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

Suggestion for a link from Entries *currently in review*:
Replace (or maybe just supplement) the *discuss this entry* link with a message that says somrthing like *this entry is currently in (eg) Peer Review, click here to add your comments*

It took me a while to discover that there is already a link, because it is *hiding* under Entry Data

Apologies if this is already in <./>Development-Features</.>, but I *did* look first

six7s

PS As this idea is similar but different to the suggestion Tango made for Links *in* Review Threads at F47999?thread=228793, would it have been better to add my thoughts there?

(This is a different idea, so should have a different thread, it makes things clearer.)

That is a very good idea. At the moment the link replaces the submit button, which is logical. But maybe something next to the Discuss button would be useful as well.

Tango

Something near the 'Discuss' button would be . I don't know about replacing it with a link to the review thread, because there might be some reason (although I can't think of one), that someone would want to post a thread to the entry's forum, even if the entry is in review somewhere.


GTB

I can see merit in supplementing rather than simply replacing the *Discuss* link

As Peer Review is all about suggesting improvements or endorsing the entry rather than *topic drift*, leaving the *Discuss* link would allow researchers to *drift* anywhere, even before the entry is included in the edited guide, in a thread with an appropriate (hopefully ) subject line

yes, the link should be as well, not instead, as the discuss button.

Tango

It would be good if the links were *always* visible too...

I have noticed that the *currently in: peer review* link is *not* visible unless the reader is logged in...

This is surely a bug rather than a feature

six7s

If youre not logged in the Entry Data box is used to tell you to register. You can't contibute to a PR thread without being logged in anyway. So i think it is more likely a feature.

Tango

Sorry for the delay, the festive season has kept me out of the office for some time now.

As there is already a button/link that does this, and the bottom of entries are already very crowded with links, we think that the link to the Peer Review thread is in the best place possible where it is now.

If we move it to the bottom, there's more of a chance that the wrong link will be used and valuable comments overlooked.

No, no, no! You underestimate our greed! We (or at least I) don't want to move the link, we want 2!

Tango

Yeah, what Tango said



<< As there is already a button/link that does this >>
my point was that this link is not only obscure but also invisible to readers who are not logged in


<< and the bottom of entries are already very crowded with links >>
3 links = crowded??


<< we think that the link to the Peer Review thread is in the best place possible where it is now >>
Sorry, but I disagree

six7s

I counted 24 clickable links on this entry alone at the bottom...

As you can't post until you are logged in, then the fact that it can't be seen if you are not logged in is not a huge problem we feel.

24? Youre counting the conversation list itself... does that really count?

Tango

It depends what you're counting, but when I said that the bottom of a lot of entries is already very crowded with links, that's what I meant.

Hi Mina (Happy New Year)

Now I understand

My suggestion is aimed at typical peer review nominations, most of which have no threads hanging off of them at all

I still think my suggestion has merit:


Last week, I emailed a link to a friend who, although not a Researcher - yet) is something of an expert in a particular field that is the subject of an entry currently in Peer Review

I hoped they would read the entry (which they did) and then post their to the PR thread

Of course, not being registered meant that they weren't logged in, so (given the current layout) they could NOT see the link to the PR thread - seeing instead the factually WRONG statement << Click here to be the first person to discuss this Guide Entry >>

So, they wandered off, perhaps never to return...



Peer Review takes its name from an established and widespread tradition of, surprise, surprise, 'peers' erm... reviewing one another's work

Yet here on h2, we are actively, consciously, dissuading who knows how much input - and why? cos of 'clutter'? Fer crying out loud! All it would take is the simple modification of ONE link and some code which, in my not-so-humble-opinion, is buggy

N.B. If an entry NOW in PR has been to the Writing-Workshop, the link is visible to anyone, regardless of Log-In status

To see what I mean, fire up another browser (one you're NOT logged in on) and paste this link: www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3957249

You'll see something akin to what's below:

=====================================================
CONVERSATION TOPICS FOR THIS ENTRY:

Start a new conversation

People have been talking about this Guide Entry. Here are the most recent Conversations:

TITLE
------------------------------------------- LATEST POST

Writing Workshop: A3957249 - Kakapo - the world's most remarkable parrots
------------------------------------------- Nov 4, 2005

=======================================================


Would ONE more link make it 'cluttered?

I think not. And as the PR thread would be 'relatively recent', anyone (logged in or not) would get to see it

Who knows? We might even get some new blood around here....

As it happens I agree with you these days, but don't work there anymore.

I'd suggest that you start new threads for your ideas so that the current italics spot them. It's likely that reviving old threads will not 'bump' any discussions in their lists because of the way I used to manage these forums.

Thanks for the heads-up re the current crew being 'not-subscribed-to-old-threads' Mi... Eco Warrior



<< As it happens I agree with you these days >>

I'm curious... what changed you're mind?


As for starting new threads... D'ya reckon one for each of the two I 'revived' yesterday? Or maybe one new thread, with links to both?

I've been around a lot longer now, and have spent much more time in PR. As a Scout I spent more time in PR than I did as a community Editor. I've seen a lot of people post to the bottom of the entry instead of the PR thread, because unless you know the system, that 'peer review' link is very small and hard to spot and even if you did spot it, it's not actually very clear what it's actually for.

So although I haven't got any clear ideas about how I'd like that fixed, I do think it needs fixing.

Oh yes, and I'd just start one thread, stating the two suggestions, then putting a link back to both threads if the Eds want to look.