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

This seems quite important, so I'm going to post a link here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/08/mots_putting_h2g2_though_its_p.html

I'm not sure what to make of Seetha's blog. I know the BBC has to review what it does and make sure its website is standards-compliant and so on, but she uses some alarming words and phrases - in other blogs, she talks enthusiastically about 'mothballing' sites and says things like 'Free up your content for consumers to take away', which I don't understand at all.

It's probably worth having a read of the blog and commenting below; from the look of her previous blogs, they don't attract much in the way of comment, and a good amount of feedback is more likely to make her take notice. I don't think it's about 'survival' at this stage, as this sort of review generally finished with a timescale for essential improvements, but it may be worth getting a message across while the spotlight is on us.

Yes, it's a bit of a mystery. At first, I completely missed this bit:

>>regular editorial review of every significant component of BBC Online.<<

So now, we are 'significant'?

Lovely last line in your blog comment there, Rich!

"Hmm..." I was going to post, Rich, but the BBC's login thing wasn't working, which gave me time to read most of it, and I'm glad I did. Surely the most positive thing is that so many people care about it.

I'm still a little worried what this means though? This feels a little like Doctor Who in the late 80's. Being made on a shoe string, a few cans of beans it was still being made, getting no service from the BBC. And yet still loved. A little like h2g2 is now.

I'm not sure what to add yet, though I feel obliged to write something. I'll have a think...

Incidently I also think the diamond comment is genius

Or Buckyballs! We're more like Buckyballs!

Yeah, I was a little smug about that one, Mal and Terran

Are we 'significant'? How do you interpret 'significant'? A significant use of server space? A significant financial drain? A significant contribution to BBC Online? A significant presence in the wider web? A significant source of hits to the BBC website? Who knows?

It may be that we're a testbed for a new idea - it wouldn't be the first time, eh? Take a look at h2g2 and see how it's getting on, and adjust the process accordingly. It's a backwater anyway, right?

But I don't think it's that bad, and I don't think we're fighting for our lives. Not yet, anyway. I think h2g2 will get a list of improvements it needs to make to get up to Seetha's 'Ten Publishing Principles' standard, and no resources to implement them. I think our long-term future will depend on Natalie and Sam's work over the next three years, and on how much support the rest of us are able to give them.

And I remain convinced that with a technical volunteers' group, which I've been proposing for the last three or four years now, we could develop the site and start to get stuff working again.

There are bound to be cynics reading this, to whom I'd say: what if we *did* make a difference? What about if, more than keeping the site just alive, we got some investment here? What if the weight of passionate numbers convinced Seetha to let us have a third Italic, or a full-time technical member of staff? What if this is a moment where we can't just ensure the survival of the site, but actually take it to the next level? Isn't this as much of an opportunity as it is review?

Take ten minutes to compose something considered and thoughtful. It would be the best ten minutes you've ever spent on h2g2.

Right, I've added my "bit". I hope its okay. Perhaps not the most cerebral piece, but it was from the heart. Oh well its done now.

For some reason I had to create a new account. But it wouldn't take a genius to figure out who I am. lol

I am composing a thoughtful comment which does not involve "dump this site & i will personally come over & grab painful places."

By the way, Skanky, i am considering doing regular feature for again, can you email me direct (or on gmail chat) so we can discuss it?

*stomps off to look at the link again*

zdt

I should probably go back at some point when my brain's not mush and write something a *little* more cogent... Then again, that could be months or years from now

Terran, I was moved by your post. I thought it was really good.

And so long as we are not soot...

Another for the last line of your post Rich, I thought it was brilliant.

Terran, yours was wonderful too.

Hi peeps,

Some great constructive comments on the blog.

As I have a general hatred of such management assessment audit things like this with such rigorous frameworks I have not addressed the main questions put in the blog. I am certainly not going to implicitily say this in the blog, though I did allude to it - it's great they have opened up the dialogue with us. Hence excuse me if rant a bit here.

