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

Personally, I ignore any entry whose author is complaining that it's time for it to be picked. But that may just be me.

I also have a certain type of entry I'll never pick, but if I told anyone what it was, I'm sure to offend somebody...

Time for another review of points made.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post 4: Review and improve the way <./>Volunteers</.> work. Discussion followed about ensuring that CommunityArtists get 'illustrated by' credits, that the <./>ACEs</.> need a better <./>NewUsers</.> page.

Post 26: Advertise the <./>WritingWorkshop</.>. Offer services to help new users there.

Post 30: Challengeh2g2 mentioned.

Post 78: The big re-design (Guide Mark II ) mentioned, followed by the idea of advertising h2g2 somehow (without spamming!). Possibility of recruiting new members.

Post 87: Some reward for first time solo authors. 'My work's in the Edited Guide' badge and Solo page have since been appeared.

Post 111: <./>EntryoftheMonth</.> needs publicising. h2g2 is maze-like and could do with a Time Out-style guide. A53034671 - a Guide to h2g2 produced as an example.

Post 118: The need for more collaborative entries to help newcomers get published. Topics of the week (A587108) need volunteers (with a small 'v') to write them up.

Post 141: Pinn began a debate about combining the Edited Guide and <./>UnderGuide</.>. Discussion followed including need for publicising UG, and perhaps a rebrand.

Post 144: Elentair started a thread F19585?thread=6671300 asking what puts people off Peer Review.

Post 148: h2g2's <./>Search</.> needs improving...

Post 172: Icy's record of references to h2g2 A46972182

Post 176/178: A36186924 - What h2g2 Could Do mentioned.

Post 185: Discussion of the 'nofollow' tag, robots and Google.

Post 202: Beginning of focus on PeerReview process.

Post 213: Problem of nasty comments in Peer Review.

Post 216: Gnomon's post articles about writing: A51213449, A47515133

Post 249: 'Prolificness' (see <./>Solo</.&gt versus good entries/new authors/more authors.

Post 250: (and subsequent posts) Spelling mistakes corrected in Peer Review or by sub-editor? Mistakes may make entries less likely to be reviewed. Issue of a need for comments on style, inconsistent facts, etc, not just 'it's good' plus spelling corrections.

Post 280: Mina wants to know why some entries get ignored.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apologies if I've missed anything - I'm not great at skimming threads.

Alex

I rarely complain on the PR thread itself, just wait my turn, but when there are people complaining there are not enough entries and I've got one turning 5 weeks old with not even a page of comments, then it was enough to stop me writing.

It's not enough to say 'all established writers get ignored' as was said to me at one point. WHY do all established writers get ignored? If my entry wasn't right somehow, tell me. If it's fine, why is it being ignored?

I know I keep on about this, so I'll shut up (not necessarily forever!), but still, if there are people saying they won't pick 'certain' types of entries, well, why are Scouts allowed to do that? If it's a decent entry and it's ready, why be so damn uppity?

Because there are entries that I simply don't believe are more than "decent" entries. I'd rather pick the *good* ones, when they're available.

If it were merely a matter of waiting a set period before it's accepted, we wouldn't need Scouts at all. The whole process could be automated.

"WHY do all established writers get ignored?"

This may be because they're less likely to after a few days.

"if there are people saying they won't pick 'certain' types of entries,"

When I was a Scout, I picked any entry that fitted the requirements. You can see a list of picks I made here: A12886941

What the current Scouts do is an issue to be discussed off-site, in my opinion.

I think there you have it. One Scout won't pick 'decent' entries, even though if they are decent they must be Guide material, instead hoping to pick just the 'good' ones. WTF is that all about? Ego?

Since you ask...

It's not any topic or any specific author that I avoid.

But there are some authors who tend to write formulaic entries that are a dry listing of facts.

I don't much like the style, and don't believe they're really Guide material, not like that.

If I say something about it, said authors get all huffy on me.

