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

Specific ref : post 5 in A30188892 - Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliaphobia

I've been dismayed by some harsh-sounding critiques by scouts. I know it's not deliberate, but...

There was one newbie a couple of days ago who seemed to be asking for help with (her?) lack of confidence. I don't know what happened in the end (I've lost the thread!), but if I'd received that sort of abrupt commands in my early days I wouldn't be here now.

Could you keep a rather softer approach to unsuitable entries (especially to newbies) and copy/paste when appropriate?

"Hello, *, you are welcome ... This entry isn't, however, suitable for 'Peer Review' in its present form. Perhaps you'd like to move it to the ** forum?. You do it like this: ***. Or, I'll do it for you if you have problems"

RtB

Hmm.

I've just caught the 'other' moofish entry... and remove my objection - to this one - with apologies.

In general, though, I stand.

Hi rodthebrit,
I'll pass on further comment over this particular case with moofish. A look at his/her ps will show a somewhat unfortunate habit of this behaviour. I would however take this opportunity to point out that in general I and from what I've seen recently, other Scouts do tend to welcome newbies before explaing what PR is about and suggest various courses of action that they can take with whatever they've posted in PR. I even go to the Aces homepage and leave message in order for Aces to welcome the newbies.

One thing I did find out which I wasn't aware of till last night, and something I have noted for future reference is that it seems we are now prepared to help others write articles, virtually from scratch, in PR rather than have them moved to the EGWW or elsewhere.

I personally don't think that's a good idea, I don't think PR should be used to write articles, it should be more to correct, flesh out certain parts and to generally comment on an article overall. However, as it does appear to be the concensus to assist writing complete articles then I'll obviously go along with that for the time being.

Speaking for myself, I only ask an author to remove an article if it's obviously totally un-suitable to be in PR or as in this latest case, an attempt at spamming and blank refusal to co-operate.

ST.

BTW, just out of interest, in reference to the specific link and post you mention, post 5, where in that is there any 'harsh critique'? All that was done, in a reasonable 'tone' was to point out a duplicate was in PR and there was no need for there to be such a duplicate. In fact the researcher in question is treading on thin ice in terms of spamming IMO. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F48874?thread=4889689&latest=1 Post 7 is what I would deem formal, to the point, even blunt, but only after the researcher declared, in no uncertain and rude terms that he/she was not going to co-operate with any suggestions. ST.

*In fact the researcher in question is treading on thin ice in terms of spamming IMO*.

Just to clarify, by researcher I mean in this case, the Author rather than the Ace/Scout who commented.


ST.

<>

ST, I'm sure that's incorrect - it's not the Scouts job to do this in PR. Let me know where you heard this, please?

I told him that Annie.. It was something that was being discussed, somewhere..

I will try to find the links for you

Thank you for your replies.

Moofish - once I'd seen the second post, I removed my criticism on that point - with apologies for it. Do what you will, with my blessing!


If you're expected to help write articles 'virtually from scratch' I fancy there may be fewer of you, soon (that could be a nail in our coffin?)


My criticism remains, re newbies. I shall try to find the specific instance, though there have been others where I felt requests for removal were overly terse.

Scouts are volunteers. It's the Scout's job to review submitted articles (as well as anyone else who happens by PR) and choose suitable entries for the EG. If we don't feel up to this then we have the option to resign. Nowhere have I seen that it's expected of Scouts to rewrite other author's articles or write articles 'virtually from scratch' for authors submitting unfinished entries to PR. Any Researcher is free to help any author, but it should take place elsewhere, whether on the author's PS or the EGWW is up to them.

I am also an ACE and keep an eye out for newbies, but I don't read every thread, I just don't have time. If you think a Scout has been rude then please report this behaviour, either here or direct to the Eds, because we are bound by the <./>Scouts-Code</.>

No, it's certainly not expected for a scout to help an author write an entry from scratch. That would be above and beyond the normal expectations. If a scout wants to do that, then that should be respected, but we obviously should not expect a scout to do something like that.

The problem I have with being abrupt with new, uncooperative researchers is that people who *do* take the time to read PR and get a feel for it before submitting entries will see threads like that and think that PR is an angry place. It doesn't matter if the newbie has a pattern of behavior or has spammed, I think we should always try to keep our cool and be helpful and patient, even if the researcher in question does not deserve it and will probably not benefit from it. In the case of the above entry, I don't think that moofish will ever become a valuable and contributing member of the community (maybe though) but if we're rude to him publicly, it turns off people who lurk in Peer Review (which is more than a few folks, especially in threads like that where there are lots of posts and talking). My point is, the scouts could at least pretend to be helpful for the sake of the image of PR. It's not really difficult.

