and fill the obvious gaps in the Edited Guide. No - this doesn't need a project - there's millions, if you want to fill one, do so.
10/3 Publicise first-time writers in The h2g2 Post (ie revive Emmily's column). Fine - but to do that the post has to be the h2g2 front page on the day it's published.
10/4 Revive collaborative entries, eg: a) Revive the collaborative workshop b) Create a new Writers Lounge forum to plan entries. Disagree.
10/5 Revive the Collaborative Topic of the Week. Disagree.
10/6 Publicise the h2g2 Researchers Group. Who are they ?
10/7 Publicise h2g2 via other BBC messageboards, including a tailored welcome page. Definately.
13/1 Promote new collaborative entries via the Front Page. Disagree
27/1 Start a new project to get everyone writing about their home town. I've already done about 6 entries on this theme - I'll try others, but No.
33/1 Submit unedited entries which may be suitable for the Edited Guide into the Flea Market. Fine
39/1 Publicise Edited Guide gaps and new Flea Market entries via the h2g2 Post. Disagree
62/1 Use the h2g2 Researchers Group forum as the repository for rewriting unedited entries, rather than the Flea Market. I see no advantage to this.
62/8 Publicise Flea Market removals via a thread in the h2g2 Researchers Group forum. I see no advantage to this.
62/9 Publicise the home town entries project through Challenge h2g2. I see no advantage to this.
62/11 Researchers to self-publicise the site by e-mailing links to interested organisations. Agree.
62/12 Write h2g2 - The Book. I like this idea a lot. Looking forward to the thread for suggestions on what to include.
62/13 Use the h2g2 Researchers Group as an ideas repository. ??????
68/1 Publicise h2g2 via BBC radio stations. Definately. Massive opportunity to get h2g2 in the public eye, and to attract new writers, on subjects they're passionate about.

Many thanks to all of you who have taken the trouble to vote.

If you're reading this and haven't, then please do - for all the fascinating comments above, we've only had 15 or so voting.

I'll leave this open for a couple of days, then I'll tally them up and start a new thread where we can discuss the suggestions in the light of the support given to them.

Icy

OK, here goes

Part 1: Writing process and style

Agree: 4/3 , 4/4 ,53/1, 67/1, 72/1, 75/1
Disagree: 17/1 (strongly disagree!), 17/2, 17/3, 17/4, 52/3, 62/7, 71/1

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

Agree: 5/1a, 5/1b, 12/1, 12/2, 85/4(well, someone anyway!),102/1, 122/2
Disagree: 24/1, 49/1(removed from vote?), 62/5, 66/1, 83/4,
Not sure: 62/6, 82/1, 83/5

Part 3: Encouraging new writing and promoting the site

Agree: 2/1, 6/1, 10/1, 10/2, 10/3, 10/4, 10/5, 10/6, 10/7, 13/1, 33/1, 39/1, 62/9, 62/11, 68/1
Disagree: 8/2, 9/1, 27/1, 62/1, 62/13
Not sure: 62/8, 62/12

in general, anything that moves general stuff off the site gets a no, anything that tries to browbeat researchers into writing gets a no and anything that tries to remodel h2g2 after a.n.other site gets a no. Outside that, some good ideas that need implementing badly and will make h2g2 more what it could be and not a clone of some other site.

***
Part 1: Writing process and style

4/3 Encourage writers to use the Edit window buttons if weak at Guide-ML.
-Yes

4/4 Request a new feature to automatically convert special character codes into Guide-ML
-Yes

17/1 Remove the Douglas Adams influence from the site.
-Oh NO, but tone it down in entries

17/2 Encourage 'opinionated & provocative' writing.
-Carefully, yes

17/3 Encourage writers to underestimate the reader's knowledge rather than their intelligence.
-Yes

17/4 Change writing guidelines to relax the 1st person rule.
-Yes

52/3 Style h2g2 upon the Rough Guide series.
-No. Status Quo. We love you as you are.

53/1 Reconsider the need for writing workshops, as these don't get the same level of attention as Peer Review.
-Yes: 1 PR, 1 workshop

62/7 Allow entries to be factually incomplete if necessary.
-Yes

67/1 Choose new specimen entries to feature in the Writing Guidelines, as the existing ones are getting a bit old now.
-Yes

71/1 No longer see the Edited Guide as the 'central project' of h2g2.
-It IS

72/1 Pre-categorise newly-created guide entries into Edited Guide, Underguide, etc.
-Not until more than one peer has voted

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.
-Yes

----

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

5/1a Remove Scout deadlines (a Scout currently makes recommendations every 4 weeks).
-Yes

5/1b Remove Scout minimum picks (a Scout is expected to recommend 2 or 3 entries).
-Yes

12/1 Reconsider the Scout Peer Review clearout process (from time to time, inactive entries are moved into the Fleamarket, or 'back to entry').
-Yes

12/2 Allow Scouts to make additional picks (see 5/1b above).
-Yes

24/1 Post Peer Review comments in the 3rd person only.
-No. Comments must be seen to be by individuals

49/1 Allow unregistered, premoderated comments in Peer Review.
-No comment (don't understand - am I unregistered?)

