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

Aside from a running history with the management of the site (all levels) I don't have much time or opportunity to post to the PR threads. I have seen a pair of obvious errors in a recent Trek submission ( A56212111 ), but from experience of past observations being ignored outright, I've left them for other people to clarify after it's published. With some of the most prolific and respected authors of the site, it seems sometimes that in-depth querying is frowned on.

One recent piece, A52933575, much praise ( F13855924?thread=6666524 )and rightly so. It's an extremely well written opinion piece. But is it a definitive, factual entry? The goal posts seems to fluidly move about, so it's really hard to tell on some days, just what is 'todays' vision of the Guide.

**I have seen a pair of obvious errors in a recent Trek submission ( A56212111 )** ??? i must have missed that in PR???

did I blink? I don't think that article has even been in PR - has it?

nope Revisted 50 must be having a moment

mebbe Gb has a stalker

Just someone that sees the ASK threads ( F19585?thread=6870069&skip=20&show=20 )

But you might note, how quick the 'attack' of sorts? This is really encouraging and welcoming to someone, n'est pas?

attack?? man your paranoid! we were only asking why you saw a entry before it was submit to PR

No worries, like many of the more important people about the site, I track the <./>INFO</.> page to see what is current. (Though they have despised that as a means of "spyinng", so they rarely admit leaping into uninvited threads from there) Nothing dastardly, nothing with devious ulterior motives. Just interested in the site and friends.

For a number of reasons though, I concur with post #3

Ah right, there we go again, getting into tiffs and taking things personally...

<>

Yeah, that does become a concern in PR. I carried one through, and behind the lines another dozen or so. And that is an important thing, do NOT take anything personal. If that sort of stuff needs doing, take it to a PS or e-mails ...

Revisited 50 said...

>>I have seen a pair of obvious errors in a recent Trek submission ( A56212111 ), but from experience of past observations being ignored outright, I've left them for other people to clarify after it's published. With some of the most prolific and respected authors of the site, it seems sometimes that in-depth querying is frowned on.<<<


This was not submitted, so your criticism here is without basis.


and


>>> (Though they have despised that as a means of "spyinng", so they rarely admit leaping into uninvited threads from there)


I think your personal viewpoint slightly skewed here! Who is 'they' when they're at home?


I'm sorry to say that it is sounding like a personal attack - or that you are bearing a grudge? I don't want to continue a discussion where this is the case. I'm all for contributions and criticism, but negative stuff like this is self-defeating.

So the content of my post, as reguards contents of entries, is void. It is myself that is the problem. Such is life of the site.

Your posting it here is beside the point. If you have an issue with an entry, discuss it in the review thread for that entry. Not talking to them and then complaining that they ignore you is silly.

I am perhaps in error, I thought this side discussion area was about the occasional short-comings of PR, the sorts of things that do or don't make it through. And whether they be justified in being in the Guide or not. If that is NOT the intent of this forum, and my points of content (not personal considerations, please) are innapropriate, then I will harbour them for a better Venue.

Thank you, and good night.

It's certainly about the short-comings of PR - but I see posting criticism of an entry somewhere that the author can't find it rather than on the entry itself as one such shortcoming. Saying that you know something that would help the entry but that you're refusing to post it for some undefined reason is just being childish. Why do it?

The place to get into detailed criticism of individual Entries would be the review thread for the Entries.

Is there a shortage of 'experts' in PR? Yes, probably, along with a shortage of reviewers in general.

Okay, I have posted two observations directly to the Trek thread. I find I have a few minutes in the midst of RL.

What about the 2nd entry I commmented on, without personal consideration?. Is that an opinion piece that went through without factual verifications, or did I miss something?

A suggestion. There's a list here attached to the Scouts homepage section, A1039105 speciallist topics and/or subjects Scouts know something about.
Would it not be an idea to expand/open this to any researcher who has a particular knowledge of a subject on the basis that if a specialised topic comes into PR, whether medical, mechanical or similar then having a list of researchers available to ask could help in sorting content.
It isn't, afterall, just down to 'badge holders', (for want of a better phrase), to comment in PR. They have a heavy enough workload at times as it is.
If such a list is viable could it be attached to the PR homepage so's its easy to find/access?

ST MKII

Good idea ST MKII - the Scout list needs updating as well, but a more comprehensive list of specialist knowledge would be good,

I think someone somewhere was compiling a list of experts, but I can't remember who that was.

We should also encourage people who are *submitting* pieces to Peer Review to comment on other pieces. They often complain of not having enough reviewers, yet the thought of looking at others' writing doesn't even seem to cross their minds...