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

I think last updated dates might make the EG seem dated, as many entries haven't been revised for some time. Meanwhile, if updating an entry involved just making any edit, it wouldn't tell us much at all. I think the best way to tell if someone has worked on suggestions is for them to say so in the thread.

Well I think it's easy enough to get started, from memory I didn't have any huge problems and of course, back in those days there weren't so many sites anything like this. Now, people are more used to all the gadgets and googaws so h2g2 must seem like a breeze.

I find wikipedia a LOT more complicated, but on h2g2, there you are, newbie signs in and see 'write an entry' in the menu. No sweat. The problem is, I think, attracting people who want to write something that is suitable for the EG.

"The problem is, I think, attracting people who want to write something that is suitable for the EG."

We always skirt this idea (which I think is the heart of our problems), but we never come up with ways to get new blood onto the site and into PR.

A problem we've had lately is people not realising that they have to stick around and make improvements/act on suggestions/respond to comments. They don't seem to understand the concept of "Peer Review"

On the other hand, that's good, means we're not only attracting the academic type...

Which brings us back to the issue of recruitment.

I thought we'd see new members when we were added to the 'Weird and Wonderful' widget on the BBC front page, but it doesn't seem to have happened.

, sorry. I was responding to Mina.

**I would've rather publish nothing rather than 88 entries on constellations which seem to follow a formula.**

**Formulaic entries are not what h2g2 is about**

WTF is that all about? Based on that crass statement and critique then University projects shouldn't be in the EG, afterall, they follow a set formula.
Any topic big enough to warrant more than one article to cover it would also, by there very nature, follow a set pattern/formula.
It never ceases to amaze me how folk can be so petty, so quick to attack others yet never offer anything positive. What about the other 112 plus articles GB's written, covering every topic from royalty to bios, I don't see anyone mentioning that.
Stop the petty minded personal attacks, (most of which are out of jealousy or just plain ignorance) deal with the issues.
You won't get new or old writers writing anything while mounting personal attacks and insults.
If it hadn't been for GB, Gnomon and Shagbark, among others, doing those constellation articles when they did the FP would have been bare for months.

ST.

There's a difference between being formulaic and following a pattern.

Formulaic writing means trite clichés and the same wording for things over and over again - you can find it in a lot of newspapers, unfortunately. It's to do with style, not content.

To quote the dictionary on "formulaic"

Being of no special quality or type.

Characterized by the repetition of certain stock phrases, known as formulae. [...] In another sense, a work may be called formulaic if it conforms in a predictable way to the established patterns of a genre.

Think cheap romance novel.

"There's a difference between being formulaic and following a pattern."



Entries following a pattern are fine. I didn't read many constellations entries, but if they were formulaic, I can see why people would be reluctant to pick them. No matter how desperate we get, we shouldn't resort to writing the same entries with a few words changed.

Using that definition then it can't possibly apply to the constellation articles, everyone is different, the tables in them are all different, the descriptions, what they are, all different so how does that make them formulaic? They're all the same style in the way they're laid out but that goes for any articles covering a topic requiring more than one article. My heavy horse breed articles, are they formulaic? I don't think so.

ST.

Did I ever say anything about constellations entries being formulaic? I can't see why people keep putting those words in my mouth.

I said I dislike formulaic entries that are a dry listing of facts.

If someone thinks I meant them, that just means they're self-identifying as an author of such. Which means they need to re-examine their way of writing.

For the record: The constellations ones aren't the ones I meant, myself - some of them were quite good (interesting, even, to someone who's into astronomy, which I'm not.) I picked a few myself, and subbed others.

But there are entries which I regard as formulaic in PR, and they are not ones I will pick, because it doesn't look like the author is making an effort. They're not writing in their own style, they're copying and pasting snippets of fact and then applying some stock phrases to them.

Let's bring this back on topic, please.

How can we improve PR and our Entries?

How can we help our newbies/new authors enjoy their time in PR?

We can improve our entries by not letting our egos get in the way of good writing.

PR is not just a service, it's a discussion. If someone has suggestions about improving your entry, consider them rather than taking them personally.

If you expect to get comments in PR, *give* comments in PR. Sure, it's more exciting to work on your own Entries, but if everyone just did that, nobody would ever comment on anything!

Make it clearer to newbies how PR works. It's too convoluted to put in an ACE introduction, but I suppose it would make sense to go to the PS of someone who's new in PR and post a message there. (Not in the PR thread itself, some people get annoyed if you assume they don't know how something works, even if they don't - so it's better not to tell them in "public".)

We can only advise newbies to read in our ACE message, along with other hi-lighted links.

We cannot make them take notice and read anything, indeed some only reply to their ACE when it becomes apparent we are not an automated greeting - despite it saying so in the message


Should any new author leave an Entry in PR, we should at least say 'Welcome' and give links wherever possible. Okay, some think I am a little 'fluffy' for nursing my newbies along, that is just me being me, sorry....

And, of course... one needs to be provicient at leaving links!

Yes, I meant more like anyone who's a PR regular and sees an unfamiliar face there should make an attempt to communicate outside PR, especially if it's apparent they're generally a newbie, too

.. and knows how to spell proficient too - Tabs are working again


We need to be careful in the newbie's PS, as a non-ACE might take them off the newbie list

I like your way of thinking, Mala

"I think last updated dates might make the EG seem dated" = Much of the EG *is* dated.

"as many entries haven't been revised for some time." = Entries are not routinely kept up to date, and writers are not required to do so.

"if updating an entry involved just making any edit, it wouldn't tell us much at all." = When a change is reported via Editorial Feedback, the curators do not check the entry for additional errors.

Further, this is an online facility: there is no such thing as an 'old' entry - 'old', rapidly written and poorly constructed entries are part of *today's* Guide and should be removed.

The Edited Guide is not an encyclopedia. It could be a fascinating guide to life, but the dross needs to be dropped.

There is a facility for dropping the dross - the really content-less early guides have been demoted from Edited Entries. If you find any more, just let the editors know.

For early entries which are badly written, the Eds would prefer that somebody took on the challenge and re-wrote them rather than just dropping them.