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

I'm glad to see that Lil used rather than . It's more syntactically correct. Personally, I use which is the smiley code for a non-existent smiley rather than a piece of GuideML.

I'm wondering just why she unsubscribed in the first place.

I'm changing my reviewing tactics as a result of this conversation. I also pictured a few researchers who submit sh*te articles to PR but Fizzy is not one of them.

I didn't read The Drawer, but I've never thought one of Fizzy's entries was substandard and I've also never felt that she was treated unfairly well by reviewers.

<>

For Gnomon: F10194422?thread=5475839

<I'm glad to see that Lil used rather than . It's more syntactically correct.>

Glad to hear that, Gnomon - here's the EG Entry on the topic: A21269207.

I shouldn't think that one would stand up to some of the recent criticism, though. I wrote it with The Post in mind, but decided to submit it to PR on the off-chance. Someone liked it enough to pick it. Editors read them too in those days. The Sub-editor polished it, and the Editors did their final checks before publishing it. If it gets that far, it's probably good enough. Anyone can ask the Curators to correct it, or can rewrite it and submit an update if they think it needs it. It's not sacred.

I love to write the Rough Guide type entries too, but they're on other days when the mood takes me. They're not sacred either.

Note: the alabaster skin still has the banner "On h2g2, YOU decide what goes into the Guide" at the top.

I wasn't around when that slogan was devised. What does it refer to? The writer's choice of subject, or the fact that anyone can review entries, or what?

It does in Classic Goo as well.

It seems to refer to the fact that everyone can review the entries and make suggestions as to what they think should be in them. But it brings home to me that there isn't one person who decides what is suitable as an entry.

If I wrote all the entries on h2g2, it would be such a dull place, because they would all be the same. We need a range of styles; we need the frivolous entries; we need the serious ones; we need the "Guide to Buying a Coffee in Durham" and the "History of the American Presidency".

Thanks for providing the link to the Peer Review conversation, GB. I've read the whole of it:

1. There was not much chat, considering.

2. There was plenty of relevant comment, in which people said they felt the entry was good and a useful addition to the Guide, a fact I would agree with.

So in this case Peer Review was working exactly as it should have been working.

Having a look at that conversation, I've noticed that it's Fizzy who c&p's FM's comments into the thread. Then as of post 53, the entry's out of PR and there's all sorts of chest thumping "fight the good fight" posts.

I don't see how that thread's really a PR issue to be honest, the criticisms of the entry are made outside of PR, and all the "rallying round the friend" is done after it's been removed.

You're welcome Gnomon
I hadn't read The Drawer, but I've now read the PR thread and had the Entry been vacuous I'm sure the first reviewer would have said so. He said it was good.


It's a mistake to single out one author. Psycorp, I could have gone the same way as Fizzy, if I'd taken your comments to heart, as it was I chose to duck and ride out the pain of what was in effect an error on your part (and I have no wish to make you feel bad, because you've ended up helping me).

There seems to be a pretty strong consensus here that I misread the tea-leaves.
I still think what I said was fair and valid, but I'm acknowledging the tide and so I won't be stirring any more on this subject

Pin

I've only now caught up with this thread.

When you say that Fizzy's peers failed her, you probably have a point.
If you say her entries became immune to criticism, I disagree.

It was not the criticism as such she complained about, but the tone in which it was made as well as the place - it wasn't fair on Alex, either, after all, it was *his* PR thread which was abused to condemn other people's entries.

I have to put up my hand for one of the persons who failed her:

she went me the entry *before* submitting it to PR, asking for my honest opinion. It was well written, a pleasure to read and a on a subject most people can relate to, so I told her to go ahead and submit it - which she did.

So if you want to blame somebody, it has to be me, not Fizzy who made it perfectly clear in her first post that she wasn't too sure about this.

We have often discussed our very different entries, with Fizzy saying that mine were better suited for the guide than hers, and I objecting to this. Here's why: go and look at the number of very different reviewers nearly all of her entries attracted, then compare to mine. There are people in her PR threads I've never seen in any of mine.
Look at the comments her entries got once they hit the FP. Again, comment with mine. There you have the answer to what people want to read about. If there are people like Fizzy, who can write them, we should be grateful.

Make 'she went me the entry' a 'sent' and make 'Again, comment with mine' 'compare'

Shall we all draw a line under this and move on?

---------------------------------------------------------------------