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

There's some discussion going on at F3719964?thread=6664756&skip=0&show=20 about the future of PeerReview.

I'd really like to get some feedback from those who rarely or never contribute to Peer Review. A quick look through the Peer Review list shows that most of the authors are old hands and new contributers are rare (although there are more than usual just now).

Some people just aren't into it - and that's absolutely fine - but if anyone has a specific reason why they haven't ever got involved, is there a particular reason why? As a community, we can't improve it unless we know where it's going wrong!

Were you put off by its reputation (extremely undeserved, in my experience) for being critical?

Do you find it difficult to understand the guidelines and how it all works?

Do you find it too restrictive in terms of what you can write about (eg. it must be factual)?

Do you lack ideas for subjects to write about?

Do you just lack the time (so perhaps contributing to a collaborative entry would be better than writing something solo)?

All opinions welcome!

Lack time and can't do GuideML.

I used to pop by fairly regularly to do the reviewing*, but that in itself takes a significant amount of time. And when I have dropped by and looked at the occasional entry that's caught my fancy, it's tended not to seem to be as "ready" as entries in PR used to be. But that could just be bad luck on my part.

I also worry that I might pick something and miss the fact that it's already in the Guide.

Mol

* Ever since there was a FP entry which garnered about a gazillion criticisms in a matter of hours, and the author asked plaintively "Where were you lot when this was in Peer Review?" And I thought: fair point (although I don't think I'd been doing any criticising)

I used to contribute to the EG and really enjoyed it but I don't any more. I think it's partly because there's so many other oppertunities to publish on the web. I'm trying to podcast now, and I blog as well.

I do feel that when I publish on H2 no one really reads it - it doesn't seem to come up in google searchs much.

Needs more cowbell.

"Lack time and can't do GuideML."

I can't help with the first one, but entries in PR don't actually need to be in Guide ML, they just need to be readable. The sub ed can add GuideML later.

Thanks for the responses, keep them coming!

Real life got in the way.

The entries (all five of them!) I've written were either things I was passionate about and the research was a pleasure, or flippant things that fell off the fingers and on to the keyboard with minimal effort.

PR's not a problem unless it tries to turn the latter into the former but that wasn't an issue in my case. I'm just too busy fighting the man at the moment!

Also, other parts of the internet are offering me more and taking more of my time. As I type this I'm DJing to a bunch of festival going mates via a festival forum's Shoutcast feed. I guess I've moved on.

I have to be in the mood.

Plus, I've been blogging more and more lately.

I count myself a rare contributor. I could write a lot more, but...

>>Were you put off by its reputation (extremely undeserved, in my experience) for being critical<<
No. But PR annoys me intensely. Critical is the wrong word. Cliquish is more like it.

>>Do you find it difficult to understand the guidelines and how it all works?<<
I did once. It was a disbelief thing. I didn't get the Guidelines, because having them made no sense, and still doesn't.

>>Do you find it too restrictive in terms of what you can write about (eg. it must be factual)?<<
Yes. Fully conforming Entries are boring to write and worse to read. Writing for the Edited Guide is either a trivial, worthless activity or else an exercise in rule-bending.

>>Do you lack ideas for subjects to write about?<<
No.

>>Do you just lack the time (so perhaps contributing to a collaborative entry would be better than writing something solo)?<<
I have time, but collaborative Entries are still fun. Variety is fun. And reading and writing go together, and collaboration brings them into fusion.

The main reason I don't contribute more to Peer Review is the same reason I don't play golf. I score best at golf when I half-swing and hit the ball as gently as possible. I get through PR easiest if I don't think too much, and just dash off lightweight, mainstream subjects.

I would rather be challenged in my writing and reading. You can find stimulating challenge elsewhere in h2g2, but the harder you try to find it in PR, the more petty opposition you'll meet.

Writers first. Readers a close second. Critics nowhere. Editors keeping them company.

I wish the Underguide had the same profile as the Edited Guide. That's where the imagination lies.

Actually, I'm not sure whether or not the Underguide still exists.

EDIT: why does < offtopic > display an anchor?

Its a toe pic, at an off angle, not an anchor.
Never relaly found the undergide...

I don't put much into PR as I don't write much, I don't write much because actually since when did we have an smiley? did I miss it... err yeh get distracted too easy and even when I start an entry I rarely finish it

It don't half look like an anchor. Really, it does. It's anchor shaped and anchor coloured and has the overall effect of being very much like an anchor.

Almost exactly like an anchor.

So much like an anchor I would wager that it is, in fact, an anchor.

What it has to do with topics being off is beyond me.

Mind you, I'm not sure what 'Off Topic' is. Even if I knew what 'Off Topic' was you'd never get me dragging something 'Off Topic'.

Certainly not with talk of anchors.

The anchor is to protect against topic drift, ie to anchor the conversation in place, it is supposed to be used to show when something is off topic whatever the topic of the conversation might be. It is one of the new smilys that we got for the tenth anniversairy.

mini

The <./>UnderGuide</.> does in fact still exist. Very much so. The archives are here: A2112490. Treat yourself.

Not to distract from Elentari's thread of course.

It doesn't work very well does it?



Ta for the link Jodan.

I've not been able to think of topics.
My personal life was very much in the way of thinking at all, but things are better (much!) now, so I can't really blame that any longer.
I spent a short while in PR, but it's addictive, and took so much of my online time...
I feel bad for not contributing much, I do, but I don't see myself changing much either.

(I don't think I've ever heard PR described as addictive)

Well, once I got in there, I found it hard to stop reading entries, reading comments and so on, and there was so much. Not that I did much useful commenting myself, of course. But it really took a lot of time, and was very interesting.

As above - I'm not convinced that anybody is reading anymore, and indeed what the long term purpose of the project might be - the span of the coverage of the EG is so bizarre, and its progress so slow...

I just write flippant stuff now. Nothing that feels like work.

sprout

I don't think I would write any more if more people were reading. Nor would I write any less if this was some sort of writers' workshop with no readers whatsoever. If you write for yourself, for the joy of writing, you'll not get burnt out, and your end products will ultimately be better.

That's what h2g2 does, it offers you an opportunity to write for yourself. It is, and should be, a selfish thing, not something you can claim on your taxes at the end of the year. I think we'd be a healthier site if nobody was claiming to write for Douglas Adams or for the purpose of contributing to 'the guide' (because of the presupposition that by contributing, you are moving it one step closer to completion, which is an absurd thought).