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

After discussions evolving from the recent 'Your h2g2' Talking Point, we have a few changes to the Review Forums that we would like to announce.

Firstly, we've decided to make the update process much clearer. Full details can be found at the UpdateForum, but in summary, all Updates to existing Edited Entries will now be processed through the Update Forum and not via Peer Review. This is to avoid some of the confusion that has arisen recently around entries being accepted through the normal Editorial process. The guidelines on the Update Forum page have now been amended to reflect this.

The biggest change however is the plan to combine the Writing Workshop and the Collaborative Writing Workshop to create a new Edited Guide Writing Workshop. This means there will be just one place to go for people who are looking for encouragement or assistance with their entries. It also means that it's much clearer what the Alternative Writing Workshop is the alternative to, which we hope will be beneficial to both workshops.

As a result of the changes to these workshops, we're considering changing the name of Peer Review to 'Edited Guide Peer Review', as well as revising the 'Submit for Review' page a little.

We've already cleared out abandoned entries from both the Writing and Collaborative Writing Workshops, so we hope to be able to make the final adjustments some time in the next week or so (other tasks allowing).

We'd like to thank the Scouts, Subs and UnderGuide for their advice and suggestions here.

I think the "Crediting Entries" part of the Update Forum page might have to be tidied a bit, given the new methods available for crediting researchers.

The RF pages will have to be pretty significantly updated, but I think the Eds already thought of that This is excellent. Both parts.

But honestly, Edited Guide Peer Review? Surely there's a better name for PR than that. Like, well... I don't know. I'm a big picture sheep

"Edited Guide Writing Workshop"

Must have missed part of the conversation - but where does this leave the Underguide?
Surely with a title like that it's going to discourage the sort of entry the Underguide likes... Are the miners going to be looking elsewhere for their customers?

Yes, in the Alternative Writing Workshop, I assume.

I think we'll be fine. The AWW often does serve, very effectively as a workshop as well as a review forum. It's strong enough to take care of the UnderGuide, I think

Alternative writers have in the past used the WW and probably the CWW for their works, but I don't see any reason why they couldn't get a good response in the AWW for their works-in-progress.

"Surely with a title like that it's going to discourage the sort of entry the Underguide likes..."

Other than stuff that doesn't go in the Edited Guide, what sort of entry does the UnderGuide like?

<>

Hi, Jodan. Given the way people form abbreviations, and acronyms, and funny words based on the acronyms (Unicef, for instance), before long it'll be called eGipper.

I myself prefer EGPeRV

Why doesn't that surprise me?

P

I'd prefer



Get Edited

at Mr P.

We could call it the Badger Workshop!

But I think Edited Guide Peer Review is probably more explanatory.

Traveller in Time on his last
"Peer Review Edited Guide >> PREG, in 42 Quiks you have a newborn Entry "

The UG was considering asking the italics to rename the AWW a while ago, but decided against it. I think the frontrunner we considered was TURF - The UnderGuide Review Forum. Alternative Peer Review was thrown out.

Does anyone think Review Forum tells us more about <./>RF1</.> than Peer Review? I'd prefer Edited Guide Review Forum myself. It's more of a fluid name, I think. Though, of course, the prospect of calling reviewers EGPeRVerts really makes me ...

<>

Me too.

I can't see why any of the names need changing.

The CWW is a dead duck, and as far as I can see, always has been. The corpse and whatever elements that are worth saving are to be integrated into the WW, and that should be the end of the story

"The CWW is a dead duck, and as far as I can see, always has been. The corpse and whatever elements that are worth saving are to be integrated into the WW, and that should be the end of the story "

I agree. The only thing that concerned me was what kind of entry people thought was acceptable for the UnderGuide...

Calling it EGPR should hopefully mean less 'this is what I did on my holiday' entries. Maybe not none at all, but hopefully people will have noticed the EG when then they sign up, so it's a bit more obvious than just PR. I know it's on pages all over the place, but people jsut don't read stuff.