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

Jim, we're trusting you not to remind Mark about it when he gets back...

To quote:
Posted Last Week by Tube
This is a reply to this Posting.

Post: 15
"URLs in Conversations" .... BTW, how's the test going? Could you give a sneak- preview of the results? Is it more likely that we'll keep this new freedom or is it more likely that it's not feasible?
(...)
Subject: Xyroth's House Rules
Post
Posted Last Week by Mark Moxon
This is a reply to this Posting.

Post: 17
(...)
Tube, the trial's going well. We're fully expecting that we'll be able to keep the new rules, unless someone comes along and suddenly posts loads of dodgy URLs to skew the results.

See F55683?thread=167542&skip=0&show=20#p1762575

So It really, is up to the beeb-i people who decide whether or not to keep them? Which is what I heard Seems like all the h2g2 staff want that trial to develop into the banishing of one certain House Rule regarding URLs and Postings (Though of course any libellous or otherwise dodgy ones will still be [Removed by the moderators] won't they - I'm with that )

!

Actually, it's now up to us to present the evidence that civilisation didn't collapse because urls were allowed in conversations. If the experiment was successful, it will become the rule. That's my understanding of it.

and the added bonus is, if we get to keep URLs in postings it adds to the workload of the moderators. Add on another couple of DNA sites running and the BBC will have to decide on whether to pay lots more moderators or do away with them altogether

Whiskey, don't say that! The Moderators looking at your post might feel threatened.

I'm sure he didn't mean it, Moderators.

Of course he means it!
Moderators, would you like to change your dull job of checking uninteresting posts and url's and change it for a highly appreciated job of creating new smileys?

You think the beebs smiley budget will stretch that far? That would be

Aren't you assuming that moderators can draw?

Well seeing as this site is now verging on the totally massive, and the moderators are only part time, there must be quite a lot of moderators, and therefore is there not a good chance that some of them at least will have some artistic qualities?

*waves to moderators*

Jim, I thought the job of moderators was to draw the line.

And you don't think the BBC's squadron of in-house artists might feel a little aggrieved?

I'd be annoyed if they started changing my code, for example.

Marjin - No, Editorial Policy draw the line, and as you know it's a very shaky and inconsistent one...

The in house squad wouldnt want any new recruits?
Hope the attrition rate for artists isnt too high then?

In my view the Editorial Policy is a guideline with some room for interpretation. The moderators make that interpretation and being human, some will be more restrictive than others.

We will be trying to get away with as much as possible without doing real harm.

A guideline? A guideline's a line, isn't it?

-Spike A.

I think the moderators should turn their attention to creating new smilies, especially since the SATS have been campaigning forever now.

If the current art team object to having people do the things they can't seem to get round to, are they really that professional.

Things would be better all round if the Moderators stopped moderating and turned to helping out with the backlog of necessary smilies ( and to name but two)

And any with the technical knowledge could turn a hand to implementing the new code.

Making it an all round smoother experience for all!

Why not just let them write and sub the entries, and be done with it? Then we can get on with the gruelling task of spiuting this sort of drivel...

spiuting = spouting