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

I've seen quite a number of entries already, where you see one name for Editor, and a completely different name for Researcher. What's the difference between the two?

Hiya

It means that the entry is either an Approved Guide entry, or going through the SubEditing process

The researcher name is who wrote the original entry & the editor name is who is doing the subediting.

;^)#

So, you're telling me that if *I* write a good entry and submit it, then someone else is checking its validity (a sub-editor), and even if they don't have to change even the smaller detail (let's just assume I did a *very* good job) and it gets approved, I still get to *share* the credit with them, even though it's all *my* work?

*All* real journalists work with an Editor. It applies just as much to award winning novelists and local newspaper hacks. Editorial consistancy is important. That is why every publication has an Editor. If we were not serious about the Guide as a project, we could accept anything - lots of small community forums do this - people can put up anything. We really value good and great submissions. But we want the Guide to be a good Guide, rather than a scrapbook. That is why we need to retain editorial control.

Good work shines through.

Sure, I can agree to all that... but the Editors getting credit for something they haven't actually doen themselves, doesn't that seem a bit unfair?

I am against this editorial hierarchy...but thats because I do terribly like to claim to be an anarchist...and I'm suffering under the sadness of my lamp being unplugged....go to my user site and help me discover who-dun-it.

and damm its the grey cup and cut licquor sales at 9pm...

No. Part of what they're getting credit for is taking the time to read and approve the article. And even if the editor didn't have to physically edit the piece, he still checked it for its accuracy and ability to fit with the Guide's... erm, guidelines. For continuity, like. If you *did* do such a good job that you needed no editing, it would be through pure genius, pure coincidence or a lucky combination of the two, but even then the editor would have to do his job of reading, checking and approving.

Anyway, if someone doesn't like your entry, they'll probably go to the editor and say, "What were you thinking when you approved this?!" instead of going to you and saying, "You're a plonker, you know that?" It saves us as Researchers a good deal of abuse, no doubt.

Ghehehe, fun!!

But let's compare it to real journalism (as Peta also did):
When a journalist writes an article for some newspaper, it's also verified and eventually edited by a so-called Editor. However: you NEVER see the editors name under the article. If there is a name at all, it will be the journalists exclusively.

Well, things are as they are... it's alright

In print journalism, the editor of a particular section is usually listed as the editor of a particular section, either in that section or in the beginning where credits are given. Therefore it is assumed that all articles in that section have been edited by that editor, and that editor receives that credit.

But editors don't have their own areas of responsibility at H2G2, so that wouldn't work.

This is what the SubEditor sees and edits/changes when they're checking an article http://www.h2g2.com/A184808 There's a couple of punctuation errors in there somewhere OK this page is an extreme example But, as well as checking the wording of an article they also have to check any GuideML/HTML coding.

Of course the SubEd could always go online & check the original as it's displayed for wording/grammar etc ( http://www.h2g2.com/A166763 )but being online costs $s for most of us.

Either way I figure the SubEd has earned a mention in the approved entry

;^)#
who, though he is sometimes called a SubEd, has never Sub'd an entry

KM: ok, I can see your point on why the editing body should be mentioned. In any paper they have their own section, which is irrelevant to H2G2.

Bruce: the cost of being online shouldn't be an argument in my opinion. After all, they DID volunteer to do Seb-Ed duties, so they must find some joy in doing that too, right? And if cost *is* an argument, then why not download the page in question for offline reading while doing other online tasks?

Well, let's not split hairs... just because they volunteered to do it, and just because they enjoy it, shouldn't mean they don't deserve credit for whatever sacrifice they may be making, and whatever work they've done. That's a bit like saying "You ENJOY helping the homeless, so we'll be damned if you deserve a medal for it. Nobody MADE you set up a soup kitchen."

Just remember that as people read through, they aren't seeing the editor's name and thinking, "Oh, well, no doubt the editor is just as much to thank for this article as the original writer." You aren't being cheated out of any of the recognition due to you by having an editor's name on your article, even if your entry was totally perfect before going in.

Hi again KM!

As I said: I already agreed to _your_ view, being that the editor needs to be mentioned SOMEWHERE! In the case of H2G2 only the edited page is suitable for doing that.

What I meant with my message to Bruce is: I don't care much about what a page looks like for the editor, because if they really NEED to know what it LOOKS like (I know *I* would want to do that if I where editing a page, because it makes the job much easier), there's always a way. And it doesn't need to cost much if the page is downloaded while already doing other things online.

Fair enough.

If they had any sense at all, they'd simply hold a nationwide sit-in in the phone company's offices. But apparently this is something we only do in America.

You're possibly right about that

BTW, what does the average american phone company charge per hour for being online?

Regardless of how they go about actually doing the job the SubEds have to check the GuideML code as well as the presentation & I figure they deserve a little recognition on the approved article for the effort, no matter how much or little it may cost in time & $s.

The SubEds get their name on the approved entry only (though their name will show up in their own copy that is attached to their home while they are editing it).

Here's an original http://www.h2g2.com/A82072 & here's the approved copy of the same article http://www.h2g2.com/A174485 to demonstrate.

;^)#

Per hour? Oh, that's tricky. Per hour. Well... erm... carry the four...

Nothing, roughly.

Oh *please* Bruce, stop throwing those example pages at me over and over again... The examples after all have NOTHING to do with the argument itself, no matter WHAT they look like.

I already said that since the editors don't have their own section in the guide (as KM pointed out), it seems to be fair that their name appears in the article itself!

And about checking the GuideML code: if the code isn't correct, the page-editor mechanism will automatically reject it, telling you that a certain opening or closing tag is missing. If a page has passed the editor and shows correctly on the screen, my guess would be that nobody needs to check the GuideML coding anymore.

Ha! So much for the cost! In holland we're charged over 2 dollars per hour (of course not in US$, but in Dfl ).

That makes me wonder what the average american consumer is getting pissed about

Oh.Pissed about? Erm, about $15 a day in terms of b... lager.