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

There's an expression "low-hanging fruit," which refers to a task that is easy. Or, it can mean the first tasks to be done.

I've been looking for things that don't yet have edited entries in the edited guide. For this I've used the search function (top right corner of the page). In Pliny, you only access *edited* entries. In Alabaster, you get unedited ones as well.

Here is some of what I've found:

No entry for "elk." Went extinct in Britain, but there are populations elsewhere in the northern hemisphere. Could be good for Britain's environment.

No entry for "irises" except as a part of the eye. Mentioned briefly in "Giving and getting flowers." Many people like to grow their own flowers. An entry on *growing* irises could be widely popular.

No entry for Joseph Haydn. I could submit the entry I wrote. Is it worth the effort? Haydn is extensively mentioned in entries on the string quartet, orchestral music, etc. On the other hand, there are separate entries for Mozart and Beethoven. And film composers such as Jerry Goldsmith and Joseph LoDuca. Haydn's music is in the soundtracks for 338 films Goldsmith compares with 134 (but 280 in "music department). LoDuca has compares with 100. But he' still alive, and could do more. Goldsmith died, but who is to say that his music might not be usedi n future movies?

Haydn's soundtrack presence (300+) looks good until you compare it with that of Mozart (1,700+) and Beethoven (1,600+). But Haydn has more than maurice Ravel (250+).


Are we writing guide entries for their potential value to people who won't find what they want in many other places? If so, maybe having articles on quirky but undercovered subjects isn't such a bad idea after all. We can let that site that begins with "W" cover everything, while we look for things that are undercovered, or need to be written really clearly.

I can see both sides here.

Elk, for instance, gets 208 million hits on Google.

Iris flower gets 536 million.

If Google's statistics are to be trusted, that is.

But Google is excvellent if you want a topici n H2G2.

Just type the search term into Google, add H2G2, and do the search

I might submit my "Haydn" entry. He has brightened my life on countless occasions. He can cheer me up when no other composer can do that. Plus, he has an *amazing* amount of music -- more than Mozart and Beethoven put together. His material is always fresh, as if he has just written whatever piece I'm listening to, and he's standing there in the corner, waiting to see my reaction. He's that immediate. Mozart? Always in good taste, but a little bit abstracted. Beethoven? He loves himself a little too much, and doesn't know when to end a piece. "Andante favori" is five times as long as it needed to be. Beethoven could not admit that it wasn't the great piece he wanted it to be, so he made it too long!
Haydn wrote some extremely short pieces that are memorable gems. Take that, Ludwig!

I have two other possible entries in mind: Irises and Daylilies. There's an edited guide entry on giving flowers (I contributed a lot to it), and the editor who stitched the material together seemed to agree with those who felt that it's better to give cut flowers than potted ones.

But I disagree. Potted plants, especially perennials, can be put in the ground. If they get put where they can thrive, they'll take care of themselves. You aren't giving people extra work (except for a little bit of planting time and some initial water) that won't pay off later. According to Reuters, "Home gardening blooms around the world during coronavirus." More people are gardening, and they can grow more than food. They can grow flowers and trees and shrubs. So, I can help to be on the right side of a developing trend....

Yes your Haydn Entry would be an asset to the Guide if you would like to prepare it for Peer Review

Quirky is good for h2g2, as you say It might be a quirky topic, or you might be able to bring some quirky details into an Entry about a more common topic - all helps More Entries from you about plants will be very welcome

I've often read that the English are very fond of their gardens. Obviously this can't true of everyone in that country, as many live in apartments or flats.

My Haydn entry was made possible because I had a copy of a biography of Haydn. I have since thrown it away. My entry may also be too long for the Guide. I will look into it, though.

Be careful when talking about Elk, because the word means a different think in America from in Europe.

The first English people who went to America did not know much about deer, because there weren't many of them in their native Lincolnshire.

They knew that a deer was big and an elk was huge but hadn't ever seen any. They saw this huge deer in the forest: it was a red deer (which is native to England) but they had never seen so they assumed it was an Elk. Then they saw an even bigger creature (actually an Elk) and had no word for it, so they asked the local Native Americans. 'mús' was the answer they got so they called it a Moose.

So European Red Deer = American Elk, European Elk = American Moose.

Thank you, Gnomon.

I vaguely remember coming across the distinction that you mention. I don't know if the Guide really needs an article about elk, and I would do some more in-depth research before I tried to come up with something.

I like to know the scientific name for a plant or animal. I will check out the scientific names for European elks later today.

Deer, fallow deer and red deer are common in Denmark, although most of the country is now industrialized farmland. From time to time we have had a lonely moose swim over from Sweden, but usually they do not last long in the heavy traffic along our easternmost shores which are also densely populated residential areas

I would like to please as many people as possible. Or failing that, I'd rather annoy as few as possible. I admit that I bat close to zero with a couple of the people here, and most of the blame probably belongs to me.

I click with a fair number of people, though.

I submitted my entry on Joseph Haydn yesterday. I don't see it in the Peer review queue. Maybe someone decided right away that it would not be suitable. I guess I could live with that, though I wish they could have taken a couple of minutes to let me know what the main objections were. There might be things I could learn from this that would make my future submissions to Peer Review better and more successful.

I know I may come off as stubborn sometimes, but I truly believe that I have learned a lot recently. Some of the best lessons have come from people who seemed to be annoyed with me. I'm serious about that.

It's eye-opening, for instance, to realize that a reasonably good guide entry could be written without few (or no) links to outside websites. The amount of coverage within h2g2 has rather a bit to do with that, but it could actually be a relief not to feel that I have to show expert support for everything I write.

Now, if I only knew what would need to be done to make that Haydn entry work better.

Maybe the jury is still out - as in maybe it's being reviewed right now?

Hi Paulh - sorry there seems to have been a blip so your Entry didn't get submitted to Peer Review yet.

Is it this one A653005 ? Can you try submitting it again and see if it works now?

Good luck!

Yes that's the one.

I will try again.

Thanks for getting back to me.