It does worry me that it seems the technology is more important than content these days...hey, look at what we can do!!! we can stream loads of media, up-load reader content, have maps to show where Have Your Say contributors live(no you don't you have a map where the person has clicked on it randomly to get rid of it).

The current way in which films and TV progammes are filmed is a case in point. Flashy fast cuts, whip pans, out of focus in to focus stuff, close-ups on peoples nose folicles in interviews, food programmes where you can only see a square inch of the food and mostly out of focus.

You shouldn't be able to see the 'tools' unless they become an issue *cough* search engine *cough*.

When people start maoning about camera work it means the programme makers have lost the subject matter on the programme fails but it;s not going to change because it has been said on 'Points Of View' that they need to show a 'narrative' or whatever it was. The programme makers didn't listen and thus it means the viewer is of secondary importance to the programme makers having fun and waving their creative genitalia at us and showing how much fun they are having.

(rant over there)

Hence, I do hope that they are not going to turn everything into a technological showcase and move the content lower down the ranks of requirements.

It happened with the Radio 4 website revamp. I rarely use the site these days, I know other people rarely use the site because it has become a style over content issue.

Obviously, it's slightly different as *we* create the content on Hootoo. BUT as we have seen, it does not fit a straight demographic target.

If we were a weapon we would be a carpet bomb not a cruise missile. We sometimes miss our true target even if we do have loads of goes but we'll normally hit something interesting even if we didn't know it in the first place.

"Terran, I was moved by your post. I thought it was really good."

Thankyou Ben and HonestIago I'm just impressed by the support its getting. If I was being rediculously overly-optimistic I would see this as an opportunity for the BBC to see h2g2 for what it truely is, and then put lots of effort in to making it the site we know it can be. However, assuming this is not about closing h2g2, I'd settle for getting the search engine fixed! I think just about everyone has mentioned that!

From 3Dots : "BUT as we have seen, it does not fit a straight demographic target."

Absolutely, but unfortunately I don't think that language translates very well into management speak. I agree with you, though I tried to put some stuff in the questions they were asking, simply because its probably easier for them to understand if its broken up in that way. Even if my answers weren't exactly business-like! lol

I fear they may be embedding BBC online values in to the h2g2 value stream so that, going forward, there will be an uplift in the baseline user experience and possibly an upskilling output as we consider our position on the new HooToo journey.

There's probably some blue sky thinking in there too.

Well, just like with the discussions we had a few years ago that Mrs Ben Zen put together in the H2G2 in internetland posts. H2G2 is bloody brilliant...the problem is it's such a complex entity that a management speek appraisal won't do justice to it...unless Seetha can see past the techno stuff she's having to champion.

The job will have a remit. If the job includes stream-lining on-line content then she will have to decide what stays and what goes. I believe 'moth-balling' has been mentioned.

If Seetha does read this, it is not a slight on her or her character, merely what business is and we know the BBC is under pressure to slim down in places.

However, when one looks at things that have 'survived' for 10years as BBC output: Eastenders, Casualty etc. They are in essence disposable output. Seen a few times and gone.

H2G2 has a true legacy. It is possible to go back years and resurrect old threads and jump-start them again. Edited entries get updated. Though not as much as they could do sometimes due to lack of manpower.

Dr Who was well loved and disappeared due to certain people/a person not liking it. It has now risen Pheonix-like from the ashes. Let's hope H2G2 doesn't have to die to make it even better. It just needs a bit more input from the BBC. However, judging by the reduction in the budget of 'Top Gear' which, yes, a lot of people do not like, but is a major world-wide cash cow then what hope is there for a bigger budget for H2G2...unless Seetha has that remit since the vision of the BBC seems to be moving towards interactive on-line presence because 'we' have the capability of being a major on-line presence.

We were the QI of the internet before John Lloyd had the idea for QI in The Falkland Arms at Great Tew in Oxfordshire (I've been there...I've met Rowland Rivron there...it epitomises perfection in the village pub) QI has an amazing following, we could have the same as we are QI and so much more. We epitomise what is great in on-line communities.

