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

There are quite a few recipes as EGs already, can't see a reason why others shouldn't get there,too

I think what I meant was why do recipe's get into the EG, I thought it was supposed to be for serious intellectual stuff

Damn wrong button

I'll carry on, I can understand if the recipe is part of a longer EE with history of the dish and so on, like a recient piece about Parkin, but just ingrediants and method is more at home in

*emerges from backlog*

OK, what I've gleaned so far:

1) There are rules
2) Rules can be bent for "exceptional cases"
3) If you don't like it - grow another skin

Is that the gist of it?

"Point to entries languishing which are pickable"

A717275
PR thread: entered 20 Jan 2006 - posters 8 - including Jimster who made suggestions to split the entry but leave it as it was in PR to "go through the process"
and a suggestion by MJ that I should have made it a Uni project. I have done everything asked of me - including a whole new entry on the Funk Brothers which was missing from my original entry - tacked onto the bottom.

1096?thread=109623319" >F48874?thread=2023319&skip=60&show=20

I don't agree with recipes in the EG if they are just ingredients and a method. I subbed one about a drink that had been invented by another Researcher - ok, so it's factual but I couldn't see why it got in either.

Recipes that are included in a longer entry yes.

It may seem like Scouts and people with lots of entries get through the PR process quickly, but when you're very visible in PR anything that happens is also visible - someone said to me that one Scout seems to get picked seven days on the dot - but he's got entries in PR that have been there for three months, three weeks, two weeks, etc. And as someone else said, my camper entry has been in there a long time.

I'm not worried how long it takes, and I'd rather see the work of absent Researchers getting onto the Front Page directly from PR because they get an email when it's picked, and an email when it hits the Front Page - all 'invitations' to come back to the Guide.

As a Sub I get entries that are aparently 'finished' acording to the thread. Yet they still need extra work or the Eds wouldn't bother with Subs. So I'm happy to take a back seat to an entry with an absent author that does still need a little work - because I know that mine will all get there in the end - I don't mind if some take longer than others.

Those that aren't so sure their entries will get in, may well need something to bolster their confidence, but refusing to allow another perfectly good entry (with tweaks like all others) into the Guide because that author isn't paying attention isn't the way to do it.

It's not a case of bending the rules Annie - it's part of the Scouts role to pick entries that have had a good community response and aren't being worked on by the authors. An absent author isn't going to be working on it, and that Pirates entry had a fabulous response. The people making suggestions - ok so they weren't acted upon, but they may not have been anyway - the author might have responded with a polite 'no and here's why'. So we've lost nothing.

Entries shouldn't be the be all and end all of a subject, because that leaves nothing for anyone else to write about the subject, and we all end up with an encyclopedia instead of a Guide.

Um, well why I am being asked to write about Maradona's personal life then, when I've tidied up an entry about his career, written by someone else? Others liked it as it stood, it's alright to tell someone to s*d off (politely) even though they're a Scout?

I (usually) agree to every asked, even cutting stuff out I wrote the original entry for in the first place (you remember the piece I wrote in the Richard & Judy entry, the interview with Professor Stephen Hawking? - well I removed it and linked to it elsewhere on the web because you asked me to) and guess what? After working in all the suggestions it's still there.

You can always say no - take my Thames entry - someone suggested I should add all about the docks, and the 'working life'. I didn't feel up to it at that time, so said no and changed the title instead. It's perfectly fine to say no to suggestions.

The only time I'd say listen is if *everyone* was saying the same thing.

Thanks. I very rarely say no in PR. Do you mind if I quote you/your words?

No I don't mind, although there are exceptions to every rule, and other people may have their own opinions about what I've said!

For every Scout that thinks: I'm not going to pick that because s/he's done none of the suggestions - there is another Scout who thinks: S/he's explained why they think those things shouldn't be added so ok, let's go with this one.

This is one of the reasons I have changed my posting behaviour in PR - if someone had already covered a point I was going to make then I never used to say anything (wanted to avoid the author feeling ganged-up on) but I have since realised that if a perfectly valid comment only appears once then sometimes it get ignored because only one person has said it. Now I post agreement with previously-made points.

I wonder if the problems of entries languishing is more to do with subject matter rather than the author? Do heavily technical entries slip down the lists? Biographies? Geographical entries? If the subject indication in the title aims at a fairly narrow interest group then the entry may attract fewer general comments and also there may not be a scout with the appropriate expertise/interest so it may take longer to get picked. I'm certainly guilty of avoiding things that are too jargon-packed whereas I probably ought to read and challenge. One of my problems is that if I know *nothing* about the subject matter then I don't feel able to comment on content and am not confident enough in my spelling/grammar ability to make comments on those. Doesn't leave much for me to say...

