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

OK, so how should we go about it?

When I joined the site, my first contribution was to a piece about 'driving etiquette' which spoke to the odd habits of motorists in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

And I was totally chuffed when it was folded into a *huge* Edited Entry on the topic.

That was all it took - no rewards, not special badges, not even a personally signed note from Douglas...

I think that perhaps we've got a disconnect in the ways many of the ACEs greet newbies, sending them to some community pages and talking about how to make smileys.

Just a few lines like:
'The idea behind h2g2 is to contribute some material to the Edited Guide. Mostly, I write about my home state of Pennsylvania and contributing my 'unconventional knowledge' about my local area is exactly what Douglas envisioned all of us doing. Why don't you give it a try and see what you can contribute?

Or if adding to the Guide isn't your cup of tea, why not help out at Peer Review. It's surprisingly easy!'

At least that's what I include in my greetings (more or less).

I know we don't like to tell ACEs *how* to do their jobs, but perhaps we could *ask* them to try and steer newbies toward contributing?

Virtual tea parties and campaigns to rename Thursday are fun, but is it enough?

I dunno, just my for what it's worth...


- Jimi X

Would it be possible for Aces to mention the Writing Workshop, too? That could always do with more traffic!



Anna

From my point of view, this is something I would be really keen on, because the Edited Guide is at the heart of h2g2.

While I don't neccessarily think we should be forcing people to be writing massively detailed entries on their first few days, they could bring valuable experience and knowledge to Peer Review. It is easy to do and it would bring real benefits to the Guide.

Abi

While I can see the potential benefit of trying to shepherd newbies down to PR, I would add that it's quite an intimidating experience, not only for those submitting entries, but to comment on someone else's.

I certainly didn't see that it was my place to comment on anyone else's entries until I had been on site a good long time - and, well you know me, I'm one of the most forthright people on site.

What would be nice is if we had 'class of...' groups, by which we could bunch up Researchers by their joining date, and every now and then send out a mass email along the lines of: "Hi there. You've been with h2g2 for 3 months now. Have you thought about writing for the Edited Guide?" - only maybe all ensconced in nice ACEy language.

I don't know how easy it'd be to set this up in practice, though.



B

I like that notion Master B!

But it'd be nice if we were able to pull out the people who *are* already contributing so they don't get a spam suggesting that they do what they're already doing...

I contributed my first bit to the Edited Guide my first day or two...

Yeah, me too - but as I said on the askh2g2 thread - that sort of person wouold be very much in the minority.

I suppose, then, it follows that it wouldn't take too long to weed them out.

B

Excellent idea to inform newbies about writing for the guide and Peer Review.

One of the first things I did when I came on site was to comment on an EG article. I think this is quite common actually - in fact some researchers sign on just to comment on something close to their heart and then disappear again...

Something about writing about something they know would be great. Maybe give an example - local town, aspect of job or hobby.

Also useful would be a little warning on checking that there isn't something there already. Seen some dissapointed researchers after they work on their magnum opus on something computer or film related only to find it's already been done better...

Not sure about encouraging use of the WW. It's chicken and egg. I would have been fairly peeved had I written my first example, and then seen it languishing in WW for weeks without comment... There was only one comment on my first entry in PR, but at least it then got picked quickly!

Sprout

>>Not sure about encouraging use of the WW. It's chicken and egg. I would have been fairly peeved had I written my first example, and then seen it languishing in WW for weeks without comment

that's somewhat the point.. that the writing workshop (as well as the collaborative workshop) are devoid of much traffic and could do with some positive press. peer review may be the last stop for an entry bound for the edited guide, but the other review forums have valid material to contribute as well.

as for getting newbies to peer review, what about a feature on the front page linking to five random peer review threads? the heading might be 'add your own unique wisdom to the guide' with copy something along the lines of 'these are just a few of the up and coming entries currently in our peer editing process. add your comments and give our authors feedback on these subjects...' with links to five threads and a brief description of what each entry is about. this could be updated daily like the new edited articles feature.