62/5 Keep unsuitable entries in Peer Review rather than refer them to the Edited Guide Writing Workshop or the Alternative Writing Workshop.
-Yes

62/6 Use the Scouts offline forum (Yahoo group) more to discuss contentious points occurring in Peer Review.
-No comment (not a scout)

66/1 Create a new h2g2 Peer Reviewers offline forum, as not all reviewers are Scouts.
-Yes

82/1 Adopt the Underguide Quality Assurance process into Peer Review.
-Yes

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.
-Yes

83/5 Abolish the Fleamarket forum, as it's not being used.
-Yes

85/4 Require the h2g2 Editors to review their picks, as some unsuitable entries are slipping through.
-Yes

102/1 Create a set of 'how to review' guidelines.
-Yes

122/2 Publish nothing if there's nothing good enough to publish.
-Yes

----

Part 3: Encouraging new writing and promoting the site

2/1 Start a project to identify unedited entries suitable for the Edited Guide.
-Yes

6/1 Publicise the Entry of the Month competition.
-Yes

8/2 Identify and target non-writing researchers.
-Be careful, you might put Me off!

9/1 Identify and target non-writing 'old-timer' researchers.
-Be careful

10/1 Publicise the Challenge h2g2 forum.
-Yes, gently, not often

10/2 Start a project to identify and fill the obvious gaps in the Edited Guide.
-No

10/3 Publicise first-time writers in The h2g2 Post (ie revive Emmily's column).
-Yes

10/4 Revive collaborative entries, eg: a) Revive the collaborative workshop b) Create a new Writers Lounge forum to plan entries.
-Yes

10/5 Revive the Collaborative Topic of the Week.
-Yes

10/6 Publicise the h2g2 Researchers Group.
-Yes, not often

10/7 Publicise h2g2 via other BBC messageboards, including a tailored welcome page.
-Yes

13/1 Promote new collaborative entries via the Front Page.
-Yes

27/1 Start a new project to get everyone writing about their home town.
-Yes (You can try)

33/1 Submit unedited entries which may be suitable for the Edited Guide into the Flea Market.
-Yes (but FM isn't working-?)

39/1 Publicise Edited Guide gaps and new Flea Market entries via the h2g2 Post.
-Yes

62/1 Use the h2g2 Researchers Group forum as the repository for rewriting unedited entries, rather than the Flea Market.
-Yes

62/8 Publicise Flea Market removals via a thread in the h2g2 Researchers Group forum.
-Yes

62/9 Publicise the home town entries project through Challenge h2g2.
-Yes
62/11 Researchers to self-publicise the site by e-mailing links to interested organisations.
-Not me

62/12 Write h2g2 - The Book.
-Yes

62/13 Use the h2g2 Researchers Group as an ideas repository.
-Yes: Group's Ideas thread.

68/1 Publicise h2g2 via BBC radio stations.
-You can try

***

Ensure we're all aware of anomalous areas, eg Flea-Market: 83/4, 83/5 & 33/1

To keep the momentum going, I'll close this vote now.

Thank you all for voting. I had hoped for 25 or more votes, but 17 isn't too bad in the circumstances. Everyone who voted is a highly-respected contributor to the project.

I'll post the results on a new thread where we can discuss them and decide what to do next. (I'll post a link to this shortly)

Icy

...and the voting results/discussion thread is at F3719964?thread=5564468

See you there.

Icy

Part 1: Writing process and style

4/3 Encourage writers to use the Edit window buttons if weak at Guide-ML. Don't understand this!
4/4 Request a new feature to automatically convert special character codes into Guide-ML. Good idea
17/1 Remove the Douglas Adams influence from the site. Not too bothered.
17/2 Encourage 'opinionated & provocative' writing. Equivocal on this. It might provoke 'sledging', of which there seems to be too much.
17/3 Encourage writers to underestimate the reader's knowledge rather than their intelligence. Well, it's a good idea to persuade authors to tailor their Entries to the 'lay person'.
17/4 Change writing guidelines to relax the 1st person rule. Bad idea.
52/3 Style h2g2 upon the Rough Guide series. No idea what the Rough Guide series is.
53/1 Reconsider the need for writing workshops, as these don't get the same level of attention as Peer Review. Good idea.
62/7 Allow entries to be factually incomplete if necessary. This is a fatuous statement. Nobody knows everything, even about their own specialist subjects. Also, this would make Entries boringly long. A Researcher once criticised me (quite rightly) for trying to incorporate everything that was known about the subject.
67/1 Choose new specimen entries to feature in the Writing Guidelines, as the existing ones are getting a bit old now. I havent looked at these, but it could be a good idea.
71/1 No longer see the Edited Guide as the 'central project' of h2g2. Bad idea.
72/1 Pre-categorise newly-created guide entries into Edited Guide, Underguide, etc. Possibly a good idea.
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. It seems clear enough to me.

