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

Of course none of the above really has much to do with this thread except maybe it gives some perspective on some things about PR that the author might consider maybe when writing something critical about the PR process.

I think the process works ok but some of the premises it uses are maybe a little stodgy or biased and that's hard to avoid I guess. But 'rules is rules' like somebody said in my review. The guide will sound more or less integrated but it'll probably never sound different.

This is a scary entry to try to comment on! (Hmf, why isn't there a scared smiley. )
I think this time I've managed to avoid every possible faux pas, except the one about reading the entire peer review conversation.
I'm not going to do that, because it is too long, and because what I really want to do is to agree totally with you on the point made here.
"How to post" should be the first thing to teach a new researcher about peer review, and that hiding even the basic mechanics of it in the faq leads to people posting comments in the articles' own forums instead.

I may be stupid, but I didn't figure this out until reading this entry, and even now I find the "click on 'peer review' in entry data" just slightly less unintuitive than "use the 'date entered' 'last posted' links". (Especially when the "Discuss this entry" button is right in front of me when I've _finished_ reading the entry.)

You were going to take out the 'side' to this entry and soften the tone, Hoo, eg (probably) the bit 'And Researcher X drops in and comments "nice entry, but I'm going to make a criticism. I'm cleverer than you'.

I think this will be a really worthwhile contribution to the guide.

Let us know when you've done it.

Is "I am cleverer than you" an opinion or a criticism ?

OK, I've not actually changed the original entry - except to add a link to a page which contains what I think the Peer Review page SHOULD say.

Any comments on that?

I do seem to sense a general agreement that the PR page should be aimed more at commenters than entry writers...

H.

For anyone who can't be bothered checking back, it's A775776 for the new entry...

H.

_I_ like it.

*in GR mode*

As the entry is being prepared as a proposed help page, can this thread be moved to the entry itself?

I don't know how you go about changing a help page, however this looks much better now.

I think it would be useful for one of the italics to comment here.

Ah-hah,

I ducked out of this thread for a while, when it turned into a linguistic rant, but I see it's still running.

Hoovooloo - nice proposed PR page . Much more useful than the current one, although I think you may have swung the balance a little too far towards the commenter rather than submitter. I'm sure there are many prospective first-time submitters who would not realise that there are guidelines etc without what is on the PR page.

At the very least, I think that you need a paragraph saying (something like):

Entries are submitted to Peer Review for comment before entering the Edited Guide. If you would like to put your entry into Peer Review, please read this page which covers writing for the Edited guide and the Writing Guidelines which edited entries usually need to follow.

Where the goes to a page of similar nature to the current PR page, outlining how to write an entry for PR & what you can expect to happen when you do.

I think, in passing that the section currently on the PR page about entries getting picked and how long you have to wait should go into the notification message that an author gets when his/her entry is submitted for review.

I second the motion that we could use some input in this thread.



Ugi

Well, HVL, what's the deal?

Well, as I understand it, there are some 's looking at changing stuff, and they generally like the look of this, and stuff, and thank you very much and stuff, and we'll get back to you, and stuff. Basically I think it's just a case of be patient. Any actual 's care to comment? Any even listening?

Can't see anything else I think needs changing, but then that's just me - these things often work best after everyone's had a chip at them, so thanks for bunging it up the list again!

Any more comments, highly welcome.

H.

Hi Hoovooloo,

Thanks for the reminder. I'm going to be away for the next couple of days, but we're hoping to be looking at the page in the next couple of weeks

Anna

I really wish the page looked like Hoovooloo's new version when I joined, it is excellent.

I agree!

Anna...?

H.

Hi Hoovooloo,

Sorry not to reply to you sooner, I've been out of the office. Jimster's will be along shortly to show you the additions we made to your entry. See what you think.



Anna

... and here I am

We've been dipping back to this when we've had the chance, and have taken on board many of your suggestions, Hoovooloo, and those of others in the various threads. While we can't implement *everything*, we think this is a step forward, but we'd really appreciate the feedback of those who've taken the time to post to this thread.

You can find the draft version here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A808760

(Ignore the name, it's just a place-holder so no one goes here by accident)

If you have any suggestions, typo notes, whatever, please post to the bottom of the entry and we'll review them as and when.

Thanks again (we're neary there )

Jimster

"typo notes, whatever,..

...(we're neary there "

Um... "neary"?

Comments under the entry, couldn't see any typos. Thanks for listening guys!

H.

Ooops.

Soz