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

Hi Whoami?,

Firstly, many apologies for not getting back to you sooner regarding your h2g2 Directory Project. We've all taken a look at the proposal and it's just taken a while for us to take in everything here.

There's a lot to take in, so if you'll bear with is, we'll just focus on some of the main points.



In your introduction, you cite the entry on The Hub about Categorisation of Content. we're taking you to mean the following:

'If it suits the editorial proposition, the categorisation system can be opened up to the public, so they can categorise their own articles in the hierarchy.'

This section is meant for prospective DNA-based communities, and of course some might feel the need to have open-directory categorisation. However, without in any way being dismissive towards the activities of the wider guide, our first priority on h2g2 is the Edited Guide. The existing categorisation system is one of the ways that we keep the Edited Guide 'special' (for want of another word) and 'distinct' (for want of another) from the rest of the unedited Guide. To create a separate categorisation system for unedited Guide material would, we feel, be confusing for newbies.

Additionally, we have the concern of who would maintain this. As a policy, provided there are no transgressions of the House Rules, we do not touch unedited entries. It's for this reason that Edited Entries are, in fact, *copies* of the original, so the original will always remain should the author be unhappy with the form or content of the edited version. So we feel a little uncomfortable with arranging a scheme where unedited entries are 'sorted' by volunteers. In addition, we feel that the unedited Guide is valuable in its own right, in part because we have a hands off approach to it. We quite like the fact that the unedited guide is organised chaos - explorative rather than presented all neat and sorted for you.



In the section 'The Longer Version', you write:

'At present, there exists on h2g2 a system whereby Edited Entries and Help Pages are categorised within a system which is rarely talked about, and through experience I have noticed is not often used.'

We disagree that the category system is not used that often, but then we would, wouldn't we but we don't feel confident that a Community-maintained categorisation system would be looked at any more than the current editorially-controlled one. In fact, as it's unlikely all unedited entries could ever be categorised, what this would do is create a third tier of entries - ones that no-one can be bothered categorising. Which would be a great shame - plus some Community members aren't happy with the distinction between the edited and the unedited guide (during testing some objected to the colour distinction between the two in the Brunel skin, for example, which is why this feature was not included in the latest release). We appreciate the proposal suggests recruiting volunteers, and do not doubt that the enthusiasm of the Community would mean that this might work in the short term, but we have major concerns that, over time, this enthusiasm would wane to the point where all the work would fall on a very few shoulders (see the dedicated few in the Writing Workshop, for example). Additionally, we would be expected to recruit these volunteers and maintain a full quota, which would mean that, like it or not, we'd have to be involved to some extent, just as we currently are with all the other volunteer schemes.



Your second point under advantages reads:

'Many people are frustrated by the fact that their opinion or fictional piece is not recognised by the Edited Guide, although they are clearly important to the Community. A directory listing would be an 'official way' of recognising worthwhile pages whether they are naturally suited to the Edited Guide or not.'

Again, we feel this sends out a mixed message. Like it or not, the Edited Guide is a place for factual research. To create an 'official' grouping of material that we've 'rejected' would be a little confusing. We're happy for this to remain the responsibility of the AGG/GAG/CAC (U187783) and the h2g2 Fiction (A294833) project.

'The many Researcher-based groups and communities on h2g2 would benefit from having their page listed'

Isn't this already serviced by the World of h2g2? (obligatory question on behalf of Abi, there)



We've taken such a long time to get back to you because the fact is this is a superb presentation - very well phrased and researched - but we still have major concerns over the validity of the project. We currently have to look at every proposal and make careful judgements based on our resources, our current technology and whether we think the suggestion is of benefit to the most amount of people. While, ideally, this is something that would be great to have on h2g2, it's not something that we feel is currently within our resources, is someting that would require greater technological input than we can currently afford and as a consequence is less of a priority than other proposals that we're actively supporting.

As you know, h2g2 is just one part of the concept known as DNA. What I'm going to do, Whoami?, is circulate this among the other DNA sites, both existing and proposed. It might be that none of them have an editorial proposition that suits it, but it might also be that this is exactly what one or more of them are looking for. As I said, we do feel this *is* a great idea, and although it's not one we feel we want to pursue just now, it is one we feel deserves to be seen by others.

Additionally, we don't think this has been a waste of time for us either, as you have raised some excellent points that, if you're willing, we'd like to discuss further. Specifically:

'By categorising the Guide, it would be easier to find the holes that need plugging, enabling authors to more precisely target gaps in the Guide. Also, seeing categories that need filling out might give people the inspiration to get writing.'

This is an excellent point. Some researchers have tried to do something similar, but the weight of holes bore down on them and eventually they gave up. We'd be interested to see how such a specific project might work as it's something that's so far eluded us. If this is something you are interested in, we'd love to hear from you.

Regards

Jimster

OK. So what you're saying is 'nice idea, well presented, but we're not sure it's quite what h2g2 is for'. Fair enough. At present, I've only scan-read your reply (it's quite long, isn't it!) but I will read it properly tonight and make full and proper comment.

