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

Cheers BG if you come to the next meet ST I'm sure you can

"How should huge swathes of typo and grammar type corrections be posted so as not to spook the author?"

Any time I've seen things similar to that happen, it's caused a huge stink!

I've said before and I'll say again, if there are lots of typos/spelling mistakes in an entry I think the author should be steered towards a spell checker. If not one on a word processor, then one on the web, or even the people on h2g2 who do it. There's a page somewhere, but I can't find it at the moment.

I really dislike seeing large posts of spelling corrections. I appreciate we have to get this checked in PR, but a first post containing a large list is really off-putting. Even now, with a lot of entries under my belt, if the first comment on my entry was a large spelling list I'd be really upset. 'Yes, but what did you atually *think* of my entry?' I'd want to know that before I started changing spelling. I've had to remove entries from PR before (yes, even me), so I don't want to spend ages changing spelling errors, only to have to rewrite much of the entry anyway.

I'd prefer to see content commentary first, with a recomendation to spell check if it's so badly spelled it's unreadable. Then if that gets no results, some smaller posts with the corrections in.

I realise that some people reading this do post long lists, and I'm not picking on anyone, I'd just like to see content dealt with first - then small gentle list (not fluffly! - just with some consideration for the person reading them). Or even better, ask if they want a long list, or for them to come in dribs and drabs.

Certainly I don't think people should be copying the GuideML, making changes, then suggesting it's reposted to the entry itself.

I agree.

I've often thought if someone needs to be, for wnat of a better phrase, taken under a wing when they've submitted something to Peer Review in regards to major overhauls this should be done somewhere else other than Peer Review. (why I think the EGWW suggestion of Sho's makes sense. For Entries that need much more than 'reviewing' perhaps a suggestion to take it into the Writing Workshop and re-submit from there is the way to go).

Peer Raview is after all, Peer REVIEW. Your peers should be reviewing your Entry, not Editing it for the whole world to see. Minor adjustments to phrasing and stcturing - yes. Minor grammar and punctuation - yes. But as someone said, seeing a post like;

you need to put the fullstop after the footnote

does tend to get the back up. Especially when you feel you've worked hard on the content of your Entry only to have it picked to pieces by tiny little 'errors' that could, and should, be found on Editing and no-one saying things like;

this is a good read, like your style, made me giggle, did you think of adding this, this or this in regards to content?

It can be offputting for some people, especially the newer writers to have nothing but nitpicks. But it's a dilemma, because nitpicking is needed if an Entry is going to be the highest possible standard before it reaches the Front page.

I think, like I said elsewhere, many reviewers need to be aware that some people a re a little more delicate. Someone else mentioned somewhere, it's not WHAT you say, it's HOW you say it

And there's heaps of spelling and grammar mistakes in that post, feel free to nitpick

MJ, it is a rule of netiquette that we never correct the spelling in other people's postings.

Well, not if we're not trolls anyway.

I'm going to refrain from being especially rude Gnomon. But I'm getting a LITTLE tired of being told the obvious as if I'm not aware of anything. And of being corrected and belittled everytime I make a comment. And being undermined. I respect experience, what I don't respect is the omnipotent attitude.

Actually perhaps I was rude. , perhaps it's not what was said, it was how it was said.

As someone who does post long lists of spelling corrections, I have to point out that:

1. We've been specifically asked by the Eds to make sure the spellings etc are fixed in Peer Review

2. I only do it when all the content issues appear to have been sorted out.

3. I nearly always say what I think about the entry - good, not my sort but acceptable, excellent etc.

4. If the author is a newbie, I always apologise for the trouble they're going to have to go to, but stress that it really is necessary to get the thing into the guide, and that it has a very good chance of being picked when the changes have been done.

For authors who are not newbies, I am more abrupt and I hope that doesn't seem offputting. I hope they know that if I don't comment on the content, then I don't really have anything to say about it, but I'm going to help them anyway by pointing out the typos. And they know the typos have to be corrected before the entry will be accepted.

I whooped and hollered for that two-phase approach somewhere else, Gnomon ... but it doesn't seem to be common practice, unfortunately. I can't imagine how you'd encourage it either.

So what can happen is that the spelling corrections descend - no matter how politely - and a first-time author will either be put off or make those changes and then assume that's all there is to it.

As I said above - a baggy monster in which the spelling is correct is just a baggy monster with its hair combed.

I've just seen your last posting, MJ. I wasn't aware that I had been belittling or undermining you. My apologies. I'll watch out for it in future.

I don't intend to appear to be laying down the law. I just say what I think.

I did see the tongeout smiley on your comment, but I've seen lots of people correcting other people's spelling in comments, and using bad spelling as "evidence" that the other person's comments should be ignored. That practice disgusts me. So my comment wasn't really aimed at you, but it just seemed like a suitable moment to put it in.