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

5/1a Remove Scout deadlines (a Scout currently makes recommendations every 4 weeks). No idea.
5/1b Remove Scout minimum picks (a Scout is expected to recommend 2 or 3 entries). I'm not a Scout, but I would've thought that to try and pick more than 2 or 3 would be quite an onerous task. Also, if a Scout was allowed to pick more, it might deproive other Scouts of opportunities.
12/1 Reconsider the Scout Peer Review clearout process (from time to time, inactive entries are moved into the Fleamarket, or 'back to entry'). This seems to work OK to me.
12/2 Allow Scouts to make additional picks (see 5/1b above). Bad idea.
24/1 Post Peer Review comments in the 3rd person only. What's wrong with how its done at present? It seems fine to me.
49/1 Allow unregistered, premoderated comments in Peer Review. I don't understand this.
62/5 Keep unsuitable entries in Peer Review rather than refer them to the Edited Guide Writing Workshop or the Alternative Writing Workshop. I think it's a good idea to refer them to the appropriate Workshop.
62/6 Use the Scouts offline forum (Yahoo group) more to discuss contentious points occurring in Peer Review. I'm not a Scout, so I dont understand the significance.
66/1 Create a new h2g2 Peer Reviewers offline forum, as not all reviewers are Scouts. I think the current process works well.
82/1 Adopt the Underguide Quality Assurance process into Peer Review. I've seldom looked at the UG so can't comment.
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. Bad idea, it'll get too cluttered.
83/5 Abolish the Fleamarket forum, as it's not being used. No, I find it quite useful even though I haven't used it that often. It might be a good idea if one is searching a topic to be directed to the Fleamarket if that's where it is.
85/4 Require the h2g2 Editors to review their picks, as some unsuitable entries are slipping through. Good idea. I suspect some Scoutsare picking Entries just to fulfill their quota. Also, some Scouts are picking Entries even when it's obvious that some work still needs to be done.
102/1 Create a set of 'how to review' guidelines. Well. it might be a good idea to put 'em all under a common umbrella so that they can be found more easily.
122/2 Publish nothing if there's nothing good enough to publish. No. I like to see the re-emergence of previosly published stuff from time to time. I would also like to see 'seasonal' Entries re-published at the apporpriate time. This would even peratin to Entries loosely conforming to the theme 'This date in history'.

Part 3: Encouraging new writing and promoting the site

2/1 Start a project to identify unedited entries suitable for the Edited Guide. Good idea. These could be highlighted for potential Researchers to complete. I recently found an ancient unedited Entry on 'Herb Gardens' which I picked up, completed, and got into the EG.
6/1 Publicise the Entry of the Month competition. gOOD IDEA.
8/2 Identify and target non-writing researchers. Good idea, say once/year e.g. Send 'em a Christmas card' or wish 'em a Happy Birthday .
9/1 Identify and target non-writing 'old-timer' researchers. Covered by 8/2.
10/1 Publicise the Challenge h2g2 forum. Good idea.
10/2 Start a project to identify and fill the obvious gaps in the Edited Guide.I thought this was already done
10/3 Publicise first-time writers in The h2g2 Post (ie revive Emmily's column).Good idea. I didn't know it'd been discontinued.
10/4 Revive collaborative entries, eg: a) Revive the collaborative workshop b) Create a new Writers Lounge forum to plan entries. What's the difference between (a) and (b). Have a specialised 'Coolaborative Entries' space where Entries are submitted automatically instead of going straight into PR. Possibly the lead author could be responsible for determining when the Entry is considered complete and prhaps Scouts cold pick directly from there, as well as from PR. i.e. the fact that it is collaborative is a bit like being PRd anyway.
10/5 Revive the Collaborative Topic of the Week. Good idea.
10/6 Publicise the h2g2 Researchers Group.Good idea.
10/7 Publicise h2g2 via other BBC messageboards, including a tailored welcome page.Good idea
13/1 Promote new collaborative entries via the Front Page. I assumed this was what 10/5 meant
27/1 Start a new project to get everyone writing about their home town. Good idea. I just recently suggested in 'Challenge h2g2' that people write about the oldest pub in their town.
33/1 Submit unedited entries which may be suitable for the Edited Guide into the Flea Market. Good idea. I thought this was what happened already
39/1 Publicise Edited Guide gaps and new Flea Market entries via the h2g2 Post.Dunno. Maybe a column on the FP right hand panel would be more appropriate.
62/1 Use the h2g2 Researchers Group forum as the repository for rewriting unedited entries, rather than the Flea Market. Dunno anything about the h2g2 RG.
62/8 Publicise Flea Market removals via a thread in the h2g2 Researchers Group forum. aS ABOVE.
62/9 Publicise the home town entries project through Challenge h2g2. I thought this is how it's done anyway
62/11 Researchers to self-publicise the site by e-mailing links to interested organisations.I d this from time to time.
62/12 Write h2g2 - The Book.Perhaps
62/13 Use the h2g2 Researchers Group as an ideas repository.Prbably a good idea. As I said, I know very little about h2g2 RG
68/1 Publicise h2g2 via BBC radio stations.Godd idea.

>> ...h2g2 is not and never has been a Democracy...<<

It came close as a lynch mob a couple of times though.

I should start a thread called 'Remember when we all ganged up on...' It would be a long list but I bet most of the names are now forgotten.

peace
~jwf~

Hey, go on, do it.
Betcha several of them aren't.