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

Please! Somebody! Anybody!

After you've completed an entry go to your Home Page. Your entry should be listed with an 'edit' link. Go to this link and Page Down. You should find a reference to Submitting Entries. Hit the 'Submit' button. Simple.

*shakes head*
Not anymore

Obviously "Not any more...", but previously it was rather hard to tell. Just trying to be helpful (not that I ever get offered any HobNobs for my efforts...). Now, obviously, the way to do it is to post your Entry and then start a conversation on the Peer Review Page.

Which I think is entirely silly.

Obviously true too... Peer Reviewing is too open to:

(a) politics (getting friends to say nice things and saying bad things about folk you don't like)
(b) cheating (saying nice things with alternative logins)
(c) back-biting (saying bad things about articles by people who said bad things about your last effort - even if it was pizzle poor)

However, that's the way it is. Who are we to say otherwise?!

The right people.
you are right.
go say it in Feedback!

I seem to remember replying to a similar complaint in the feedback forum. Pity you're so keen to spread your negativity so wide before the scheme has even had a chance to take off...

I'm had no intention to spread negativity without some basis in fact. Within my place of work an almost identical system has been introduced to filter new ideas into projects and precisely the situation described has arisen. However, I apologise if voicing the negative side without providing positive suggestions for improvement. I'll see what comes out of my current situation that might be applied here to ensure things run smoothly.

*hangs head*
Sowwy Mark.

Wahey, our critical views made the post !

http://www.h2g2.com/A410752

In defense of the new Peer Review scheme, it should be said - no doubt it already has been somewhere - that a great deal of time has been wasted dealing with submissions that clearly have no place in a Editor's in-tray. I'm referring to the countless repetitions of "42", Entries with no text at all (more times than you'd think), and textual belches. In short, a lot of the stuff that we have had to sift through is simply a waste of time and effort. There are a number of Researchers who have nothing to say, but feel compelled to say it anyway; which is a shame, because whatever rubbish they submit has been placed in the same pile as the the gems that eventually do make it to the front page. On the other hand, there are very many Entries that have been written and submitted in good faith, which, in one way or another, fall short of the mark and are rejected. The new way of doing business, as I see it, goes some way to solve these problems by removing time-wasters from the loop, and giving those Researchers who are genuinely concerned with writing something of interest a last chance to fine tune their work before it is edited; thus improving their chance of acceptance and reducing the workload of the Sub-Editors. As for the concerns about politics and favouritism... well, ultimately the final decision still rests with the people who have been producing the Guide all along; and, I think you'll agree, they have so far shown themselves to be fair. In any event, the Peer Review page is accessible to everyone; so we can all watch out for each other. Hurray!

JTG