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

BigAL, there goes all my hope : I have addressed all the suggested changes weeks ago, and no conversation whatsoever has been going on since then

Yes, that happens to me as well - which is why I have the gripe.

I submit an Entry and either:

(a) Get no comments at all or
(b) Get one or two comments which I address and post that I've addressed them , and then...


...nothing!!!

Also, I try to obey the rules by not ing. However, I did my Hina Matsuri one (currently on the FP) simply in an effort to get it FP'd on the correct date (3rd March). To my amazement s'one spotted it and whizzed it through even though I 'd it only 2 days before. This was in total exasperation to point out the problem, rather than any realistic hope of getting it on the FP.

Mind you, another reason I don't my Entries is that I'm curious to see whether it's possible to have an Entry hit the FP without receiving a single comment in PR.

The rationale for this would be that it's so perfect that it doesn't require comment

And then there's the discrimination going on.

A Scout posted this in their journal:

<>

and I'm almost agreeing with Sho that maybe entries to PR should be anonymous so they get picked because of their worth

.

Well, that works if you think we're all robots.

Why comment on someone's entry if we know we're just going to get ignored, dismissed, slagged off behind our backs or verbally assaulted for our comments? We are human too you know, and not commenting for our own sake.

Why should it be discimination if we prefer to keep away from people who are nasty to us? That's the advice of the Eds - stay away from people like that.

Annie: the idea of author staying anonymous certainly has something, but I don't think it is possible to do so.
Ideno, you have a point, I really wouldn't want to be a scout, I'd be too afraid to be biased

But Annie, it can be very frustrating to have this happen:
I spend a substantial amount of time
--reading an entry,
--thinking about it,
--doing a few background checks to get a feel for the topic,
--reading through again with notepad open and making relevant comments,
--reading through the post to check that I haven't got narky, and that I'm being suitably positive and encouraging
--maybe cutting out some comments so as not to overload the post, and reserving them for later
--finally posting;
Only to find that the author has a 'repel all boarders' mentality and will argue at length before changing even a phrases.

I don't think it's discrimination for me to decide in that case that I would get a better return on the time I spend by commenting elsewhere. Of course people can change--in my early days I had the "repel all boarders--this is mine and I won't change a word!" mentality myself, but after a bit I realised how much Peer Review can improve my entries, and lightened up. But knowing that tendency myself, it's one of the things I watch out for in other authors!


Azara

(Oh, and for anyone who didn't already know, I've never been a scout!)

I went down the Scout road once. And the ACE road. But when you give so much and get, forgive my french, bugger all back it seemed not worth it. And trying to break the 'this is how things are done' mould so new ideas could be tested was disheartening I did enjoy much of the roles when I did them, but there were times when I felt like I was bashing my head against a brick wall

That's why I like being able to comment freely in Peer Review without the added pressure of being thought of as someone who has 'influence'.

Not that that should discourage people from being ACEs or Scouts, it just wasn't for me. I think you need to be VERY giving to be able to carry those positions off. And I'm not all that giving I'm afraid.

And for every person who *won't* comment or pick, there are plenty of others who will.

No one is regarded as being unpleasant to deal with by *everyone*.

Yes, there's no point in forcing yourself to do something you don't like, out of a sense of responsibility, when there's someone else who will happily do the smae job with no problems.

Azara

I meant to post this here, not there ;

It's just getting the balance right isn't it? And some people are better at it than others, as Mina said, we are all only human

But differences can always be put aside, I've done that numerous times and I find it saddening to think that people are as shallow to say 'I'm not commenting on anything THEY do, because I don't like them."

I don't particularly like some of the people I work with, but I work with them for the benefit of the patient. So likewise, I drop into Peer Review threads for the benefit of the community and the Edited Guide as a whole.

I have to admit, I don't really comment on the older researchers Entries as on the whole they only need minor tweaking. If it's a subject I'm knowledgeable about (few and far between) I'll give my though

I don't not comment because I don't like a person. I tend to not comment because they've reacted badly to me in the past - as that quote said, because of something nasty they've said to me or about me, or just their whole attitude - it refers to PR, not in general chit chat on h2g2.

That's a shame.

can I bring up something that was mentioned a blob ago, and then ignored...

A sub-ed posted (and let me say, that I think that sub-eds, scouts and ACEs do a sterling job and for no amount of magic beans would I do any of those jobs in this frame of mind) that recently an entry required so much work...

HELLO! put it back into the pond!

I think we've now established that PR is to do as much work on grammar, punctuation and spelling as possible because of the situation. I am happy with that if it is the official line. No problems at all.

But I think I am hearing too much that when an entry goes into PR it should be just about ready to go. If not I would prefer to see a ruthless and rigorous policy of putting it into WW. Unless the author wants to remove it, improve it and then maybe try again.

hey, perhaps all entries should go into WW first..... yeah! let's make it even more burocratic!! - but on a serious note some people just don't have a clue.

And Ideno, I can well imagine that if you think you're going to have a repel all borders reply, that it would put you off commenting on an entry - I admire your honesty there.

While I'm here... what about a cap on the number of entries one person can have in PR at any one time (sorry, MJ, I think it should be 5...)

How about this: we completely rejig what Scouts do?

If we made WW the default setting for new entries, then when 3 consecutive posts say "ok, this one is ripe for picing" it can then go to PR for content analysis. Then, when there are no more comments, it can go to a sub-ed (maybe even without intervention of a scout, since PR would be a lot smaller)

>>then when 3 consecutive posts say "ok, this one is ripe for picing"<< spicing? picking?
Just joking

'what about a cap on the number of entries one person can have in PR at any one time (sorry, MJ, I think it should be 5...)'

Are there people with more than 5 (even as many as 5) then?

>>HELLO! put it back into the pond!<<

Not an option, I'm afraid, Sho Once it's been picked, it stays picked. If the Scout has said it's ready, then the Sub may disagree with that, but can't really 'throw it back'.

Well, I suppose you *could* - but I don't really see how it would work. "Hello Researcher X: you know how a week or so ago your entry got picked and everyone came over to your thread to say how fantastic that was? Well, the Sub's decided it's nowhere near ready so could you start all over again please?"

In other words, I may have my views on it, but if all the Peer Reviewers on a particular thread and the Scout that's picked it think it's ready - and it's not - then it's that part of the process that needs looking at.

'"Hello Researcher X: you know how a week or so ago your entry got picked and everyone came over to your thread to say how fantastic that was? Well, the Sub's decided it's nowhere near ready so could you start all over again please?"


Well my point is that, far too often, Entries are being picked where PR'rs haven't been extolling the said virtues. Indeed, the author either hasn't responded to suggestions one way or the other, or the review process is still very active, indicating that more work needs to be done.

All entries to go through WW first? No way! That is making the process way too complicated.

I accept that there are *some* entries that go into PR which should have been worked upon before they were submitted. I accept that *some* entries turn out to have a more 'popular' PR thread than others. I accept that for *some* entries there are disputes between the author and their peers which can turn ansty.

But for *most* entries the peer review process works just fine.