In the case I linked to, the content had been dealt with, what upset the author was the fact that the reviewer (who had previously been very encouraging) had copied the entire entry into a post and basically subbed it there. I understand why he did it, as a medic he was worried that a sub might not pick up on everything that needed fixing, but from a new author's point of view it looked like loads of changes and a massive intervention.

I think perhaps it was just the approach that was wrong here - perhaps it would have been better to only post those changes that a sub might miss rather than (what appeared to be) a re-write of the whole entry - this is what caused the author to panic.

I'd love to post only the changes that a sub-editor might miss, but I've been specifically asked to point out everything I see.

So why is there is an insistence from Eds that the entries are right before being picked? Do we not have enough sub-eds? Are they not capable of correcting the problems?

The excuse we've alway been given is that there aren't enough Eds, but surely this is not something they get involved in anyway?

I think the idea is that the Eds now cannot read everything twice - they can only read it once (did anyone know they read things twice once-upon-a-time?), so they want as many errors picked up in PR as possible to replace the missing 'stage' in the editorial process.

At the time they said they wouldn't have time to go through entries needing a lot of work, they'd just be able to check the obvious - as the entry needing 20 corrections on the FP shows. There were only two Eds then, and we're closing in on their being two again - so now might not be a good idea to challenge that.

I don't mind spelling corrections being posted to entries - just not first, and not a big long list straight away. People won't learn from their mistakes if they aren't allowed to correct them.

I belive that we may have enough Sub Editor. What I'm not familiar with is the process in which a Sub Editor is allocated a recommended Entry to edit. So on that premise ignore what I say if it isn't right.

1. I think some Sub Editor's prefer to work off-site and don't log on to h2g2 as often as they like. In this case perhap they miss some of the comments raised by Peer Review.

2. Do some Sub Editor's automatically assume everything major has been tidied up in Peer Review and just do the 'tidying'?

3. Some Sub Editor's may be down on the Sub list and get allocated Entries but are in fact on 'sabbatical's so the work is then not done and the Entry just goes through the processes and comes out the other end with all the errors...

4. Some sub's are new to the game and are not as experienced as others?

That's why I initially added a section to the page made for Subs to come and discuss Subbing duties and or problems they had with Entires here. Some subs may be better than others (no offence) or some may be allocated an Entry that they have no knowledge of whatsoever so just do the basics. If they had somewhere to discuss problems they were having with more than just the other sub-editors, for example experts about certain things on h2g2 then errors might be picked up more regularly.

I know the Scouting business is anonymous, but is there any need for the Subbing business to be? That way everyone can contribute to the final outcome of an Edited Guide Entry, making it a true community effort, but still giving the author the kudos they deserve?

Just an idea.

You post your corrections in a different way anyway Gnomon, you don't copy and paste the entire article into a post and sub it there - the intent in the thread I linked to was for the author to just copy it back over their work rather than find and make the corrections themselves. I know some researchers like that approach but I think you have to be careful doing it to a new author unless they specifically ask for it...

This is all very well talking about this, but has anyone spoken to DrMatt or shown him this thread? He may be blissfully unaware he's raised an issue...

Who's Dr Matt and what issue did he raise?

>>So why is there is an insistence from Eds that the entries are right before being picked? Do we not have enough sub-eds? Are they not capable of correcting the problems?<<

Didn't this forum get started largely on the back of problems relating to certain Entries being picked that clearly weren't 'right'?

I assume we have enough Subs (the Entries go through at the right speed and the Eds can always recruit more): it's just a matter of what 'problems' are left to them. Actually, in the example Kelli gave, specialist language (there medical but lots of other things too) - that can be a problem, I think. But it can be flagged up right at the end of the PR thread (should be, imo).

If the spelling in a recommended entry is 100% correct, no Sub is ever going to complain. But if it's correct while the Entry itself is still a poorly-organised ramble through arbitrarily-selected information and the only comments on the PR thread are '' and 'Great Entry ' - followed by the spelling corrections - then they will.

(Not out loud, obviously )

If it's widespread and persistent, then the author should be encouraged just to check it (rather than be given a huge list) - as Annie said ... somewhere (I'm getting my threads mixed up, which has to be a sign of good health for this forum ). If it's minor and manageable in PR as the very last thing on the list, then fine. It just seems to be too often the very first thing on the list and occasionally the only thing on the list.

Again - if your two-phase approach were enforcable () Gnomon, then that's the way it *should* be.

I mean, if the first comment is 'the spelling is wonky, please check it', again, absolutely fine.

But, in the example MJ gave - full-stop after the footnote - that really is what Subs are *for*

G -

kelli raised this - F3130648?thread=2225352&skip=60&show=20#p27823143

DrMatt wanted to help get the Entry as clearly written as possible from a medical point of view I believe, however the issue raised was - did he go about it in the right manner?