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

Entry: Writing for the Edited Guide (Subbed version) - A18584058
Author: Alex Tufty Ashman [!] - U566116


Yes, I know this has been done before. This one's slightly different.

This is how I would subedit the Writing Guidelines to make them clearer and more readable:
- The original guidelines are now split into four logical sections.
- Each of the four sections takes up around one screen-full of Entry space.
- The wording is cleared up, though there is no change in meaning.

Put simply, I haven't mucked around with them or done anything radical. I just want to make the Entry less daunting.

Alex

I don't know whether or not the Eds will like this. If I'm going to be honest, I don't think it reads any differently to the current guidelines. And if you think it will actually encourage newbies to read them...well, perhaps we need to write you some guidelines.

On a side note, I think it would be a crying shame not to have one of Pinniped's entries under 'Write In Your Own Style' somewhere.

B

"I don't think it reads any differently to the current guidelines"

Great! There's 500 words less of actual guidelines in this version.


"perhaps we need to write you some guidelines"

Ok - what do you think would make it more approachable?

500-->100 I really must try harder.

It's not a case of approachability - I think the readability is fine. It's the case that there is, and will always be, a quotient of newbies who go ahead and write stuff without reading the guidelines, either because they are too lazy, too arrogant or too rebellious. I don't think I read them until after my third or fourth entry.

B

Um...have you actually looked at the state of PR in any detail recently? There's 43 entries in total: a handful compared to h2g2 in its heyday. Many of these are in the spirit of 'How To Bounce A Superball Into Space', or 'Email Addresses in ASCII Code', or 'Marriage of new interpretations of time and universe...', or 'Tuberculosis or not T.B..' There are a few truly interesting and informative entries but they are very much in the minority.

So, being that many of the uninformative and, I have to say, uninteresting entries conform to the E.G. guidelines, what is the point of posting an entry that simply rehashes those guidelines, other than to give the mistaken impression that PR is deficient in quality as opposed to quantity? Deckchairs on the Titanic spring to mind. It's deeply deficient in both, as it happens. And it doesn't look to be improving in any likelihood of the imagining.

We need new writers. It's that simple.

I do occasionally get pangs of guilt about not writing for the EG regularly enough.

And then I remember that I probably have a more demanding job than the people who churn out an Entry a week, and don't feel quite so bad.

B

"We need new writers. It's that simple."

It's a bit more complicated than that. If the new writers join because they think they can get away with disinterred reference material, song analyses, potted biogs of B- and C-celebrities and supposed quirky takes on very mundane subjects (such as 'The Drawer') then I'd rather that h2g2 was put out of its misery, to be honest. Where's Anton Chigurh when you need him?

If, on the other hand, they wish to help h2g2 rediscover its distinctive voice, by publishing thoroughly researched, opinionated and stimulating articles on places to visit, good food to eat, unmissable events, then the more the merrier.

People like us, who have been around for a while and who have become rather disenchanted with this project, have to show some kind of leadership. It's your chance. And mine. This entry doesn't show any leadership whatsoever.

I think your new improved guidelines are very easy to read and easy on the eye Tufty. FM - if you have any comment about my entry either content/style/whatever, please feel free to comment in the PR thread http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/F48874?thread=5475839&latest=1 and not clutter up Alex's PR.

No, I don't think I shall, thank you.

This is a general comment about PR and the state of h2g2 provoked by a specific example of a PR submission. To me, this kind of writing typifies the current state of this project, so I think I'm perfectly justified in airing my views here.

FM, I actually agree with a couple of your comments, but you've clearly not followed the advice in the section "How to Comment in Peer Review" in PeerReview

You've chosen Alex's tidy-up of the Writing Guidelines here to issue a widespread sniping attack on the state of Peer Review. Whether this is the best place for it I doubt, but to casually dismiss others' work is pretty poor form.

You've been around long enough to know how to give constructive criticism, so why don't you do that - in the PR conversations themselves?

I disagree that the overall quality has dropped. We're getting just as many high-quality entries through, and some really good ones too, but not so many of the others. Personally, I'd like to see more of the short quirky entries written, but I think today's Peer Reviewers would smother them at birth.

The bit I agree with is that there's a lack of leadership, but I'd like to see the Editorial team providing this, with the volunteer groups driving it forward.

Icy

I think this is probably an improvement on the current entry. It's a bit more readable.

Where the hell am I supposed to comment then? Better that I provoke some kind of reaction than for my comments to languish in some backwater of h2g2, such as the Forum. Besides, there's precious little 'review' going on in PR at the moment anyhow, so I don't see how my interjections are lowering the tone. If you want to maintain whatever vestigial standards exist in the review process I suggest you direct your attentions at a thread like http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F48874?thread=5475839&skip=0&show=20 . 95% of it has nothing to do with the contents of the entry whatsover.

