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

"3. I didn't like the contrast in temperatures between the tepid yolk and the hot hot white "

You've either (a) got your oil too hot, which is why the white is too hot or (b) not cooked the yolk for long enough, which is why it's tepid. It's "done" when the yolk is hot but not solid, as in a perfect soft-boiled egg.

More washing up? True. Worth it, I think, but IMO only.

But how can you test when the yolk's hot enough?

Hi Smokie!

I just figured out where the problem may be, re the temperature/doneness of yolk vs. white.

You mention the oil and the pan, but not the cooking temperature. When the temperature is high, and the white is cooked to 'near doneness', the yolk wouldn't have time to get to a decent temperature.

What do you set the burner to?

Medium?

Ah yes! Found it. Thanks!

What on earth is a 'smooth' fried egg? I've never heard that term before, and I've been in catering all my life. And I've never heard of a fried egg being cooked in the way that you describe.

Post 12 describes the way I'd expect my chefs to cook fried eggs, known in the trade as 'pinked' because the top of the egg goes pink when it's properly cooked. The yolk remains runny, but you don't get any 'snot' left over the top, and the white is fully cooked.

Post recipe? Perhaps. But in terms of a place in the EG, I think you've made up the term 'smooth fried eggs' to lend your own way of cooking them an air of credibility.

Is this a one Entry hit wonder?

We don't know Opti - people are dragging their feet over getting this in the guide, so I wouldn't be surprised if Smokehammer didn't contribute anything else.

I don't see an issue with putting this in, but then again I'm not an egg expert. All I see is an interesting, well written entry that fills a gap in the guide.

yeah, I have to agree, its a Guide - not a professional cookbook - and as far as I can tell the article is clear and coherent, leading the reader to consider another variation on how to cook eggs.

It fills a 'gap in the Guide' that doesn't exist.

There is no such thing as a 'smooth fried egg', except in Smokehammer's writing. Cook a recipe a day from the BBC website and you'll be going for almost 40 years before you get to the end, and none mention a smooth fried egg. If I were to invent a new card game, right now, a game that I'd created myself and that nobody else had heard of, would that be EG-worthy? Of course not. Not until a small band of people started playing it as well and it became significant in its own right.

Let's be clear: this method of cooking eggs doesn't work very well, if at all well, and isn't used by anyone in the world apart from Smokehammer. I don't think that makes it any more significant to the wider world than an Entry about my uncle might be to anyone outside my immediate family.

But hey, it's up to you Scouts to decide that. I'm an outsider these days

The problem I have with this is that it's not really a Guide entry on fried eggs, more of a rant on how *not* to cook them, ie properly - an opinion that's not, so far, been shared by anyone commenting.

If it goes to the Flea market then someone can take it under their wing and turn it into an entry on the various ways of frying eggs as everybody seems to do them slightly differently.

Just my though.

mini

Some points in order:

"What on earth is a 'smooth' fried egg? I've never heard that term before, and I've been in catering all my life."

Self-evidently, it is a fried egg, the yolk of which is smooth, rather than frilly and/or crunchy. And you've never heard the term before because it was made up because the original title "Perfect Fried Eggs" was apparently too controversial. Do feel free to imagine it as "Non-frilly fried eggs", "Secret Fried Eggs", "Cool fried eggs", or whatever you like that will calm you down. If you'd read the backlog you'd see the reason for the title. You did read the backlog, right? It's not very long.

"in terms of a place in the EG, I think you've made up the term 'smooth fried eggs' to lend your own way of cooking them an air of credibility"

No, as I pointed out, a short (3 minute?) read of the backlog would reveal why the title changed. Nothing to do with credibility, everything to do with people making a huge fuss over something I couldn't care less about.

"Is this a one Entry hit wonder?"

*IF* it's a hit, then yes, as the author has been banned from posting any more or editing this entry further.

"I wouldn't be surprised if Smokehammer didn't contribute anything else."

Don't be, as the account has been prevented from posting anything further.

"All I see is an interesting, well written entry that fills a gap in the guide."

Thank you.

"It fills a 'gap in the Guide' that doesn't exist."

False. You DID read the backlog, right? Like... the first post? Here, let me help you if you can't be bothered:

"lots of eggs on the front page today, recipe for boiled and poached but not fried"

Specifically, on June 18th 2009 h2g2's front page had links to Edited Entries which were recipes for boiled eggs and poached eggs. A quick search showed that there is no Edited Entry giving any recipe for fried eggs, so I wrote one. And believe me, I'm really, really sorry I bothered.

