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

So it *is* about how they're showcased, and not about how they're reviewed, subbed, and even written.

As you say, there are people who prefer writing and reading and reviewing one kind or the other. So throwing it all into one big muddle wouldn't be particularly constructive.

So why not just say that you'd like equal airtime for the fiction pieces on the Front Page?

For example, rather than re-running old EGEs, I see no reason the UG pieces couldn't be moved to the spare slots at the top of the FP.

I think you have a good point Pinniped, but how would writers know how to pitch their pieces? The boundaries might become blurred - from what I've seen in the very few months I've been here, some very odd things end up in Peer Review already.

I really don't like the name Underguide. It makes it sound second class. It reminds me of the underground press in the sixties/seventies, but without the frisson.

I don't even like the existence of the UnderGuide.
And I don't see the need for boundaries.

Mal - I mentioned showcase because of the context. We're selling ourselves. We're setting out a market stall to get new writers. That's all.

And I don't want more prominent fiction on the Front Page. I'm not as sure as you seem to be about what fiction is, even. This isn't a fact site or a fiction site or a poetry site or a journalism site. It's a general writing site and the more varied the better.

I'd be really stunned if we didn't all agree about that.

Assuming we do agree about that, can someone please just explain in simple terms why the Edited Guide needs more Guidelines than just a no profanity/malice/plagiarism set. I honestly don't see why so many people seem so determined to limit the EG to such a narrow scope.

>> the more varied the better<<

That's the whole point. Variety needs order.

Order and entropy are opposite forces, and the higher the entropy, the more *boring* everything gets, because it all gets same-er. Blech. Mix all the wonderful colours, and you get a muddy brown.

You list a large number of different types of writing - so why restrict this to one type, that of "anything goes"? Where's the challenge in writing that, or the enjoyment in reading it?

"No profanity/malice/plagiarism" doesn't include the fact that we want good writing. That we want writing that challenges the author, that is written with a specific purpose in mind. That includes deciding what it is and where it should be submitted for review. Not just "I'll let people read it and if they don't like it as a poem, I'll say it was meant to be a cookbook all along."


I've not yet seen a good argument for combining them all into the same review forum. You seem determined to limit h2g2 to the Edited Guide, which clearly, it isn't.

You didn't attempt to answer.
You've had the last word for what it's worth.
Let's hear some different opinion.

Sorry, Pinniped, I think she answered your question. At least, the question that *I* thought you asked.

You asked: Why not combine them into one Guide?

Mal answered: Because it would dilute the individual threads into one blurry, undefined, whole.

For what it's worth, it's been the factual side that has always appealed to me. As mentioned before, there are plenty of other writing sites out there that allow you to write fiction.
That's not to say what is produced here is of no consequence (far from it, quite a lot of it is rather good), but that it is distint from the EG. The UG is fine, but the EG should be our main focus.

I like the idea of replacing the word 'Encyclopedia', with all it's dry, dusty conntations.

Pin said: "Why don't we just open up the EG to quality peer-reviewed writing in every genre? (ie combine the scope of the EG and the UG). What is so sacrosanct about the Guidelines? Don't we need in these sparse times to pool our writing efforts and maximise its range? When people who want to write poetry, or practice journalism, etc etc come here, why would we ever want to tell them that their interest is sort-of welcome, but will never be admitted to the Central Project?"

We could really use a quote button. But no edit button please

Combining everything into one review forum, and indeed broadening the Guidelines, seem like pretty good ideas to me, if we want to attract new writers.

We want to attract new writers, right?

The current multiple review fora, and the rather long writing guidlines, are possibly slightly intimidating, and certainly constraining. Why would we not want people interested in creating fair and balanced (he he) journalism, or brilliant opinion pieces?

I would suggest that if its been reviewed by ones peers, its suitable for the EG.

Any worries about delimiting fact from fiction, and more importantly, fact from opinion, could most likely be cleared up in the title of an entry, or by giving Edited Entries some sort of flavour (page property, the colour of the title, a slightly different header, whatever) although you will need someone more talented than I to come up with some labels (EG - Opinion, EG - Fiction, EG - The Facts, EG - Miscellaneous, meh). Misc could be the default flavour for an entry, then you get chance to change it when submitting an entry to the single review forum, where the flavour is visible to all, allowing everyone the chance to see all the entries up for review, and to avoid reading an opinion piece if they don't want to for whatever reason.

This to me doesn't feel like 'just a re-branding' of the UG, but more a change of emphasis from a guide to life the universe and everything, towards good writing of any style. You would still need some guidelines about The Facts versus Opinion, and I am sure there are loads of cans of worms this idea would open, but the one thing I don't think it would do is lessen the number of factual entries entering the EG, I just think it would scare new writers away less, and make PR even more interesting.

/Just an idea

There's a good reason for having a separate EG and a UG.

The EG is to educate, entertain and inform, and has an encyclopaedic nature. This way, it aims to provide readable material that one can also use as a reference. EG entries cannot be creative whims, else they would lose their accessibility as entertaining reference pieces.