Sure, it's just that if we encourage people to send their stuff to WW, then we need to be sure that people will stop by now and then.

Sprout

And maybe a banner ad in the default skin...


Who said that??? No no no! Don't look at me! HELP!!!
*ducks*

F19585?thread=270267&skip=42

Pretty much echos retrospectively what Jimi is saying here.

The more eyes in PR, the less errors.

The more entries, the more high quality entries the Scouts have to pick from.

Writing Workshop can, I think, safely be left as something people will pick up after they've been knocking around PR for a little while - but only if we get them in PR in the first place, even if it's just commenting.

H.

I'd like to re-emphasise a point I made in the earlier thread - I think that people should be encouraged to comment for a while first, to get the feel of PR. So I think an Ace's greeting should encourage newbies to look at PR, but not necessarily to submit anything straight away. One thing that can put casual visitors off is a demoralising sequence of poor or misplaced entries.

I think one point where it would be worth catching authors is when they get the congratulatory acceptance message - after all, at that stage an author should be feeling pretty positive about PR. The staff could add a message like:
'Why not celebrate your success by helping someone else with an entry in PR? Every comment helps to build the Guide!' to the standard email.

It's no harm to remind authors that they ought to return the time and attention others gave their entries.


Azara

Excellent suggestion!

H.

My suggestion would be to add some information for Peer Review/Edited Guide and appropriate links to I'm New - What Do I Do Now - A868098 and encourage ACEs to offer 'I'm New' link to newbies, (some ACEs already use that link)

Emmily

I'm going to show how old I am now...

Back in the days of the Critique Fun Run (*gasp*) everyone who submitted an entry was required to comment on the other entries in the Run at that time...

Perhaps make it a requirement that authors comment on 3-5 PR threads before their own thread can be recommended by a Scout?

I reckon that's create some 'churn' at least...

Again, just my

Take it or leave it.

- X

that may backfire. people submitting entries (especially newbies) may be inclined to pick three or four entries at random and simply say 'good job ' in order to have their own entry looked at. in other words, i don't think that would necessarily generate worthwhile feedback.

encouraging submitters to have a look around at some of the other submissions would be a good idea, but i don't think it should be a requirement.

True there might be people who will 'game' the system...

But if they get good feedback in their own PR thread, wouldn't they be inclined to give good feedback in return?

I think one of PR's problems is that it isn't h2g2's most friendly of places. It has been frequented by the same small niche of people for so long that they sometimes make anyone new that tries to get involved in offering feedback feel that they talking to themselves...
That's one of the reasons why I was actively discouraged from including a memntion of PR in my greeting, when I was trying out to become an ACE. I got around this by encouraging new researchers to think about what they are interested in, know alot about, to use the search h2g2 button and read the writing guidelines...

I found giving feedback in PR to be relatively pointless - certainly in the case of particular people. I couldn't then honestly encourage other people to go there. Though I did include the link to NamedEntries for everyone and WritingGuidelines specifically for anyone showing the slightest sign of wanting to contribute that way. Those pages contain the PeerReview link for anyone willing to explore/read them.

It was also hard to find the articles in PR on which I might have commented because of the lack of a subject classification system. There were obvious holes in the C-system but no sign of which ones might have something already pending. I suppose one might have a RandomPeerReview link for newbies or scouts to try - or even for that slightly iffy authors-forced-to-comment suggestion made by someone else in one thread (I'm getting lost now with this daft idea of splitting the single Askh2g2 thread into separate feedback threads).

SEF I don't know what you mean when you say 'I found giving feedback in PR to be relatively pointless - certainly in the case of particular people'

Often times I wonder if people feel that giving my entries feedback is pointless because there's not much left to say after I have flogged the subject to death before I submitted it. But I'd still like to know that somebody is looking at the thing.

And personally, I'm pretty strongly opposed to a categorization system in PR since I would have missed a brilliant entry about Geoffrey Chaucer.

Had it been filed in poets or poetry, I would have never bothered to look it up...

...as it turns out, reading it has changed my life in a very small way.