Well, we're neither of us Scouts currently, and it's their job to manage Peer Review. I'd suggest you post to that conversation itself, or failing that the Scout Forum, or there's an unofficial scout forum somewhere, isn't there? (Does anyone have the link?)

Other places to raise the wider issue would be the recently-resurrected Talking Point on the future of h2g2, or h2g2 feedback, or even Askh2g2 if you want to get everyone involved. You will lose a lot of supporters from your cause if you just post negative stuff, though. Alternatively, why not set an example by writing a few entries yourself, to show them how it's done?

FM, there's certainly room for debate about whether or not Alex' entry should be in PR, but picking out other entries to demonstrate your objection is not the right thing to do, imo. The troublke is, you'll never manage to discourage those authors who write:

>>disinterred reference material<<

but you'll probably manage to discourage those who might otherwise write a good entry.

Oh, and the Unofficial Peer Review page is here:


A9741972

Ok, back to A18584058 for a moment if I may.

The purpose of this re-write was not to radically change the guidelines, nor to make them visible to people who aren't looking for them. It's a clean-up designed to make the whole thing less off-putting to those who might think "bloody hell, there's a lot of rules". Constructive feedback on how to make the Entry more accessible to new-comers would be very helpful.

"Other places to raise the wider issue would be the recently-resurrected Talking Point on the future of h2g2, or h2g2 feedback, or even Askh2g2 if you want to get everyone involved. You will lose a lot of supporters from your cause if you just post negative stuff, though. Alternatively, why not set an example by writing a few entries yourself, to show them how it's done?"

There:

A30924687
A26384385
A1251
A23814911
A23453129
A14535209
A13073654
A11816697
A10176987
A6379518
A6582675
A4596474
A3477927
A3320939
A3100203
A2998452
A2671733
A2116766
A1304858
A1091341
A1067799
A930278
A995682
A1045883
A930214
A1031932
A930160
A904277
A848658
A848577
A765957
A795611
A784046
A738687
A762662
A741539
A695379
A668072
A660197
A656804
A639452
A635997
A626799
A580259
A569982
A569504
A418637
A410941

I think that's enough example-setting.

Don't think I haven't been trying of late either. I'm currently writing an entry about Nottingham Broadway Cinema. It's a bit of a radical departure for most of the stuff around here (and for myself) in that it actually requires the author to get up of their backside and visit the place to find out what it offers. That's right: Field Research.

The trouble is, I've written *loads* of entries, I've fallen into the same trap as too many around here: they take the suggestion that 'write about what you know' to be equivalent to 'write only about your current state of knowledge'. Research, in its most literal sense, implies *finding things out*. Being a Field Researcher implies *getting away from the computer* as well. Yo end up knowing more after the activity than beforehand.

Which sort of brings me back to what the point of *this* project actually is. If it's simply there as a respository for any old ephemera that happens to be clogging up the author's mind at the time then it *really will* end up resembling one of those totally messy kitchen drawers, containing nothing of use in itself, impossible to search and full of those 'come-in-handys' that end up being chucked out en masse once in a blue moon.

The whimsical vignettes that have come to characterise h2g2 in recent years, the sort of sideways look at life, they're not bad in themselves. It's just they were originally introduced to set the tone of this project and to act as a starting point for more incisive, factually-based writing with a personal slant. Now, unfortunately, their writing has come to be seen as a end in themselves.

As for this entry, I wonder what it does to change this situation. So I suppose it's PR I'm reviewing here, not just this entry in particular, and I can be justly held to account for not adhering strictly to the spirit of PR. However, in so doing I think I'm saying something a lot more pertinent to all of us than anything that could be said about this Entry.

So, if you want, carry on as you've done so far, tell me I'm speaking out of turn, and ignore me. Pretend that is is sunny in the garden of h2g2, that this sort of material can get through into the EG on a nod providing the letter of the law is followed in PR, and that there is no need for reinvigoration. I'll stop my little jeremiad as well. This was the last comment I planned to ever make in PR and I can see that its *message* is falling on deaf ears.

Just do me a favour, 'though, and turn out the lights when you leave, would you, there's a good chap?

Thanks FM - you've written many fine entries, but many of the new guys won't know you from Adam if you stop.

This is clogging up Alex's thread, so I'll start another one on the Unofficial PR Forum to discuss these things. See you over there.

FM's PR quality discussion is now at F3719964?thread=5482356