I seem to have had a pretty easy time in PR, but I have only produced 4 solo entries and have never had a badge of any description (*pauses to feel guilty for lack of involvement*). My first entry was in July 2001, the second was in April 2005, the third and fourth were both in Jan 2006. All of them were in PR for no more than two weeks, I don't know why. With the most recent ones I found I wanted more comments, every time I had a comment I reread the whole entry and ended up tinkering and improving it. Ho hum.

I agree that straight recipes look a bit odd in the EG.

Ideno said:
"I'm not worried how long it takes, and I'd rather see the work of absent Researchers getting onto the Front Page directly from PR because they get an email when it's picked, and an email when it hits the Front Page - all 'invitations' to come back to the Guide."

Who gets an email in the case of a collaborative entry? If everybody on the list does, then the invitation back still applies in the case of a Flea Market rescue. If it's only one author, then maybe that's something that could be changed--it's an automated message, isn't it? It's always nice to encourage collaborative entries (says she who usually manages to avoid them ).

About recipes, when there were 5 entries a day the occasional recipe could add a bit of variety, but I've come around to the opinion that they're a bit of a waste of a Edited Guide slot. I'd be quite happy if the editors made a decision to stop using entries which were recipes and nothing else--if the entry contains a lot of background information then I would consider that much more suitable for the Edited Guide.

Azara

I've seen something in PR this morning I have never seen before and wondered if someone could come up with an explanation for it. My article has been copied via, I presume, the 'testuserpage', and put into the PR thread for a total re-write!!! It sits for 4 weeks, doesn't get commented on for 3, having carried out all alterations as recommended and as a result of discussions on these threads its suddenly brought back to the top of the pile with everyone telling me to change things again!! What the hell sort of standards are we trying to set here? Is this someones idea of putting new people off writing for the EG and leaving it to 'old hands'? Or is it a case of if an author objects to a change even after giving a good reason then thats the green light for others to go in and tear it to pieces?
Or am I the subject of someones sick sense of humour?

ST

Straighttalker, I think that the reviewer may have completely misunderstood what you wanted when, in a previous post, you asked for comments on style.

Azara

As I said in the thread StraightTalker, this isn't a complete re-write according to DrMatt - looks like he has proofread it like a sub-ed might, and rahter than telling you the typos to correct he has done the corrections and put them into the PR thread so you can put them back in to the entry without telling you what exactly has changed. He may have felt this was better than a long list of
typo -> corrected typo
"grammar to change" -> "changed grammar".

To be honest I think this is not a good way to post corrections as it *does* look like DrMatt had rewritten your entry, even though he (probably) hasn't. Some researchers may like this kind of help (I've seen people ask for whole paragraphs to be re-written and posted to the thread), but certainly not all researchers like it. I certainly wouldn't.

I think this was just a slightly clunky way of saying that the content is fine and all that is left to do on your entry is to do the tidying a sub would do. So it can't be far off being picked

Did you piece get put into Flea Market? because if it was it may have been "Rescued", meaning someone's taken it on to try and get it into the EG

Oops Simul Simulpost

First of all RG, it had better not have been put into the FM, I have been dealing with it since day one, the only time I wasn't available was last week when I was in hospital, can't help that!! I haven't found any other examples of an article being copied en-masse into a pr thread and I've looked at dozens.To say i was angry to see that this morning is putting it mildly, my gripe is, why leave such massive changes for 4 weeks despite all the early attention and then sudenly expect me to re-write it for someone else?If it was that bad then someone should have said at the start and I could have done something then.I've compared it with published entries and can see little difference from those in terms of style, length or content.

ST

StraightTalker, have you seen my posts?

Your entry has not been moved to the flea market so don't panic. Have you compared the changes DrMatt has posted with the entry itself?

Fatkelli...hi....yes, I've seen your posts thanks.
I'm going to refrain from further comment at this time, I have to attend heart clinic myself just after lunch and frankly I was so angry when I saw that this morning I'm beginning to wish I had'nt logged on.I haven't put Drmatts post alongside the original to compare, no intentions of doing so for now.
Hopefully by the time I get back I'll be in the right frame of mind to deal.
On current form I can see now why PR has shown itself to be so inconsistent and off putting to new writers.

ST