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

: at the same time as Abi

We could do the Bill thing!

Reasons for not using the MSN group. Ok, I'm convinced. I didn't realize that it was tied so strongly to the person who created it. I thought giving other people "asst manager" status would allow them to do the same things. But definitely, if it limits your personal space available for MSN, we should start another.

"Seriously - there are stability issues which go away if the group is at least set up by the Editors."

That's h2g2 Editors, not UG Editors, right? I know, just trying to clarify for anyone else reading this.

When will I start to remember to subscribe to new entry conversations?

I've updated the entry with Anna and Ashley's responses. Anna, Ashley, for GMLing them, I wish I'd seen them earlier.

Now I'll go and read them and the rest of the thread,
Waz

Oh, look, money!

Clink, clink, clink...

Re: APR, alternative peer review
or Underguide Review Forum


While a semi-official status is a wonderful thing, it is a bit incestous to borrow the terms and features of the parent religion when breaking off a little to form a new cult, isn't it?

A few off the top of my pointed head suggestions:

UG House

The Tunnel Entrance

The Minery

Last Chicken In The Shop

UG Peerless Purview

Equal Opportunity Guidance Counseling

This Way To The Egress

SLUG = See the Light, Under Guide!

Under Guide Liaison Yurt

The UG Filter


I think the upper manglement should be called "Canaries"...

The Underguide Pier Revue?

"This discussion is going to be hard to follow. Is there any easier way to structure it? I was going to suggest a separate conversation thread for each question still up for debate, but that would be 15 or 20 threads." We're already cutting them down however. Perhaps the way to deal with this is for me to update the page periodically, moving issues that are decided out and including where the discussion has got to on the rest.

Nominating/Voting - I get the feeling the consensus is towards a system of nomination followed by offsite discussion, seconding and possibly thirding. I'll go along with that but would definitely like to have thirding.

Quotas - Sprout's comments hit the nail on the head - I'll go for that. I can't fault Ben's arithmetic but it does assume every Miner makes their quota and that some nominate and some second and third. What would happen if they all used their quota for nominating? Or have I got the wrong end of the pick? Or does this just not happen in practice?

Unpicked entries in APR - Sprout had a good question there. In PR do entries in limbo eventually get cleared out?

Timing of entries appearance on the front page - Ashley suggested we had our own calender. I like that idea - it gives a method for operating a six months gap from any preappearance in the Post and CAC.

UG Persona role - it looks like this is settling at administrative/supervisory/referee/safety-net re UG quality control but not 'The Underguide Editor'. Ie. guiding rather than leading. I'm happy with that.

APR -> The Underguide Review Forum but I'm trying to think of something beginning with A to put in front.

Available writing - I'm happy with everything non EG being available subject to liason with the Post and AGG/GAG/CAC and to Miners' using their own discretion re journal and forum pieces.

Duplication of entries in the UG - I wasn't very clear on this. I meant similar entries on the same subject by different writers. I'm not sure on this one - two poems on flowers is no problem but how many entries on the theory of buttered toast landing butter side down would we want. Leave it to Miners' discretion and discussion on nomination threads?

Volunteer Groups - " I think it should definitely be a closed group ... US with me on my trip! Agreed." just look what you get by stamping your feet! Ashley, was that agreement to the h2Editors setting up the offsite group or to Ben taking the group with her to the US? Which is ok with me!

Archiving etc - No comment at this time.
Re: author mentors. I agree with tabling this.
Guidelines - Guidelines have two audiences - the writers and the picking Miners. I think we have been considering them from the writer audience point of view. And, rightly in my view (barring technical stuff), leaving them as wide as possible, taking the view that if the entry submitted by the writer isn't up to standard we just don't pick it. We don't need to prevent its submission to TURF (!), we leave it to Miners to keep up the UG quality standards. So is that the real question - can we leave it to unguided Miners?

Deciding, and finding reasons for deciding, an entry is UG standard or not isn't easy. It is easy however to start using guidelines as a list of criteria to make the judgement for you. So words like balanced and original tend to become requirements even though they were never intended to be so.

So unguided Miners or tram lines down the mines to keep them on track? My preference is to take the risk of unguided Miners, I can understand Anna and Ashley's wariness on this but if we find it isn't working guidelines will evolve as we go to correct any real problems that arise.


Waz

tonsil, it's closer to "egress" than you realize. Part of the reason given for using "Alternative Peer Review" was that it would sound like the official Peer Review, and potential writers would not dismiss the UnderGuide as a "cult" or "upstart" or otherwise lacking mutant step-cousin of the official Edited Guide.

Under Guide Liaison Yurt. Har-dee-har. They use that nickname "UGLi" for the Undergraduate Library at the University of Michigan.

I still think "Cannibalistic Humanoid Underguide Dwellers" ought to be the name for UG volunteers, but can't get anyone to second the idea.

Things I have an opinion on

- Nominating/Voting - I agree on the thirding system idealistically, but if the (<i&gtTowers(/i&gt feel it is impractical, I'd agree with them

- Quotas- Hard to manage. No one will want to man the tedious job of counting votes. At least until we make an official miners home, then it will all be easier.

