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

>>>so it has got quite disjointed (which I'm sure 100% of ACEs already do)<<<

Any views regarding post 59? Or does anyone feel the ACEs are getting singled out a lot here?

I think having more active volunteers would help them, going by other posts. The ACEs should be able to sort this out if it's a problem.

I doubt that anyone would be put off by an ACE message, but they should always point people to sources of more information and places to start exploring, I guess.

Well, I don't think we can make the ACEs responsible for not getting people to write entries! As long as there's a link to PR that's not at the bottom of a long list, they've done their job.

Commenting on Entries, both in PR and on the FP, is something I suppose we should all be working on - to show there's a reason for writing all this.

I'd also like to see the old-style collaborative entries that develop from a Talking Point/Topic of the Week...

Oh and I've just had an idea - should we offer various services to newbies via the Edited Guide Writing Workshop?

- the buddy idea could certainly work through the EGWW - users could ask for someone to help them finish their entry, and then guide them through Peer Review.

- should we offer translation into GuideML as a service in the Edited Guide Writing Workshop? New users often get less attention sheerly because their entries don't have tidy headers and footnotes, and reviewers often ask new users to add guideML tags when they're working in plain text. If it were offered as a service in the EGWW, users could then get to grips with GuideML more easily, and in the meantime they'd probably gain more attention in Peer Review.

(A52964283 by way of example for the above post)

No, I'm against this. It only makes the entry difficult to edit for them. Let the sub-editor add it if necessary.

Reviewers shouldn't insist on Guide-ML (or links) in Peer Review.

What if it were just "help changing your entry from ordinary text to GuideML"?

Is that different?

Good idea, having those services available in the EGWW. And preferably a link to the Language Thing, too!

Though we could also encourage people to use the buttons in Brunel to format the text - but they only seem to work right in IE

Icy - what I'm trying to get at is 'help with GuideML if you've tried to learn it of your own accord and you're partway there' - any idea how I could word it better?

The Language Thing is a good idea - is it still going?

Those GuideML buttons need removing - they cause more harm than good in most modern browsers.

I learned GuideML by clicking the buttons and seeing what they do But I agree, they're not terribly useful otherwise.

The Language Thing is fairly quiet, but Tav's still around and any newbies quickly get a response.

(Tavaron is running the Language Thing)

I'd be inclined not to mention Guide-ML at all here.

Any half-posteriored attempts at it wouldn't parse anyway.

How about "Get help with your GuideML." - it implies they're being full-posteriored about it, but need help.

Meanwhile, how does "Enlist the help of an experienced Researcher to help you through the Peer Review process." sound?

How about a 'I'm new to Peer Review -what do I do?' page. Rather like the 'I'm new to h2g2 what do I do?' Maybe people don't necessarily need a hand holding buddy, and that would be time consuming for the volunteers, but would just need somewhere to ask questions. It could be that a few basic FAQs could be spelled out there too.

One of the obvious things to ask is "What was different then that resulted in more Entries?" The number of people writing entries always was, is, and will be a proportion of the active members. The difference is that a large number have drifted away and we have a smaller membership. We need a bigger pool of Researchers, basically. Making ACEs, Sub-editors or Scouts out of lots more existing site members isn't going to do a lot - recruiting more members will.

There's a big re-design in the works, and I think we'll really need to see what comes of it before we can judge where to go next. Will there be any publicity about it? I'd assume and hope so, otherwise why would they bother? But although we hear whispers from the Eds like "there was a very positive meeting this afternoon", I think we really do need to see what happens.

Y'know, I've been here a while and there have been many discussions like this, which is very encouraging. Discussions like this show that people still care about h2g2 and that it's still alive. It's a beautiful thing, really.

The one thing I've rarely seen widely advocated is to recruit new members directly over the internet. During one of my long stints away from h2g2, I was involved in another website which required the constant influx of new members (in much the same way as h2g2, old members kept drifting away and new ones were hard to keep hold of). What we did then seemed obvious - we posted links to our site on message boards and websites where people with a relevant interest would find them. It worked well, too.

For an idea of how this might work, there are lots of great, popular science-fiction, technology, creative writing, and otherwise intellectual blogs/websites out there... an email to the proprietor might yield a link. Alternatively, a link in the comments section or message boards could catch an eye or two.

Of course, just letting new members find their way here randomly is more dignified, but it's clearly not enough anymore.

Done the right way (rather than spamming) I'm sure it could yield results. Publicity-wise, though, it's staggering to think that h2g2 is run by a media corporation with a presence on every continent.