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

Traveller in Time still on a deconfusing quest
"
>ENTRY DATA

>Written and Researched by:

>Current NickName of the Researcher

Researchers are a bunch of people, constant change of mind, mood and NickName.

>Edited by:

>Researcher 94986

The SubEditor, a responsible person, not fooling around with silly things like NickNames. Actually a representative for the BBC.

My proposal: Change the Edited by: section of the Entry, Just copy all (new) of them to h2g2Editors, and give the Sub-Editor a Sub-Editor credit, with hardcoded written name.

< F3785693?thread=2816219 > 'But it's not my entry!'"

I'm sorry, Traveller, I can't out what you're asking or why it would be of benefit to others.

Can you have another go at that, please?

Traveller in Time slowly repeating
" was sleepposting again

Can the 'Edited by:' reference, for Edited Entries, get a static name ?
Not only is it highly confusing who actually wrote the entry in the first place, also the Sub-Editor gets the 'Full Credit' for the Entry. I do not deny they deserve the credit for Editing the work, it is more the confusion bit as nobody can see what entries they wrote by themself in their MA list. Also we have several Sub-Editors with no name. The Latter is completely to see on an Edited Entry, the Researcher, someone from the public is available for comment, but the representative of the BBC is not ?

Using the new Credit facilities it would be an easy task to give a static, hardcoded name for the Sub Editor.

The only disadvantage is it is a little more difficult to keep track how many an which Entries one Sub-Editor has Edited. However this is now also not entirely straightforward. "

>>the representative of the BBC<<

And there was me thinking we were a volunteer group

Whose views - plural - it might have been nice to canvass before proposing this?

I don't quite see the problem here - authors and Subs both change their tags (I should say the latter rather less regularly than the former, by and large). If one Sub-ed has gone back to 'number only' and you're not keen ... why not ask her to put her name back? Wouldn't that be easier?

And if someone wants to get in touch about an Entry, isn't the author the proper first port of call? If the reader wants to get in touch with a 'representative of the BBC' instead, they've got, oo, a gazillion other buttons to press on any given page, no?

I can think of several long-standing volunteers who have changed their name (some of them more than once), where a static 'credit' would leave any reader of an Entry who hadn't been here at least five years wholly in the dark as to who did what and when - a link to the PS seems perfectly sensible to me.

My

Traveller in Time reading many postings
"It does happen even aboriginals press the 'wrong' button, intending to go to the writer and ending up at the Sub-Editor. And as we can not see if the Sub-Editor is the writer or 'only' the Sub-Editor we are in the dark at that point.

I do suggest to leave a link to the Sub-Editor on the entry, as is custom with the Credits.

I do not have much problems with 'Linda' removing her tag, I do however find it strange to see that on the Edited Entries. It is not something you would expect on an edited entry more something for a dusty society where all the conversations stopped years ago. "

I was just distressed because the entries I subbed were mixed in with the entries I wrote. Anyone visiting my PS will think I wrote an entry on John Adams or Cardiac Nuclear Testing when I didn't. I know I thought that about other subbies when I visited them before it started happening to me. (1) I fell like I'm getting credit for things I didn't do; (2) My subbed entries are mixed in with my personal entries, which rubs wrong against my organized mind.

Traveller in Time comparing
"The 'Infinite Improbability Drive' was less confusing then this system.

Do not get me wrong, I think the Sub-Editors deserve credit, just with a less confusing link. "

It's not something that's a high priority to be honest. I can (now) see what you mean, but every second of development time is valuable, so we have to use it on the most urgent needs.

So long as it's on the list, even if nothing ever happens... at least we tried.