- UG Persona role- If we give too much of the power to the italics, it may lose some of its appeal. I'd rather be semi-official for a while before we go official so we can start building our processes more officially. I have to disagree, the UG persona should be an editor (Just my opinion)

- Archiving- I already wrote a big long thing on this...

If something isn't commented on, it means I don't care

Re: name of APR or AWW moving to end of list.

This reminds me of those companies that name their business "AAA Bail Bonds" or "AAA Carpet Cleaners" to get their names listed first in that section of the phone book.

Fortunately, we will deliver an experience of such high quality that people will remember our brand identityTHE UNDERGUIDEand we won't need to rely on wanderers who see our name first on some list.

If there are people out there that would go to anything with its name beginning with A, for that reason alone, what are the chances they have the attention span for our material? Not a problem

I have a concern.
Feel free to slap me down if this has been covered before.

The distinction between mentoring/scouting is lost on me.

I think (based on what I have heard so far) that while the appreciation of non-EG material may be preserved in some fashion,
the 'Writer' as opposed to the 'critic' or 'editor' or 'administrator', may once again loose out.

It is because of standards that many of the entries on the site are not in the Edited Guide and it is because of a Review process that many are a bit intimidated from going any further than just typing furiously and hoping somebody notices.

These thoughts lead me to a proposal that may be out-of-line. In which case, feel free to fling the appropriate frownies in this post's direction and then go about your business.

Is it not too far-fetched to consider that, at least in the secondary or tertiary level of the Undergrowth Upper Moss, it would be a good idea to have people who have a proven ability to write, based on what may be found in the entry lists on their personal spaces?

jingle, jingle

See, I haven't died! What a hell of a lot of backlog...

For the record, I wouldn't mind being one of the people with access to the UG Editors Persona, nor would I mind not being one of those people. I will be on the road for 11 weeks this summer, and should be enrolled in school full-time in the fall, but I'm not imagining the job taking *that* many hours per week. I am committed to the project and not planning to leave the planet (or the building) anytime soon. (touch wood)

The other issues, I'll comment on when I've read the b'log more carefully.

If there are any specific changes that just need to be made to any (either) of the pages over which I have editorial control, someone please point them out to me somewhere obvious, please.


GTB, who's been busier than he can begin to explain without

It seemed to me it would be worth tagging what we have agreed on so far:

We know what we are trying to do - get good quality UG entries 'Edited' status and onto the front page.

We know who has already volunteered as Miners (there are two threads, one here entitled 'My Dream' and one on the MSN group)

We have drafts for four of the five volunteer pages - (Waz - take a bow)

We have a draft for the Underguide Review Forum page - (GTB - take a bow)

We have a large number of good entries in AWW to pick from

We have started clearing poor entries out of AWW

We have a workable draft for the UG Guidelines - (Deidzoeb's turn to bow, now)

We have volunteers for the role of Underguide Editors - (I suggest we roll with the four -- GTB will be fairly distracted this summer, which will drop it down to three)

We have broad agreement on all of the outstanding issues, (this is an important one).

We have a good relationship with the Post and with AGG/GAG/CAC, and know we need to maintain it, and we have informal ways of doing so.

We have some nominations for picked entries in the MSN group

I personally think that we are close enough to start actually doing stuff here - like picking and polishing entries. We can be getting on with this while the Editors are working on the status of entries.

I would suggest not accepting any more volunteers as miners until we have the volunteer pages finished, but rolling with the existing volunteers, all of whom have been involved in these discussions for long enough to 'get' it without needing 'it' spelled out in a code of conduct.

We do need the Miners' email group. And we need to agree quotas for voting. But I for one would like to see us making a start on those two things, and then get using the systems. That way, when everything else is in place we have already been using the systems for a while, and have smoothed out the first lumps and bumps, and are ready to go.



Ben

I agree with all the above...but I think we also need to start on the infrastructure of where these will go when they have been polished. I think in a way this needs to be done independently of Towers involvement so that we can show people using the AWW that we do have something going: the UG is starting to take shape.

Ok - let's work this out.

Let's assume that an entry has been nominated, seconded and thirded and is therefore picked
The Towers then say that they are ok with it being used
They then remove the thread from AWW and put it back to the entry, and they email the author/s
One of the Miner's volunteers (or is volunteered) to Polish it
The Gem Polisher creates a new entry and polishes the Gem
The new entry is listed as ready to go on the Front Page

The weakness that I can see here is that we have not yet worked out the mechanisms for picking.

B

What do you mean? Do you mean we have no consensus on 'what is quality?' On the MSN Site I brought up the idea of introducing a group of entries 'What makes a good...' [poem, personal experience etc.] Here, we could tell people general advice [naturally with the disclaimer that a fantastic piece may not have any of these, or only some: it's just a general piece] about what is a good....

This would work both ways in helping people write for the UG, and in mining as well

But alas, it has had no replies

FwT

That seems a good idea, and your hint is well taken - I need to spend a couple of hours on the MSN site...



B

Excellent!