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

As I said earlier on, I sounded out the Eds about the book idea after I suggested it, even offering to fund the initial cost, and they've basically said it's not going to happen. Any BBC-branded merchandise has to be produced by the BBC, and it comes down to what they think is marketable. Unless the BBC marketing people think it will sell a large number of copies, they won't even think about it.

My Paris entries I'd like to see updated and written properly. I doubt they'd have got through PR...

As for a book and charity - some people may not want to support certain charities. I'd much rather anything I did go towards another charity and I may say no in the hope one of 'my' charities would come up later.

Sorry, but as it's never gonna happen anyway, I thought I'd say it.

Tap Tap. Attention please.

( Quick background: I started commenting in PR, was invited to become a scout & declined, saying I'd continue unofficially while not unwelcome. I am continuing - but... )

I've just voted.

Item
49/1 Allow unregistered, premoderated comments in Peer Review.

Guidance please, does this mean me?

---
To get rid of me will need a 2/3 majority vote from 12 of my peers!
---

It's referring to people who aren't hootoo members, to let them comment without needing to sign up to the site. I'm not sure why you think it's about you.

And it was a wrong interpretation of what I said, anyway. I meant allowing unregistered comments under *Entries in the Edited Guide*, so people finding them just so wouldn't have to register with h2g2 to comment - might help show whether we're being read.

That's OK then.

That post was my first feeling of uncertainty, about Anything. Ever. I might be getting Old.

and "I might be getting old" was my second. Ever. 'onest (that was a capital apostrophe, btw).

Sorry Skanky, I didn't know the book option had been explored.

I'd say treat it as just the first rejection. If the idea has merit; and obviously you believe it does, as do many others here, is there any mileage in pursuing this independently?

I'm afraid that was the avenue I pursued.

The idea, briefly, was that I'd set up a page for people to submit their ideas for what should be included in The Book, and just let the Community decide what went in it. We'd contact individual Researchers for permission to use their work in printed form ourselves. I would then sort out all the typesetting and final editing, refer it back to the Community for approval and tweaking, then pay for it to self-published. It would've been available on Amazon and other online booksellers, and the profits would've been donated to Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund and Save the Rhino - as DNA's favourite charities, I think there would've been no debate in that.

All I needed, in effect, was permission to use the h2g2 name and the Entries on the site. The answer was a very polite and grateful, but very, very firm, 'no'.

You may not be able to use the h2g2 name, but the copyright on the entries is *non-exclusive*, so they can still be published...

Hats off to you then Skanky. I might have been here for getting on 3 years, but I'm still a newbie.

As I understand it, both the Beeb & the Researcher can do as they please with Entries. They may hold rights to H2G2, but HooToo is pretty well known. You're right about the charities too.

What about DNA's publisher?

Wasn't a lot of the idea to use it to boost the profile of h2g2, though? If you have to hide all the connections between the book and the site, the idea loses a lot of its point.

KB is absolutely right. If it doesn't boost the site, I don't see what the purpose of it would be. It would be very straightforward for any of us to self-publish a collection of our writings, or put together some kind of anthology, but unless it was a h2g2 book in name as well as spirit I'm not sure I'd be interested.

Hmmm. If we put it together - at least the entries and an introduction - and then present them with the finished thing to approve? Maybe they're just afraid it won't be done right, so when they see that it is, they can still put their name on it...

Though that would mean the profits going to the BBC

Any BBC-branded product has to be put together in-house, and the only way that happens is if the marketing people think it's a good idea.

I thought about this long and hard over the weekend before last, and wrote the ML for a page to be our base, with a few initial suggestions for discussion and everything. I even sought out some self-publishing sites and decided which we'd go with. You know how enthusiastic I am about new ideas - if I thought there was a glimmer of hope in it, I'd still be trying to push it. It's an absolutely brilliant idea, no mistake, but it isn't going to happen with h2g2's name on it.

Catch 22:
The BBC is prepared to let h2g2 decline by starving it of resources and publicity.
The BBC is not prepared to let those who care about h2g2 try something to revive it.

All because the BBC has some pretty defensive notions about its reputation.

(Maybe we should all post them a few reminders of their real reputation. What shall we chant? Gilligan? Socks the Kitten? Robert Peston?)

Saddened to hear that Skanky. No point in trying to second-guess you, I'm sure you exhausted all avenues.

Pin is quite right. I think on a small-scale, we can guide h2g2 in the way that we want, partly because the various volunteer groups are largely autonomous and there is a lot of good will out there, as these conversations have shown. The Scouts can shape PR as they see fit if they have the will to do so; the Aviators have a separate website, the Photographers are very well-organised, and both just have their work checked over by the Eds; the Post and, as far as I'm aware of its workings, the UnderGuide run without any editorial guidance at all.

It's when we step outside that that we encounter problems. You want a bit of Javascript to embed AV into Entries? A relaxing of the metatag rules? Or to put your writings into a book? Ah, now someone else needs to get involved...

When it comes to dealing with the wider BBC, it feels like we're amateur dramatics who want to put on a play in the Albert Hall. It doesn't matter if we're good enough, or can take care of every detail ourselves, or are even prepared to pay for it, it's still the Albert Hall, and we're not getting in.

I find that incredibly frustrating, because, given a freer reign, we could improve this place immensely.

I remember a few years ago Woodpigeon and I had a long discussion and we worked out a way of improving h2g2's image by making it show up much higher on Google's searches. We got it down to one minor change to the site, and went cap in hand to Jim Lynne, who made the change on the spot. For about 6 months afterwards h2g2 appeared in first in most searches when it had the information available. The Eds' response was "we don't know what you were talking about but it's great!".

Sadly, the ubiquity of Wiki caught up and h2g2 slipped back down the pages.