The UG covers every creative whim under the sun, and provides the yin-yang balance that h2g2 needs. It provides material that is entertaining and that readers may learn from or be inspired by, but it certainly does not provide readable material that one can also use as a reference.

They are different things, and I can see no convincing argument from Pinn as to why they should be combined. Much would be lost in such a merger, and I for one wouldn't want to sift through poems looking for factual pieces or vice versa. If you want h2g2 to seem more like a combination of both, you need to go to A51277773 and ask the Eds for some of those big slots on the new Front Page when it comes. Rebrand the UG if you must, but you can't piggyback it onto the EG.

As for there being less guidelines in the UG:

- Peer Review + Writing Guidelines = 2,700 words
- AWW + UnderGuidelines = 3,500 words

That's enough of this business - can we get back to improving the site we currently have?

There's something to be said for raising the profile of creative writing on the site, but I'm sure many of us just can't get our heads around a guide which mixed them up in the same pot. As Vogonpoet said, there could be ways to identify them, and maybe a pilot project could be set up to design and test how this might look?

Those of us who write fact-based entries would need to feel that our contributions retained authenticity within the Guide, but the real punter is the reader. h2g2 is known and respected for its peer-reviewed fact-based Edited Guide and it's regularly being referenced by academia and the press as a result. We need to retain that brand - it's one of h2g2's big raisons d'etre. Would the wider world 'get it' if we mixed it with a shot of creative writing (nearly said 'creationism' there!)?

So is there a problem with the way the Underguide currently operates? Not high profile enough? Not enough submissions or reviewers? Maybe we could combine review forums, but I'm yet to be convinced that the Guides themselves could be combined. You'd have to prove the concept to me.

No no no, don't combine the review forums. We'll lose all overview that way. I don't want to have to "sift through poems" to find something sensible to review. Most amateur poetry is truly terrible, and I want nothing to do with it.

The AWW is also a terribly cliqueish place, which, quite frankly, is what keeps me from venturing into there to review things most of the time. PR is just a little bit better at being, well, objective about reviewing, as long as the author is willing to work on it. You can't really judge fiction objectively (however much the Stretcher lot might protest now) and so it always just boils down to what a handful of people *likes* what gets picked for the UG - after all, there are no other merits on which to judge it. I don't want that happening to the EG.

Slapping a label on it and dumping it all in one review forum has no advantage that I can see. As long as it all ends up on the FP - and I still suspect this is mainly about raising the profile of fiction on h2g2 - where's the problem?

I realise that not everyone has the skill to write well and still be factual, to research, but make their own voice heard, to stick to the rules, but be entertaining and interesting. But writing can be learned. Let 'em go practice in the AWW for a while first, then...

That seems a fair suggestion - it may draw a wider variety of articles into one review forum, but the existing distinctions should be retained, ie EGE and the in my opinion sadly named 'Underguide' (underdog comes into my mind today.)

How do you know that

>>h2g2 is known and respected for its peer-reviewed fact-based Edited Guide and it's regularly being referenced by academia and the press as a result.

I've tried googling for a wide selection of topics I know are in the guide -all sorts of things - ones that are currently on the BBC front page, ones that are 'new' ones that have had a few comments posted, ones that are 'old' and have got no results at all. Wiki is there every time.

I wish there was someone out there who would do a bit of search engine optimisation for the hootoo pages

I've researched it and written about it in the h2g2 Post. See A47505800 and A48561122. The list of references found so far is at A46972182.



This always used to be good on Google. Has something changed?

In reply to z -

"If the search facitlity worked it would be great because people would be able to find our entries. When I search for 'the immune system' on google, wikipedia is the first one that turns up. "

There are some issues with wikipedia and Google at the moment, I believe google is just linking to wikipedia regardless of content, as sometime it links to it as 'news' and ends up with a 'stub'.

So, that's not to say h2g2 is doing particularly badly, just that google is in love with wikipedia. On more obscure topics h2g2 comes up reasonably high - although my Oranges and Lemons comes up at no 5 and I don't think it's that obscure, and a few of my other topics come well up at the top.

As for 'non-factual' entries in the Guide, well, it's the same old song with no new singers and this is, after all, the earth edition of a FACTUAL fictional book.

If we let in fiction then any chance of being taken seriously would go flying out of the window.

Leighm, don't worry about grammar - if you have an idea for something that would be good in the Guide, then write it. There are plenty of people who can help you with the grammar; what we need is your individual viewpoint on whatever it is.

So the visibility of the site is a big deal - save for matters of google, advertising and references in publications, what can be done about h2g2's visibility?

(A36186924 What h2g2 Could Do - for stuff about google and advertising)

The Eds could hand out more swag with our url on it

Ok, I suppose there's not that much that can be done. Any more ideas for A53034671?

Hmmm. That's all "ready-made" content just waiting for readers. Nothing for them to really get involved. Maybe throw Ask into the mix, or QI, or even just a link to PR?

Well, I used t teach the OCR AS Level in Applied Science, and there is a teaching resource produced by 4Science (of Salisbury) that references an h2g2 Entry.

It was in the resource that services Unit 3, 'Monitoring the Activity of the Human Body'

The Entry was A706763 ['Measuring Blood Pressure').

A