"There is no such thing as a 'smooth fried egg', except in Smokehammer's writing."

You've REALLY got a problem with that title, haven't you? Look, I'm sorry it offended you, OK? Really I am.

"Cook a recipe a day from the BBC website and you'll be going for almost 40 years before you get to the end, and none mention a smooth fried egg."

Look, please, I'm really, really sorry I had the temerity to think of calling it something. I should have just called it "Fried Egg". No, actually, I should have just not written the entry at all. Sorry, sorry, sorry.

"Let's be clear: this method of cooking eggs doesn't work very well"

Eh? No, hang on. I know you're appalled and offended by this entry, and I'm really very, very sorry, honestly I am, and if I knew how I could apologise enough I would. But the fact is this method DOES work. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. And I'm sorry, again. Really.

" isn't used by anyone in the world apart from Smokehammer."

... and all the people who've read this book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mr-Jones-Rules-Modern-Man/dp/0340920858

... from which it is, ahem, "adapted". So you're wrong. Again. Sorry, sorry, sorry.

"I'm an outsider these days"

Gosh. I wonder why.



This entry is up for grabs. The author has been banned from posting to h2g2, so there's no way it can be edited further. There IS a gap in the guide for a way to cook fried eggs, and if there are going to be entries for boiled and poached (which there are), fried seems a strange omission, particularly in the light of the egg banjo entry.

I wonder why fewer people put things into Peer Review nowadays?

So if you've been banned, why are you posting here, "amphibiousFilibuster"? Making a new account and then giving yourself away in its very first post is terribly inelegant. Especially since you keep referring to Smokehammer as "I" in this...

Blimey! I don't think it's worth saying any more


I could make some terrible puns - on the lines of the clash of the eggos, but maybe not...

If we can get back to the content for a minute.

I thought this was interesting and well-written, but as I'm no eggspert in these matters [] I was interested to see what others thought.

Skankyrich doesn't recommend it for serving to hotel guests, but are there others who have tried this at home and enjoy it as much as the author? Even if there are, this would probably sit better in an entry on all the ways you can fry an egg.

Since the best this Entry can hope for now is to end up in Flea Market, I suppose whoever picks it up can pad it out with other, better methods.

When all is said and done I read the article out of interest, but thought it was a tedious way of cooking an egg. I never tried it as it seemed so time consuming, but it did provoke thoughts on how best to cook an egg. I agree that it would only be worth tagging onto an existing guide entry as an alternative method.


sorry if you thought the pun was directed at you Mala, it wasn't - it was for the author and his newly created alter ego.

Am I the only one who tried it out? I didn't like the result, but then everyone's taste in eggs is personal.

Wow.

I'm not going to respond to any of the personal stuff there, because PR is about reviewing Entries, not people. If you don't want people to review your writing, why submit it?

People are likely to disagree in PR. That's healthy. If we all agreed all the time, we'd have a dull Guide written by the same contributors who wrote on the same theme all the time, right? But my apologies for writing a review that you disagreed with. I realise now that I should have just dropped in a smiley and left it at that.

For the record, I tried this as you wrote it. I'm a caterer; I'm interested in new ideas. I produced a snotty-topped yolk sitting on top of a bubbly, over-cooked white that was crispy and brown on the bottom. So either you've described it very badly, or it doesn't work. You choose.

I still don't understand why the term 'smooth' fried egg has any significance. As I understand it, it's just an odd way of frying an egg that you've decided to call 'smooth', yes?

I hate quoting and requoting people, but when you say that I'm 'appalled and offended by this entry', you're wrong. It's a very good Guide Entry that might get people cooking their eggs in a different way. I just don't think it makes a very good *Edited* Guide Entry, partly because that status tends to be reserved for subjects that have a wider significance and a more comprehensive source than a book designed to be kept in the toilet.

You're right that there is a gap in the Edited Guide for an Entry on fried eggs. At a push, this could form part of a more-encompassing collaborative entry on fried eggs and how to cook them. On its own, in my view it shouldn't. In yours it should. That's why we have a Peer Review process and Scouts and Editors so that discussions like this don't end in petty name-calling. The decision is neither of ours, and if this gets in I will extend congratulations to you. But the name of the forum is 'Peer Review', and I'm afraid that means that occasionally someone who knows a bit about your subject matter might disagree with what you've written.