So I've stopped commenting those entries and refuse to pick them. Let someone else pick them if they think they're good enough.

I'm not sure where ego comes into it. If there's a choice between a good article and one by an established author that merely meets guidelines, both of which have been in Peer Review for the same length of time, it's not against the rules to pick the good one. Ignoring a decent entry altogether would be wrong, though - if it's pickable and has been in Peer Review for a while with no further comments, it ought to be given some preference.

Also, established authors ought to be told if their entry could be better, and should be secure enough not to be offended. See F12959582?thread=6434956&skip=20&show=20, starting at post 30, for an onslaught on my grammatical capabilities - I defy you to detect in any of my postings my extreme annoyance at having endless nitpicks thrown at me.

Oh and the 'should be secure enough not to be offended' goes for anyone established enough to 'write by numbers'. Such entries are not to everyone's tastes, and I think it's fair to say that every entry should be good enough to stand on its own merits rather than simply being one in a series.

Yes, I agree with you, and I do the same Mal

Also, I don't like the tendency of some authors to pick on the key word in the title and then list as many things as possible that have that word in it, at the end of the Entry!

"list as many things as possible that have that word in it"

Are you thinking of a certain variety of entry? ()

It sure sounds like it, doesn't it?

Oh yes, that's true, Al - it's like the links that have nothing to do with the word they're linked from, but worse

(It might make sense in *some* cases. But writing, say, an entry about a museum and then appending a list of ten popular songs that mentioned the word "museum" doesn't really make for a better entry. )

I think this is getting beside the point now, so I'll leave you all to it.

I think we should allow the entries on colours to be a little unusual, but I must say Gnomon's collaborative entry on the colour Purple sets a good example.


As for the Poetry in Glasgow effect ("Links should be direct and relevant. For example, the word 'poetry' should link to Poetry, rather than Poetry Events and Gigs in Glasgow, which, though a laudable entry, does not define the word 'poetry'." - <./>Writing-Guidelines</.&gt - it's something that bugs me a lot. I admire people who make the effort to add plenty of links to an entry, but if the Edited Guide is to be useful as a reference then links have to be useful. If the entry you want to link to doesn't exist, don't assume it will never exist and link to something about badgers instead.

"I think this is getting beside the point now"

Fair enough, we have strayed a little from the initial point of the conversation. To get us back on track:

In terms of the <./>WritingWorkshop</.> - how can it best be used to encourage new users? What should it aim to do? (see A52964283 for the update currently going through Peer Review)

Is there anything that can be done to increase the usefulness of Challengeh2g2, Writing-FleaMarket and Topic of the Week (A587108)? Could they somehow be combined or related?

Assuming we don't amalgamate the EG and UG, could the <./>UnderGuide</.> be improved in any way that would aid and abet the site in general and PeerReview in particular?

Feel free to add any other questions that ought to be asked - add a next to it.

"I think this is getting beside the point now"

Well, it explains part of the reason why I, for one, have removed myself from PR

I think it's absurd to think that a scout shouldn't pick the best entries first, leaving aside the easy, boring entries. I say that having written a few boring, easy entries in my day. And I'm by no means saying Mina has written those sorts of entries; I've admired many of her entries in the past, especially how she incorporates her personal experience into them.

In the UnderGuide, since Alex just mentioned it, we have a saying which agcBen said in one of the early planning discussions, "If there's nothing worth publishing I would rather publish nothing." Something like that. I would've rather publish nothing rather than 88 entries on constellations which seem to follow a formula. And I apologize to GB for saying this and singling her entries out, because (despite what she might think) I think she's a very nice person and has demonstrated a love for the guide and the site; I just think we have different ideas.

Formulaic entries are not what h2g2 is about. When I was a scout I wouldn't pick entries that were "just" acceptable if I could help it. I can make exceptions for newbies, because when I was new, I was encouraged to write after a few truly awful entries I wrote were selected for the EG. But if we're not building a celebration of good writing, I don't see the point.