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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A527555

Well, how can you not have an article about computer magazines? They are after all, the end product of a process which starts with the cutting down of many many trees. In one way or another, doesn't this mean they're alive? They have feelings too y'know!

This is a rather cynical look at the things. I'm sure they have *some* use.

Remember that Mark Moxon, the h2 editor, worked for a computer magazine at one time in his life... ...and I'm sure he'd have a different opinion about this topic.

- X

D'oh! Well I didn't know that actually...oh well, it's not as good as my Goole article anyway.

Acorn magazine, wasn't it Mark?

I wouldn't have thought that there's any way this can go into the Edited Guide. It's completely biased throughout (I disagreed with virtually every point, and I'm sure a lot of other people would too) and it isn't very informative at all.

I'm not trying to offend, I'm just saying that it doesn't meet the criteria required for getting into the Edited Guide.

Yeah, guess so. I didn't really like this one anyway.

Come on everyone!

This posting was funny, not very informative, but funny all the same. And this makes it *not* good for the edited guide because...?

The whole point of the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the orignal) was that it was FUNNY. Instead, we're only allowing the serious articles into the edited guide.

I'm getting the feeling we wouldn't accept an entry saying only "Mostly Harmless" here...

I know that THIS guide is actually a **guide** - but why not add a "humour" section or something? Let's keep true to our amusing and completely wacky roots.

Truly beautiful man
Although if Mark was a editor on a computer magazine, he's gonna need one hell of a sense of humour, lol.

But seriously guy, if you want to suggest some up sides for Computer Mags, I'm willing to wedge them in between the digs and the humour.

But seriously guys, if you want to suggest some up sides for Computer Mags, I'm willing to wedge them in between the digs and the humour.

Well, one of the coolest things about h2g2 is that anything can go into the Guide, but only relatively serious stuff makes it into the Edited Guide. I actually thought that the entry was damned funny, despite disagreeing with it completely, but just not Edited Guide material. I mean, if it gets left as it is then it will still be preserved and can still be viewed, it just won't be Edited.

You can't really say fairer than that, can you?

Yes, you can.

The edited guide is BORING. Sorry, but it's true. And to find all the other gems you have to trawl through the whole site (and you'll never find them anyway - be realistic). We need to organise some funny ones.

The 'official' h2g2 is turning into a guide book you can trust. This cannot go on.

You're missing the point - the Edited Guide is meant to be informative, but the unedited Guide doesn't have to be. This is perfectly fair.

And I have no trouble finding entries. If you need some tips on searching let me know at my personal space or check out the relevant help pages

It's not supposed to be informative, it's supposed to be entertaining. If you want to find some serious information about seomthing, you look in an encyclopedia, not the Hitch Hikers Guide. H2G2 should be wacky, insane and as biased as it wants to be.

No, you're missing the point too. I'm going to say this one last time - the Edited Guide is essentially an encyclopedia. No more, no less, and thus purely entertaining entries will not be included. You can write virtually anything you want for the UNEDITED Guide, but the Edited one is for informative purposes. It has been made clear to all researchers that h2g2 is NOT supposed to copy the original Guide, it is our OWN Earth-based version and has different rules.

Can I ask who made you the expert?

Making it an encyclopeia serves absolutely no purpose what-so-ever, becuase compared to a real encyclopedia which everyone on the Internet has access to, it's got nothing. If you want serious information, you're unlikely to look for it here.

That's a matter of opinion and your choice. And I'm no expert, but I have asked one (an ACE) to have a look at this thread for me. I've no doubt that he'll confirm what I told you. I shall therefore probably stay out of this argument until the ACE posts. I've tried my best to be polite and helpful but all I'm getting is abuse.

OK here's some constructive comment about the entry (which I believe is what PR is supposed to be about) .....

- the entry has correctly identified one/some of the key problems of the more heavy duty computer magazines. That being they are full of adverts, with very few articles. Only the other day I went around my computer-illiterate parents house found a copy of "Which Computer to Buy" or similar. In fact it gave them no practical explanation of which computer to buy and they told me it is thoroughly useless.
- there are however a number of computer gaming magazines that have benefit e.g. tips and review of games.

The entry could be retitled something like "The Badside of Computer Magazines" and it would do it's job very well. I think a biased entry is allowed in the Guide as long as it acknowledges itself thus.

IMHO a proper entry about computer magazines would talk about the history of them e.g. the growth of home computers leading to :Your Spectrum, Acorn User, C&VG, Your Computer, Computer Gamer, Micro Adventurer mags etc.
- it would mention that these largely contained news about the industry.
- mostly comprised software reviews.
- programmes to type in that were pretty pointless and took months to realise there was a bug in the listing.
- contained gaming tips and hints.
- provided hardware reviews that were not interesting to the gamer.
- had some adverts scattered around the magazine.
Given that this is a fairly UK-centric entry it would need to be titled thus.

Humour is definitely something that can be included in the entry, but it still needs to be informative and factual if you want to get it edited (and that is the point of putting it in PR).

Anyway hope this helps and that you'll make the effort to do the entry properly. It would be a shame to lose your ideas.

BBS

Ok - here's my request.

a) fine, an online encyclopaedia, great. Fab. I'll use it next time I do my homework.

b) Searching's all good and well, but you miss out on loads of other good stuff while you're at it . You only find the stuff that's connected to the word you typed in.

Here's my idea.

How about having a section for "the funny bits that couldn't get in the edited guide but we think are absolutely fabulous and want to share with you". That way, we can see the best of the rest. From looking at only a small selection of the unedited ones, I've found some really funny ones - but it's incredibly frustrating to know that there are some other really good ones out there that I will NEVER find.

Please?

I know most debates make you argue back and strengthen your own point of view, but this is a SUGGESTION. Please don't clam up and give me reasons not to do it. I think it would make the guide easier to use and also allow those NOT doing homework to make effective use of the guide.

Well I tried to find something constructive to say, but you will insist on wanting to write a funny entry. If that's the case here are my thoughts.

Ok maybe a "bits that were funny" area of the guide section would be good. Peer Reviewing your entry for such an area leads me to the following suggestions:

1) learn to spell "integrated" and "incomprehensible". Spelling and grammar are still important in whichever section of the guide it ends up.
2) where is the irony of a "Cover CD" being a CD taped to the front? Irony is too do with bad luck, I see none in this situation.
3) put some funny material into it. (You did say you wanted it to go in the funny section, didn't you?).

As your article itself suggests, humour is a very personal thing. Someone must have found the cartoons funny to have included them in the magazine. If this entry ended up in a "bits that were funny" section I would be able to go off write an entry about the irony of it all (the irony being that you complained about someone else not being humorous enough, then had the misfortune to write something unfunny yourself).

I repeat my previous advice, expand and rewrite your entry. Currently it has the potential to be an interesting article that is written in a humorous way. It however is certainly NOT the material of stand-up comedy routines. Don't mistake humour for not being bothered to do all the research necessary to write a good and thorough entry. Good luck

BBS