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

I though this entry might be of use to other people of an indecisive nature. It very cleverly entwines the science of probability with pseudo-science (i.e. made-up statistics). Admittedly I also quite like it because I wrote it ....

http://www.h2g2.com/A481169

Ah, pseudo-science - for some reason it's always more pleasing than actual science, which tends to get bogged down with accuracies !

I really enjoyed this entry, it's the sort of thing I read The Guide for. Practical advice for everyday advice and all that.

Anyway, on to the advice...

A couple of points:

1. The 'Express Checkouts' section. This is great, but as you've stated yourself, you don't actually have any proof of this, and I'm not sure your old friend Rajesh would appreciate being badgered by inquisitive researchers asking him if he could verify it. So, what I WOULD say is that it is quite likely that, due to the factors you mention, it is quite likely that the so-called "Express" Checkout might not be any faster than any others.

2. "Anyway back to the "Choosing your Checkout" plotline .... now if you..." You don't need this, really. If you remove the reference to your friend, there won't be any plotline to get back to (and anyway, this isn't a story - if you're going to *ahem* manipulate facts, at least do it with conviction! ). I'd also say that your choice MAY become dependant on the looks of the assistant. Probably best not to assume anything.

3. Try and remove any more first person references... now I must rush -apparently RATM are on the radio!

Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...

Thank-you for your comments, I have now amended the entry to take account of them as follows:

1) need for proof of the speed of Express checkouts now removed. Reference to Rajesh also removed amd any future thoughts of him banned.

2a) even though I believe the whole of life to be only a story with me as the lead character (although sometimes I only manage to make it to a supporting role), I have removed reference to "plotlines". I think its probably for the better - for all of us
2b) Rereading the section about attractive checkout operators, I saw the error of my ways. It was late, I was still thinking of my last visit to Tesco's and Cynthia from checkout 25, my pasta was boiling over .... I don't know quite what came over me when I was writing it. This aberration has now hopefully been corrected somewhat.

3) Does the first-person singular only apply to use of "I" or do "One", "You" and "Your" count too. I believe I've removed all uses of the former and minimised use of the latters. If I need to do more then please advise how further.

In addition to your comments I have now tidied up some of the other text and added a link to another of my entries that is awaiting Peer Review. As you enjoyed my earlier good practical advice, you might also enjoy that one

Thank-you for your assistance in this matter.

Full marks to whoever invented lists...

1) Great. But don't forget his birthday.

2b) Never mind. I realised that my first response to your post was pretty illegible at the start... I too was tired. Never mind - we seem to have made progress!

3) Yes, as far as I know 'one' and probably 'you' and 'your' are allowed - 'one' certainly is. It's just you can't really say "my" because the whole thing is a colaborative effort - can you imagine a dictionary or encycopedia saying "my"? It also helps to keep things factual and less like a diary.

I like your other entry too - but I'll make comments on that in the specified place. One thing I must reccommend, however, is that you check out how to use GuideML ( http://www.h2g2.com/GuideML-Clinic , I think) and make the link to your other entry a 'word' link - so you could say "too pass the time, why not play some _supermarket checkout games_?" or whatever you think is best, making _this_ bit a link. You could also, if you're feeling extravagant, consider popping some subheadings and 'proper' list formatting in - it really isn't hard at all!

This is a very nice entry.

I'm a stickler for accuracy, even when it's pseudoscience. So I have to look in detail at the section "the final multiplier". What exactly are you multiplying here? Are you saying that if the queue contains both a xxx (x3) and a yyy (x3) then the time taken will be nine times as long? Would it not be more accurate to add these numbers rather than multiplying? Or is it your estimate of the time taken for each customer must be multiplied by the factor and then all the totals added up?

For each customer
estimate time for goods to be checked through
multiply this by factor as given in table
add to queue total
Next customer

Ok latest updates:

Now contains some GUIDEML for the benefit of the links and lists (much prettier). None of these fancy headings/sub headings though.

Revamped the final multiplier section and found a couple of new categories of people at the checkout. I feel the new ending now summarises the futility of the whole situation .....

Added a link to another edited guide entry about express lines, which seems to express similar sentiments about their speed although offers no plausible explanation. Does this now create a problem in terms of duplication of effort?

Thanks for your assistance in this matter.

Some comments that Researcher 33337 had replied to in the actual entry. I've put them here so they're part of the history of Peer Review.

"great article, very complete. A coupel of additions.

1. groupos of students who add time for arguments over splitting payment.

2. pedantic gurner who is complaining about someone with 11 items at the 10 items lane.

3. Old person paying in pennies."

My response to these points is:

1) times they are a-changing. No longer do students split anything, they each just pay for themselves or better still get it for free if they can. Loss of grants, introduction of student loans it's a sad decline in higher education. As a student, I speak with authority (maybe).

2)Please suggest a weighting for the sad gurner

3) OAP comment included in entry.

Many thanks for your thoughts on this matter.

What does OAP stand for?

You might want to include something about people who always pay for their groceries with checks, even if their total bill is $5 or less. Is it so much trouble to carry a bit of cash around, and pull out a small, unmarked bill when asked to? Nooo...these people hold up the rest of the line by taking the time to write a check and then fumbling with their wallet/purse when the checker asks for identification. Furthermore, the checker now has to input some special code for a check and process it through, which takes up more time. All for a loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter.

Whoops! Forgot to tell you.
Congratulations, BBS, your entry has been picked for inclusion in the Edited Guide. Well done!

Please be patient while it goes on a journey through the wonderous realm of the Sub-Eds. When it appears on the other side, you'll get a mail to let you know. Hurrah!

Editorial Note: This thread has been moved out of the Peer Review forum because this entry has now been recommended for the Edited Guide.

If they haven't been along already, the Scout who recommended your entry will post here soon, to let you know what happens next. Meanwhile you can find out what will happen to your entry here: http://www.h2g2.com/SubEditors-Process

Congratulations!

Loss of grants - the typical grant was around £50 - £100 a year for most people. The rest had to be home-financed...

Wheras know, you get £4000 of interest-free loan. The only cheaper place to be is prison!!