Lets get something straight here, I was NOT rude, I was NOT aggressive, quite the reverse, Moofish was the rude one, the aggressive one and frankly I am getting thoroughly p**sed off with so called old hands having a go at people like me just because they don't like new fresh blood doing what they think is their job and doing it in a way that doesn't fit there idea of what hootoo is all about.Well, tough, unless the Editors tell me I'm doing something wrong in how I work in PR then as far as I'm concerned I will conntinue to do what I see fit in accordance with existing rules and guidelines and if you old hands don't like it, then do the honourable thing and clear off and leave the site full stop. Having a go at me or anyone else, starting numerous threads all over Hootoo, demanding changes to suit your own needs and wants with no regard to anyone else will get you nowhere other than into yet another full blown row and I frankly am fed up to the back teeth listening to the same old record demanding changes, demanding new volunteers do things as they were done in the year dot just because it doesn't suit a few old hands.
If you think I did wrong in PR, have the b*lls to yikes my stuff and let the eds decide, otherwise keep away, keep your gob shut and let me and others, who are doing a great job overall, to get on and do what we do.

ST.

*dives under the Matt, away from the flak*


Whoa ST!.. Calm down. Jordan is right.. Through the eyes of a newbie looking into PR, it would appear that we are being rude and nasty to another newbie.

Unfortunately, we are always going to come across youngsters (or even idiots) who will dig their heels in and spam Entries around PR. Then it is time to back away, ignore, let the Eds delete - at worse, hit the yikes button!

There is no point in arguing among ourselves over these things. Especially when we agree, but from differing points of view!..


lil xx

No he's not, he's just peeved, along with his cronies, at the thought of someone sticking to existing guidelines that he thinks are rubbish and want changing to suit him. I did everything by the book and within the rules in that PR thread. I've just spent the last 4 hours or so going right back in PR and frankly what I posted to Moofish was nothing compared to some of the comments posted by others I've read and I am fed up being targeted by these so called old hands who think they're always right and everyone else is wrong.
If anyone thinks I've done wrong then follow the rules, yikes my posts and lets have an editorial decision on it, I'm not taking anymore cr@p from him or his cronies.


ST.

Okay..

I'm backing off..


lil xx

Oi !



I started this & I'm not one of you.

Moofish wasn't my point

I no longer have a point



'bye

Caught me ST, my asking scouts to be helpful and understanding to all new users is just a front for advancing my radical guideline-destroying, islamofascist, kitten-hating agenda. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids and your dog too!

Give me a break... jeez.

ST, hon, please take this into the scouts forum

Just came across this thread and felt compelled to participate.

I'm not a newbie by any stretch of the imagination, either at H2 or as a writer. As a writer, pro & semi-pro, I'm accustomed to accepting criticism and altering work where appropriate.But, I have to ask, what IS this:

"An Entry on the reign of Elizabeth I describing the Armada should mention Drake first among the sailors. Right?

If you disagree with that, you are being too clever by half."

Prior to that, from the same scout, was this:

"Raleigh? Armada? It should be Drake of course[re. Entry on Elizabeth I].

This needs some careful checking, not just at the level of spelling/grammar/sentence completeness, but also at the level of what you're trying to say"

I haven't come across this behaviour before and , in your own words, "if I'd received that sort of abrupt commands in my early days I wouldn't be here now."

Thanks

Well, you have to decide for yourself whether the criticism is justified or correct. When I decide that a critic is wrong, I tend to either ask for clarification or ignore them. If you think Pinniped is incorrect here (as he might be, I haven't read the entry, but I do respect Pin's instincts in this regard) then you should just not change your entry and move on.

In my opinion though, the lack of real, solid criticism in PR (asking a writer what he's trying to say, rather than just pointing out misspellings) is a bigger problem than upsetting a writer with abruptness.

I don't think that that is an example of bad behavior though. Maybe a bit repetitive. As a professional writer, I would be *shocked* if you had not come across less forgiving criticism.

I don't want to carp on about this but it seems to me, in my instance at least, that the initial criticism sprang from (perhaps inadvertent) ignorance of the basic facts then continued on merely through injured pride. This is, of course, understandable but it certainly is not a good looker to those on the outside.