I'm pleased that you've taken a sensible, considered and serious look at this, so don't worry that it's taken so long! You'll have noticed that I took more than a glance at the Hub before I started out on this.

I'm not too worried that you don't want to implement this idea - the purpose of it wasn't necessarily that. I like a good debate, and as you say, it *has* thrown up some interesting points.

I'll get back to you later - I've work to do.

Whoami?
17 today!

Really? Well happy birthday my friend from all of us here - have to admit I was staggered to find out you were so young (at the risk of sounding like an old uncle full of comments like "Hasn't 'ee grown!?").

Jims
(a sulky 31 years old )

I'm surprised, Jimster, that you haven't read my PS - weren't you interested to know more about me when I first subbed one of your Entries?

Still, that's one of the great things about h2g2 - people don't judge you by your age! This was noticeable at the meet in London this year. I *did* say hello to you, but only in order to say goodbye (I had to go and eat pizza in Surrey.)

Anyway, here's some for the Team.

Sulky? Surely not!

Whoami?

"Firstly, many apologies for not getting back to you sooner regarding your h2g2 Directory Project. We've all taken a look at the proposal and it's just taken a while for us to take in everything here."

That's fine - nice to know the Italics are taking an interest. I know that a few people have been uncertain, since there's been chatter on the volunteer groups...

"In your introduction, you cite the entry on The Hub about Categorisation of Content. we're taking you to mean the following ... this section is meant for prospective DNA-based communities, and of course some might feel the need to have open-directory categorisation. However, without in any way being dismissive towards the activities of the wider guide, our first priority on h2g2 is the Edited Guide."

And so it should be, really. This idea *did* have positive implications for the Edited Guide, but it's a bit of a weird idea. I wasn't so much using that reference particularly - I know what the Hub is for - but mostly it was just to say that the base of the technology did exist and could be opened up to volunteers if required. Also, the hub is so new and shiny that it would have been a shame to miss it out.

"To create a separate categorisation system for unedited Guide material would, we feel, be confusing for newbies. "

I was thinking more 'separately together' but I see your point. You've thought about this, haven't you. Don't you know that that's dangerous?

"Additionally, we have the concern of who would maintain this."

Resources. (Note to myself: choose Features that don't cost anything ) I understand - it was so, so ambtious. More of that later - at the end...

"As a policy, provided there are no transgressions of the House Rules, we do not touch unedited entries. It's for this reason that Edited Entries are, in fact, *copies* of the original, so the original will always remain should the author be unhappy with the form or content of the edited version."

I understand this all too - I've been subbing for close on a year now, and have been asked to make changes based upon some version or another so many times. Of course, substantial changes that might affect the focus of the Entry, and so alter its approval, are referred back to you. However, I don't understand why this particularly affects categorisation.

"We disagree that the category system is not used that often, (but then we would, wouldn't we), but we don't feel confident that a Community-maintained categorisation system would be looked at any more than the current editorially-controlled one."

Sure it would - by the volunteers like the Scouts. Fair point, I suppose.

"In fact, as it's unlikely all unedited entries could ever be categorised, what this would do is create a third tier of entries - ones that no-one can be bothered categorising. Which would be a great shame - plus some Community members aren't happy with the distinction between the edited and the unedited guide (during testing some objected to the colour distinction between the two in the Brunel skin, for example, which is why this feature was not included in the latest release)."

I'm not sure I follow the 'third tier' - it would primarily be the user who submitted their work, and everywhere has its place. As for the first two, there would have to have been a distinction - it's the way things are!

"We appreciate the proposal suggests recruiting volunteers, and do not doubt that the enthusiasm of the Community would mean that this might work in the short term, but we have major concerns that, over time, this enthusiasm would wane to the point where all the work would fall on a very few shoulders (see the dedicated few in the Writing Workshop, for example). Additionally, we would be expected to recruit these volunteers and maintain a full quota, which would mean that, like it or not, we'd have to be involved to some extent, just as we currently are with all the other volunteer schemes."

This is resources again - fair point. Essentially, you'd be attracting organisers to h2g2 - like there are at dmoz, and so much of their argumentative nature appears petty after consideration. Organisation can be dangerous in the wrong hands, and h2g2 is kinda nice the way it is!

"...Again, we feel this sends out a mixed message. Like it or not, the Edited Guide is a place for factual research. To create an 'official' grouping of material that we've 'rejected' would be a little confusing. We're happy for this to remain the responsibility of the AGG/GAG/CAC (U187783) and the h2g2 Fiction (A294833) project."

"'The many Researcher-based groups and communities on h2g2 would benefit from having their page listed'
Isn't this already serviced by the World of h2g2? (obligatory question on behalf of Abi, there)"

Oh, hello Abi . The idea was that it would automate parts of their work - like individual Researcher groups having a system where they can apply for an appropriate category which would allow users to apply, and for people to be added, removed and so on within the group without the endless GuideML torture... Oh, and Abi's right - momentary slip out of the realm of accuracy there

"We've taken such a long time to get back to you because the fact is this is a superb presentation - very well phrased and researched - but we still have major concerns over the validity of the project."

Aww, thanks! So I can suggest some more features?

