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

Following on from the Quality in Peer Review thread, I suggested that we each suggest some actions which we can take as a result of that discussion - to keep the momentum going.

Here's a link to the earlier discussion: F3719964?thread=5482356

Post 99 explains the rationale behind this thread.


Two ground rules:

1) Make your suggestions clear actions, rather than vague ideas or wishes.

2) Be non-judgmental at this stage. If you don't agree with another's suggestion, then please don't say so here (there'll be the opportunity to do that later on), but please suggest an alternative.

So, please enter your suggestions below:

Icy

I know I've come across unedited entries, often by elvised researchers, that would be a great edition to the guide with a little extra work on them. If there was a way of finding some and doing that, it would be worthwhile.

Pro-active Scouts - do the job or quit.

Post that you've "read" an Entry, even if you have no comment to make, the smiley would do

Might be a bit far-fetched, but I can think of a few technical changes that might make PR easier.

1) Some kind of a "last edited" counter on the entry right in PR, not just the "last posted" for the thread, so you can tell whether the author has been actively taking suggestions on board at a glance.

2) Perhaps even a "track changes" functionality like you get in word processors, so you don't have to copy every change you make to PR, and people joining in the discussion later can see what the earlier posts were about. No idea how this could be implemented technically - perhaps just using the strikethrough - but it could be a great help.

3) Encouraging those shying away from using Guide ML to use the buttons in the edit window until they learn the ropes - and *making sure the buttons work in a variety of browsers* - at the moment I can only use them in IE, neither Firefox nor Opera will work properly. Opera also has a cache problem, and inserts the tags at the end of the writing rather than where the cursor is, like it does with smileys, but that probably can't be fixed here.

4) Some sort of built-in find & replace or just automated conversion of special characters into the relevant codes would be really helpful.



That would probably free up more time for talking about content rather than technical stuff, and prevent Researchers from being frustrated because nobody comments on their entries because nobody was aware there were changes, as apparently happened with A31321720 and A31320965. At the very least, we should be encouraging people to report that they've made changes - at present, many newbies expect everyone to just notice, and I for one don't re-read entries I've read once unless I know that something's been edited.

I think it's time to do away with Scout deadlines and 'minimum' picks.

OK, so we never reinforced them rigidly, but with PR currently down to a dot and a half, it's silly to have any sort of pressure on the Scouts. Let them use their skills to make better Entries in the first place. And vote on EoTM, of course.

B

(Just as an aside - EotM really makes you appreciate hootooers. Because everyone seems to be voting on the entries by merit rather than turning it into a popularity contest. )

The key word being 'everybody'. I'm of the view we should be getting closer to 100 votes per month than 20. Spread the good word, people!

(Sorry for getting off-topic)

B

New talent, new talent, new talent.

Whether that's by advertising h2g2, or just seeing why current "Researchers" aren't involved with the EG, there's no way that an ever-dwindling number of the same faces can keep Peer Review working.

New talent aside, how about some of the older Researchers start contributing more - how to we get the old timers back and interested again?

Every author is different, and they're each motivated by different things. Some need ideas, some need a challenge, some want to work with other authors, and some just want to be recognised and admired. So we need a range of initiatives to catch as many of them as possible. My suggestions to get more writers into PR are:


Promote the Challenge h2g2 forum both internally and on the Front Page.

Identify the gaps in the Edited Guide. Ask for volunteers, then allocate each a range of h2g2 categories (C-numbers) to sift through. Collate obvious gaps, then promote this via a new "Fill the Gaps" forum.


Revive the "First Solo Entries" column in the Post (A10310941)


Either revive/promote the Collaborative Workshop, or have a new "h2g2 Collaborators" or "Writers Lounge" -type forum to suggest and plan new collaborative entries. (There's an interesting related conversation towards the end of F57152?thread=630016). This is the way many new writers got started in the past.

Alternatively, can we revive the Collaborative Topic of the Week A587108 ? (Although it could be the Collaborative Topic of the Month to start with)


Continue to recognise the sterling work and achievements of the h2g2 Researchers Group, with a mention on the Front Page, and a longer article in The Post.


We have a huge number of talented and knowledgable people who contribute to other BBC messageboards. I wonder how many of them know that h2g2 even exists? I'd like us to tap into that talent by 1) Asking the other messageboard hosts to mention h2g2, and 2) Directing the newcomers to a special welcome page which explains h2g2 for existing BBC messageboard users.


Icy

"Identify the gaps in the Edited Guide. Ask for volunteers, then allocate each a range of h2g2 categories (C-numbers) to sift through. Collate obvious gaps, then promote this via a new "Fill the Gaps" forum."

That's a great idea. I'd be willing to help with that.

**because nobody was aware there were changes, as apparently happened with A31321720 and A31320965**.

Not sure why these have been quoted in the context they have. I added them to the list in the other thread not because they hadn't been worked on or changed but because the author has left H2. Therefore they either need to go to the flea market or back to entry.

This is one of the reasons I gave up scouting to be honest. Its a no win situation where you can't do right for doing wrong. When I did the role and produced lists like this I got negative comments about doing it. I thought that was the role of the scout, not just to 'police' PR but to clear out the dross.

As for picking 3 a month, surely scouts can use their initiative, if there's plenty to pick from fine, if not pick what is available whether that be 1 or 3, if there's an abundance then, as I did on occasion, pick an extra 1 or 2. The 3 a month is a guideline surely? It's not written in stone.

ST.

Rather than a collaborative entry of the week or month, allow writers who are working on collaborative entries to have them put up on the front page. So instead of the editors coming up with a topic which someone will either pull together into an entry or not, someone who is already working on an entry can get collaborative help by posting the entry on the front page.

I mentioned those particular entries as the author apparently left the site because he was frustrated at the lack of comment on those entries.

Thanks guys - keep them coming...

I'll give this thread a day or two, then I'll start to collate the suggestions and we'll see if there's a consensus on them.

I'm all for stuffing gaps - for example, we have entries on Islam, Christianity, and even Shikism, but not on Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism or Judaism.

My suggestion: forget Douglas Adams ever lived. Let him rest in peace, along with the attempts to recreate the philosophical interludes from the HitchHiker novels, the lame attempts at humour, the attempt to create a little fantasy world full of hampsters and badgers.

Get real, get opinionated and provocative, and get out more often. Rediscover h2g2's 'distinctive voice' by doing something that no other site does; writing about the real world, what goes on in it, and how to get involved from a personal perspective. Develop h2g2 as a means to the desirable end of engagement with real issues, events and experiences, rather than as an end in itself. Always underestimate your audience's knowledge, never underestimate their intelligence.

And while we're at it, ditch the first person rule in the writing guidelines.

"Always underestimate your audience's knowledge, never underestimate their intelligence."

That should be rule one on the writing guidelines.

I don't agree at all about the third person rule though. I don't see what dropping it would add to the Guide, whereas keeping it at least prevents long rambling "I think/I saw/I feel/I just want to say..." rants.

Comments in PR to be kept on the subject in hand, that is that author, that Entry. Nothing about any other article currently in PR and please, no cat-calling other authors.

Er, no. If I hadn't made my comments in PR we wouldn't be having this debate. I just thought that the particular entry I was criticising belied a wider malaise. It was impossible to comment on one and not comment on the other.

It's the people who get up and complain that are the ones that actually change the status quo. h2g2 is in trouble. It's been in trouble for a while. It started getting into trouble when it became far too satisfied with itself. I ahven't seen anything yet to change my mind, apart from the odd glimpse.