You can take our bandwidth but you can never take our freedom!!!!

Br Roymondo..look if you can't say anything sensible in the survival of H2G2 at least get a gay gag in there somewhere...all that management bull was far too hetrosexual.

You are part of our diversity quotient. Obviously 2legs would be if he wasn't to blame for so much on this site.

Do you think we get extra marks for having so many poofters on the site. Heck, we've got a bisexual bipolar member...big scrumptious little Effers.



Actually, I think Effers is a great example of people changing. From her getting banned a while ago to how she integrates now is testament to how we treat people and how people change. Obviously, with being (openly) bipolar there are mitigating circumstances in how she acted but the way everyone has supported her is brilliant even if some people do wind her up still but 'we' can see when that's happening and so can she.

I flounced off site for a few months because Ed the Bonobo was being a total @rse towards me. Effers got me back. I still talk to Ed and appreciate his views especially since he's not quite the (_!_) he was but that's the great thing about the place. We do wind each other up but we still (on the whole) respect each other and for whatever reasons we disagree on things we would support to a 'man' someone in trouble even if they have been a bit of a troll at times. To an extent we separate on-line actions from real life people and we are that open that we would support anyone even if our world views disagreed.

There's a PhD somewhere in this site in the interactions and views of people.

I think the most openly generous episode was when our erstwhile combatative researcher Della announced she had found a bloke, many of us including her nemesis Hoov/SoRB congratulated her...and it was an honestly truthful statement which was wonderful even though 'we' disagreed with most of her world view...the fact that they got each other banned from the site a few years later is a moot point and personally I think SoRB sacrificed himself for the good of the site as it was getting self-destructive even after me saying all the 'inclusive' stuff.

I recently found a post that I made towards the editors pointing out the corrosive nature of a certain point of animosity and whether they cared about the site as much as we did since nothing was happening.

To an extent I feel bad about the post but a) the situation was resolved by a ban and b) I do think the italics love and appreciate the site.

I do hope Natalie et al realise that we appreciate what they do and a lot of the time it's a case of don't shoot the messenger when BBC edicts are passed down.

Obviously, I think some of their decisions on hiding some posts goes beyond the pail but as they give us more leeway than all other forums I am willing to accept that sometimes I want to give them a good slap when they hide a well though-out post that they think 'breaks the rules'.

We do give them a hard time but we love them. And I think it shows the dedication of all of us that we fight and speak out which is the strength of the site.

I finally managed to post to the site; it's probably incoherent & doesn't express my total horror of h2g2 maybe being shut down....but that's the point of the site; we all express ourselves differently, debate & discussion does not mean warfare!

Who was it who said " I disagree totally with what you are saying, but i will defend to the death your right to say it"

*wanders off to Google it, cos unless an individual Researcher happens to know, i certainly can't find it on "Search"!!!!*

By the way, this weekend is Tobercurry Traditional Fair week, bet your life that's not on Wiki, bet your life i could write a Guide Entry; but what's the point if the site gets shut down?

zdt

I just searched for this thread, carefully using the exact title of subject, this was the result:

*Search h2g2

Life - Food & Drink, Human Behaviour, Humour, Music, Sports & Recreation ...

The Universe - Oceania, Asia, Africa, North America, Europe, Travel, Transport ...

Everything - Languages, Science & Technology, History & Politics, Mythology & Folklore, All About h2g2 ...






No Results Found

We're sorry, but your search for 'h2g2s 'MOT'' didn't find any results in any DNA sites. You might like to check the spelling of your search term, or you could try searching the whole of bbc.co.uk using the search box in the tool bar above.



Search the Guide

Enter the words or phrases to search for:
Search in
Edited Entries
Recommended Guide Entries
Guide Entries
Or you can search the alphabetical index of all Guide Entries:
* A B C D E F G H I J K L M
N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z





Search the Conversation Forums

Search for:





Search for a Friend

Search for:







*Nuff said!

zdt