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

I have just signed up and find the basic concept of H2G2 intriguing. After having sniffed about a bit I would like to respectfully point out a few shortcomings. For my preliminary explorations I naturally chose my field of interest and expertise, the saxophone. I discovered the following five articles.

A58475
A87130
A68582
A59302
A58466

Within these five articles I find most of the editorial guidelines transgressed. There is duplication - there are only three separate articles here, one of which is more of a forum header than an actual article. Of the other two, neither is particularly informative nor completely correct. Furthermore, despite the editorial advisory with respect to humour, I find that all the entries I have read suffer from an attempt at Adamsian irony, which gives the endeavour a somewhat smarmy tone. The results of an initial sampling are, thus disappointing.
However, it seems to me, that if the editorial directives were more strictly maintained and if a comprehensive system of cross-referencing were instituted this could become an interesting and perhaps useful interactive document. The time I can devote to internet pursuits is limited. I hope this site will eventually merit some of it.

Dr Sax

Hi
Editorial Guidelines only apply to 'Approved' Guide entries. Of the pages you list only A87130 is an 'Approved' entry.
The duplicate (A68582) is the original page as submitted by the researcher for Approval. The original article is always left unchanged when an entry is approved.
The other pages you mention are not approved nor submitted for approval & therefore, the Submission Guidelines don't apply.

Obviously, an article submitted for approval has a greater chance of acceptance the closer it is to the Submission Guidelines.

When using the site's search function, results are listed with an indication of the type of entry, Approved Entry, Guide Entry, or Forum Posting so that you can make a judgement about which article most meets your needs

I believe that there's a revamp of the search facility to further improve the searchability of the Guide.

There's more info on the submission process etc here http://www.h2g2.com/dontpanic.cgi?name=#10.1

hope it helps
;^)#

Indeed, in retrospect I realized that my problem was in not having a firm grasp of the structure of this site.
I think the distinction between "Approved Entries" and mere "Entries" should be clearer.
That said, my criticisms about the loose application of guidelines applies to the approved entry on the saxophone. This researcher's girlfriend's struggle for acceptance in the classical community is hardly informative on the subject of saxophones and the attempt at Adamsian irony and urbanity are neither funny nor illuminating.

I offer these sour gripes in hopes of improving this endeavour.

Dr Sax

Hi
I believe that there's an ongoing program of reviewing, updating/improving Approved entries, as well as a, to a certain extent, evolving Editorial Guidelines.

Generally, if you think something about an 'approved' entry is wrong or could be improved upon the best practice is to leave a comment in a forum attached to the article. That way, when the editor/sub editor reviews it the comments are there with the article.

I'm not suggesting btw that you shouldn't have posted your comment here, just suggesting a way to address errors/improvements in specific entries.

;^)#

Thanks Bruce.
I hope you and the editors will consider my critiques seriously.
Keep up the good work and good luck.
Dr S

Dear Dr S,
Although I would not want to suggest that I am recommending that Guide entries should contain errors, stylistic inadequacies, or [heaven forbid!] not be useful; as an early recruit to the ranks of Researcher, I offer the following observations.

First, I would point out that there is an inherent difference between the Guide and, say, something like the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Guide reasearchers are drawn from an entirely different pool of workers [and are paid on a very different scale]. While many of us do not intentionally write like DNA, we still mostly come from the DNA school of entry writing. There is a logical reason for this.

We probably were drawn here because we enjoyed the Original Guide, and we are likely to have somewhat the same view of the universe as DNA. This may or may not result in our writing like him, and it may, or may not, mean that we have a similar ability to entertain.

The poor, beleagured Editor [yes, that's singular--ONE editor] must wade through all this muck and edit our entries [at least those that we submit for approval] into something vaguely resembling some kind of standard, whilst not offending the submitting Researcher to the extent that he/she/it leaves the Guide in disgust. And this all while dealing with an initial backlog of something like 10,000 or so, entries. Sub-editors have been recruited [at the same outstanding payscale as Researchers] to help edit this backlog.

This is no easy task. I also point out that the Encyclopedia Galactica and the original Guide also had similar editorial problems.

Plus, we are all supposed to be having fun while we do this. So, I humbly suggest that an effective method of reading the Guide may be to turn up your fun quotient while browsing here. And to offer additional research as Bruce has suggested, in the forums for the pertinent articles, or, to write your own entry expanding on the topic. And hopefully, your contributions will be found to be 'scintillating and purple' by both passers-by and your fellow researchers.

I thank you for your attention, and hope you enjoy future visits to the Guide.

blu
}:=8
'But I don't want to go among mad people', Alice remarked.
'Oh, you can't help that', said the Cat: 'we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.'
'How do you know I'm mad?', said Alice.
'You must be', said the Cat, 'or you wouldn't have come here'.

BluD :
Good points all,  especially the aspersions cast in the direction of my own sanity. And though I may sound like a crank or a pill or a cranky pill, I can be a rather fun guy in real life.
That said, I refer you to the most excellent guidelines for submitting entries for approval (which you probably wrote). Number 3 says "... don't try to write like Douglas Adams," which I consider excellent advice. In the paws of a lesser mind his techniques fall somewhat flat.
Anyway, I am sure that the Editor and his minions are doing the best they can and it is not my intention to kindle flames. I salute you all in your diligence.
Doc S

This guy ( http://www.h2g2.com/U42 ) steadfastly refuses to abide by rule Number 3 "... don't try to write like Douglas Adams"

;^)#

Dear Doc S,
Upon reading the rather lengthy post I made above, I would like to make the additional observation that my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek whilst writing. I should know that this does not always translate well into print. No aspersions were meant to be cast in the direction of your sanity. [I usually have lousy aim. So it figures that if I WASN'T aiming I probably hit someting.]

As far as your ability to sound like a cranky pill; the fact that you are here speaks to your excellent taste, discrimination, refinment, and general all-around fun guy capabilities.

If I call any sanity into question it would be my own. My only purpose in writing was meant to be in defence of our beloved editor and sub-editors. Who probably are much better equipped for their own defence than I am.
So please, accept my regrets for any sparks that may have fallen from my post. With sincere good wishes for your future enjoyment of the Guide.

blu
}:=8
PS I was nowhere around during the composition of the guildelines--not even on the same continent. Those much more talented than I run things here. I am but a lowly researcher.

We are all but humble researchers, all but the lofty Editor, may his thousand names remain unspoke. And we are all in the same continent, the same aethereal continent (forgive my verbal incontinence). The oblique aspersion lay couched in the Carollian postscriptum.
Dig?
Doc

yeah.

what he said.



}:=8

Thanks for your comments Dr Sax and thanks to Bruce, and BluDragon for your excellent responses.

h2g2 is growing organically, it all started a mere six months ago. Once it was all green fields... There are huge gaps in the guide at the moment, but the Researchers are doing a fantastic job and submitting some really good entries.

We are developing a categorisation system at the moment which we will implement in the near future. This will be a userful feature in two ways - it will make it easier to find articles, obviously - but it will also highlight subjects and categories that still need to be written about.

We do not want to be Yahoo or Encarta. The Hitchhiker's Guide was noted for its foibles. We particularly enjoy the originality and diversity of the Guide. We want it to be interesting and fun, as well as an alternative source of information.

Dr Sax, if your field or interest and expertise is the saxaphone, which is rather a gorgeous instrument, please fill the gap for us and write the definitive guide entry on the subject and submit it. We would appreciate it, and you will know that you made the Guide just that one step better. That's how it works around here - so please?