"We currently have to look at every proposal and make careful judgements based on our resources, our current technology and whether we think the suggestion is of benefit to the most amount of people."

Cash, cash, cash, people. It's the way of the world. As I said, I see your point. What I suggested was an ambitious project. It's the way these things tend to work. The Community suggests something wacky and wonderful, and it is distilled down to a neat new toy or feature that fits in well with the others. As I see it, if anything useful comes from anything I suggest, then it's worth the effort.

"While, ideally, this is something that would be great to have on h2g2, it's not something that we feel is currently within our resources, is someting that would require greater technological input than we can currently afford and as a consequence is less of a priority than other proposals that we're actively supporting. "

OK. So you agree it would be really neat, then. I see. Nice to know I got you all thinking! Neat, but impractical. That's so *me*.

"As you know, h2g2 is just one part of the concept known as DNA. What I'm going to do, Whoami?, is circulate this among the other DNA sites, both existing and proposed. It might be that none of them have an editorial proposition that suits it, but it might also be that this is exactly what one or more of them are looking for. As I said, we do feel this *is* a great idea, and although it's not one we feel we want to pursue just now, it is one we feel deserves to be seen by others."

Mark rather liked the idea - or so it seemed . I'm proud that you're forwarding this on to other DNA people so that they can see it - if they want to discuss anything with me, they're welcome!

"Additionally, we don't think this has been a waste of time for us either..."

So glad. I wouldn't want to waste your time!

"... you have raised some excellent points that, if you're willing, we'd like to discuss further. Specifically:
'By categorising the Guide, it would be easier to find the holes that need plugging, enabling authors to more precisely target gaps in the Guide. Also, seeing categories that need filling out might give people the inspiration to get writing.'
This is an excellent point. Some researchers have tried to do something similar, but the weight of holes bore down on them and eventually they gave up. We'd be interested to see how such a specific project might work as it's something that's so far eluded us. If this is something you are interested in, we'd love to hear from you."

I'd love to help you. My gap year is 2004/5 . Sure - you can continue a'talking here, or by email, or on messenger in the holidays, or by phone, post, carrier pigeon, shouting really loud, ESP, semaphore, etc.

Nice to know I've been helpful, even if there was an awful lot to read.

Whoami?

I agree with the Italics comments, pretty much.

In the realm of neat toys... Whoami's idea suggested that each entry in a category should include Name, brief summary, date, and author. This would be a useful addition to the existing category system, IMO.

-Martin

Hi, Lucinda. Nice to see you're still keeping up with developments.

Ah, no, Whoami? - it was when I went to your page that time that I was surprised by your age, not this week.

As for the Meet-up, I have to say I was .... vahry... vahry ... drunk!

Not in the park, you weren't, were you? I had to leave before the pub!

I understand you now.

Was I awake? I was probably drunk then

Nah, not really. But it was quite overwhelming at the park. Really great day though.



Jims

Hi - Seasons greetings to you all.
Please read A905500 and F94020?thread=231927
Ancient Brit.

Ancient Brit:
Nice of you to say hello. I don't know that you'll get a swift response from TPTB because of Christmas. However, here's my response, in the form of questions and statements for you to discuss with me and everyone else. Of course, they're all IMHO.

1. All sites are different - why try to make them conform to some sort of rigid standard? h2g2 was, and is, popular because it broke the mould a bit.

2. The DNA hub is not a community in itself - we can't write there. It's precisely what it says on the tin - a central set of resources to aid those running and using the communities. It's not difficult to get onto the <./>info</.> page there - because it's not often posted to frequently by a user.

3. h2g2 is unlikely (I hope) to decline in variety and scope due to the huge Researcher base that wants it to succeed. Other sites, such as collective, are looking for a different kind of Entry. Sense of Place sites are about local knowledge. More than that, h2g2 isn't the only online encyclopedia out there. What about E2, wikipedia, etc.? People use different sites because people are different from each other.

4. The DNA hub isn't another h2g2 - it's documentation and not much more. At least, that's all I saw.

5. The nature of h2g2 isn't that it will ever have to split and develop from a single commmunity into a set of spidered ones. No-one knows what will happen in the future, but by the nature of the fact that many Researchers share multiple interests with h2g2, it can't seperate cleanly like that - IMHO.

Whoami?

PS. Were you on h2g2 before your current Researcher Account? Either that, or you've been reading your history books!

Thanks whoami
I get what you are saying.
There's almost 60 years between us thats a measure of h2g2 attraction.
Come to my space on F93219?thread=232385
I think we could then categorise this under h2g2's Book of Records.
I'm not real sure who is the youngest that I have encountered you or Johny U187427
Ancient Brit

I don't know - but I'm sure there are people around who are younger than me.

Happy New Year!

At the risk of resurrecting *another* ancient thread, I'd just like to remind you, Jimster, that I haven't talked to you at all about the filling in the gaps problem.

Well remind away

(and forgive me if this is something you've mentioned in the past, it might well have slipped my mind, cos I'm an old duffer now)

See post 1 (yours). I'll have a think and get back to you.

Right, with you - look forward to it

I'm still lurking around .
Keep up the good work.
Ancient Brit from an