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

Those are some excellent points Helen, but I can't say that I agree with Pink Floyd. Talking for the sake of talking is verbal di... diaorrhoea (I can never remember how to spell that one). Two words - Ainsley Harriott.

Not everything you say has to be earth shatteringly important, but if you're only saying something to break the silence, then say nothing. Silence is a wonderful, peaceful thing

Thats a very good point, 147203. Communication is good, but waffle for the sake of making conversation not so good, though sometimes necessary for politeness! I guess there's an important, if fine, dividing line between communication and just talking. Got me thinking now, so I'll shut up!
Cheers
xHx
Oh, btw, I think it's diarrhoea, I'll just go & check.
Yes it is. Thanks to the Concise Oxford for that one.

Well, I mostly got it right

"Diplomacy is the art of saying,'Nice doggy', while you reach for a rock."
I forget who said that.
But, but, and, yet, BUT.
Verbal diarheaa (s**t, now you got me doing it!) beats a severe pummeling anytime.
unless you play feetball

cl zoomer: It's a shame we can't have a conversation regarding standards and improving quality without someone suggesting those who would do so are being elitist. This is a very good example of the sorts of social dynamics I was referring to.

You can still have a mixture of articles by a variety of quality of writers and still maintain a level of standards. After all, an article on the latest boy band or a recipe does not have to be as thorough as one on Joan of Arc. People can choose subjects that their skills can handle, or they can write the parts they can handle and let others flesh it out. There's still room for everyone to contribute in this manner.

Potholer: I've participated in four conversations on the topic of intelligence (or that eventually drifted there), that I can recall. All four were completely unrelated to each other. Only one was about events you suggest. Two took place in Ask H2G2. All eventually turned ugly, although to different degrees.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a common occurance... the mere fact that it is a topic that is avoided speaks volumes.

I didn't say there hadn't been any, just none that had stuck in my usually retentive mind for reasons of unpleasantness or anything else.

It's quite possible there *was* an unpleasant conversation that I read (or even contributed to), but if it had been the case of one or more of a handful of usual suspect getting on one of their numerous high horses, I might not have made any particular association with the topic itself.

(Or they may have degenerated into insults and silence before I started hanging round ask h2g2.)

It seems that there are two separate gripes here.

One complaint is that Askh2g2 is full of pointless trivia (although it has been quite interesting for the past couple of days). Do people feel that it has gone downhill rapidly in a short period, or that there was some golden age that has been gone for some time? I've been here between 18 months and 2 years (I think - anyone know how I can check my hootoo birthday?) and in my opinion it has been a pretty good mix until recently - and it got worse after the thing in the place with the stuff as I think some people were angry about restrictions and withdrew, and other people seemed afraid to post anything serious at all. I'm hoping this will sort itself out eventually.

A totally different complaint (definitely from Blatherskite, and maybe some others?) is that the standard of edited entries in the guide has dropped. Hmmm. Again, do you think this is recent or have standards been slipping for a while? IMO some of the older entries are also really poor in terms of content, I have seen some that I doubt would get through peer review now so I wonder when it was that all entries were to an equally high standard?

k

On the question of the quality of the Edited Guide, I think this has definitely risen in comparison with the very early entries. There are now a few that are very good, and the majority of the entries will be a useful introduction to the subject within the limits of the exercise. Some of them are very well written as well.

Every now and then one slips through which you look at and think hmm, could have been improved. This is the exception rather than the rule, thankfully. I have only had good experiences with sub-editors, I know that some EG writers have had more mixed experiences.

One of the problems is that the collective knowledge that hangs around Peer Review does not cover evenly the range of topics that one could write about, not surprisingly. This means that if you put something in on computers or science, you are virtually guaranteed constructive informed comment. If you write about poetry, you may find yourself a lone voice in the wilderness, unfortunately.

Sprout

Kelli, if you go to the full list of guides entries that you have written, on your PS, then you will see the oldest entry is your PS as an A number. It also shows the date that it was created i.e. the day you first put something on your PS, which is usually close to the time you joined H2g2.

I think the... I don't want to call it 'decline' - this is an observation not a judgement... the change has coincided with the huge influx of new Researchers since The Salmon of Doubt was published.

Also with the Leisure district site being withdrawn and that community finding refuge on this site.

Again this is an observation not a criticism - it seems to me that many of the ex lders prefer to communicate in textese rather than full sentences. This is a bit of a new development for the site.

Sprout

How long since the Salmon of Doubt was published?


There was also that thing of H2 getting in the top 50 websites in a Brit newspaper (February?).

I think it's been about a year/year and half since SoD was published. But I might be wrong.

That would coincide with the quality of askh2g2 dropping, or at least when the first complaints were voiced.

As far as entries go - I don't see the written quality dropping so much as the topical quality dropping. I'd personally like to see more place-based entries along with event entries, how-to entries, and historical entries rather than the numerous band/tv show/movie entries that I keep seeing on the front page.

If we're getting onto that, I'd quite happily abolish any deeply scientific and boring entries written by Researchers who happen to already be experts in that field. Not only boring to read, but boring to Sub as well.

I have a soft-spot for band/TV/movie entries, but only if I've watched/heard them. I think the Guide has and needs a good balance of culture and humanities, but maybe a bit less science.

B

Do you define an expert as anything more than just someone who knows what they're talking about?

(I'd guess I'd better not write that article on the counterintuitive process of the paragenesis of phreatic cave passageways...)

Well exactly - I could quite happily write an entry on 'the effect of selective dealloying on the hydrogen uptake mechanism of the Mg2Ni Laves phase', but I won't, because I want people to read my entries.

Hence, I write them on the Teletubbies and other such inane things.

B

Actually, paragenesis *is* rather interesting, especially being so counterintuitive, though I suspect inclusion in a more general-purpose article might be a better idea.