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

Well, you should see what he's written here:

http://straightfromthehorsesarse.blogspot.com/2009/04/hitchhikers-guide-to-bugger-all.html

I think he's close to giving up totally on h2g2. Mind you, h2g2 gave up on him beforehand...he wasn't a very nice person. But perhaps 'nice people' are not what h2g2 needs right now...

Hi Bob,

Thanks - no I hadn't seen that. FM's perfectly entitled to his opinion, but I don't think his proposals to improve h2g2 were particularly practical or popular as it turned out. He wrote a number of fine entries while he was here, so it's a shame he has to be so acerbic about it now - he succeeded in scaring away a couple of fine contributors.

So, what did he suggest to improve PR? As far as I can work it it was along the lines of h2g2 getting back to its roots. I can't see anything wrong with that, but perhaps it could hgave been done more circumspectly...without pissing others off as much as he did...

... in fact, what he suggest was certainly practical, if not popular....it was probably unpopular because it WAS practical, but involved actually doing some proper 'field research' for a change. i've hardly written anything for this place...lurking is more my style...but i kinda agree with him on some of what he says. if you disagree with him, why not go around to his blog and tell him why?

Because he never seemed willing to be constructive while he was here and I don't see him in terms of any form of thought-leadership. Maybe I've misjudged him, but he'd have to convince me over here rather than sniping from the sidelines.

h2g2 isn't the only place where you can do this sort of thing, of course. Maybe his talents would be better appreciated by Wikipedia. Most of the stuff I write wouldn't get published there. That's not to say it's junk - it's just unconventional. Oddly, one of my h2g2 entries was recently picked up by an academic publisher, and I've granted them permission to print it in a forthcoming engineering textbook (I'll write about it in the h2g2 Post if/when it appears).

I'm planning to continue what I'm doing here - writing, sub-editing, a few things for the h2g2 Post, contributing to Peer Review, etc. I enjoy it too. If I can inspire any others to sign up or get involved, then that's great. I don't think I'd particularly enjoy asking this disaffected researcher to return. He's big enough to decide for himself what he wants to do.

well, from what i saw of his last postings, he did seem to be suggesting a way forward for h2g2...it's difficult to be constructive when all you see is the same kind of behaviour being endlessly repeated...and to be fair to the miserable git, he *did* try to engage from over here. it just fell oin deaf ears, but that probably says more about his interpersonal style than anything else. speaking from experience, being constructive has its limits. try serving on a committee from time to time to see exactly what i mean.

I personally don't like the guy and i don't approve of his way of dealing with people. but i think he's bang on about one thing. if h2g2's primary concern is to satisfy some unwritten rules of its existing authorship...never mind its readership...then the latter, and subsequently the former, will wither up and die. look at what it is now. and then think about what it could have been.

I'd have to go back and read all that debate again. There wasn't a lot of appetite for change, it's true. Having said that, the only rules here are the writing guidelines. I believe they're pretty resilient and they've had a recent refresh through Alex Ashman's initiative. Some (like Pinniped) would like to see more creative writing in the Edited Guide, and it's easy to make a good case for it when you consider some of his entries (like Orgreave), but less so for some of his more experimental ones. I'm pretty relaxed about it, to be honest. There are around 10,000 entries in the Guide. I've only read a small percentage of them and h2g2 is still surviving on its ability to recycle these on the Front Page and to turn them up when we search either BBC or Google. It will probably survive for a while yet.

At some point, h2g2 will need a re-launch. It certainly needs to inspire a new audience before the BBC decides that it can't afford to employ 1.5 people on it and mothballs the site. I don't know how long we've got, and it's particularly difficult getting the editorial team to reveal their plans or even to admit that they have plans.

I've written a couple of articles for the h2g2 Post about the wider impact of h2g2 entries. They are starting to appear as source references for academic research papers, and some are referenced in newspaper articles, too. I'd like to think that this is a trend which will increase, and it certainly recognises h2g2 as a highly-respected repository of quality, peer-reviewed articles written in a readable format for a general audience.

If there's anything else I can do to promote h2g2 then I'll do it, but I'm not convinced that tinkering with the writing guidelines is going to make much difference.

"Because he never seemed willing to be constructive while he was here and I don't see him in terms of any form of thought-leadership."

Hah! This must be the reason you begged me to get involved in improving PR, because you didn't see me 'in terms of any form of thought-leadership.' As it happens, I did make some constructive comments. I also served a huge stint, longer than most, as a Scout, where I suspect I did more than the vast proportion of 'Researchers' to promote h2g2.

I didn't suggest *tinkering* with the Writing Guidelines. The problems facing this site are far more systemic than that. What I suggested was that it recover a sense of 'audience'. When someone wrote an entry they ought to have borne in mind who they were writing for and why they were writing it.

I also suggested that it get back to its roots and actually become a valuable resource about real-world cultural experience, primarily. That it carve a niche for itself and in so doing, reach out a potential readership that would normally not give h2g2 a second thought. If it came to the point where it was either the Writing Guidelines or more relevant and vital writing, then I'd happily sacrifice the former without a moment's thought.

All this fell on deaf ears: I was disrupting the cosy, self-congratulatory feeling that so sickeningly permeates this place. For an organisation so unflinchingly self-critical as the BBC, it's surprising to see that the 'h2g2 in the Blogosphere' link has now disappeared off the Front Page. From h2g2 itself however, it's what I've come to expect.

But don't worry, I'm outta here. I've even had to create this holding account as I've deleted my original six-figure U number. The beast is far too thick-skinned for even *this* gadfly to penetrate.

The fact that you keep coming back to argue the point probably shows that you do care what happens to the site, even if you sign off most times with 'I'm outta here'.

Did you read any of the 10th Birthday features? The BBC are rightly proud of this project and recognise that the community it has built is its greatest asset. It's certainly bigger than any individual in it, and if you do want to drive change in this place you will need to inspire the community to do it, rather than treat them abrasively.

h2g2 does have a substantial audience, but they are largely read-only. It sounds from recent editorial noises that a mini-relaunch may be forthcoming. It's a good time to get involved and have your say, but now's the time to be constructive.

Anyway, I'm not an editor. I just write a few entries and do a bit of sub-editing. I have no influence. You know where Editorial Feedback is if you want to speak to the organ grinder.