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

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to put any particular limit on badges - I just feel that some people are shy about volunteering in case they find that they have overreached their limits. I was suggesting that more volunteers might come forward if there was some way to test the water, without committing oneself fully.

If that sounds like I'm talking personally... well

"I think limiting people to one scheme at a time could only increase the quality of the work they do for the scheme they're in."

That's basically what I was thinking, Hoo

Take for example the pick requirements for Scouts. How can a scout do a thorough job in PR AND deliver up their quota when they are also, for example, an ACE, Guru and Field Researcher?

The requirements for each scheme are different.

I guess that there may be some scope for multiple badges but I get the feeling that ACE, Guru and Scout probably shouldn't be mixed up.

SEF: “Hoovooloo, you seem to have the same emphasis on honesty as I do. It's quite obvious that it doesn't go down well round here though.”

It’s not the honesty thing that gets me. It’s the way in which people are conducting themselves and treating other people. I take no side here – I just wish people would stop bickering so much.

SEF, Hoovooloo, Madent: “I think that limiting volunteers to a single scheme at anyone time would ease management of the schemes and might encourage further participation.”

That’s just plain crazy. I participate in four schemes on h2g2 and the BBCiTesters, and I just about manage to do my duties alongside preparing for four AS exams and four A2 exams, being an Open Directory Project editor, and getting involved in debates like this one. I wouldn’t have it any other way. I’ve signed up for the schemes that I can participate in and that I feel I can do justice to. I’m not a competitive badge collector – I don’t do it for the status. I do it because I enjoy it.

SEF: “Better defined and relevant codes of practice would be a good idea. The current ones are too general and directionless - mostly just repeating house rules type stuff. However, I think it is important that the italics' role be included in these codes as well as any separate one which might apply to staff.”

R

Hoovooloo: “Quality control over volunteers: if only. … I hope the staff read your post, Madent, and say "great idea, let's do that!", because I think if they did ALL the volunteer schemes would be strengthened and EVERYONE's experience of the site would be improved.”

If they did, there would be an instant shortage of volunteers. Besides, the roles of ACE and Guru frequently overlap.

Phoenician Trader: “Badge collectors do no harm … they keep a very worthwhile group of people really keen and inevitably bring some people into the real joy of doing a job well. Let's keep in mind that this site works well because it works for 14 year olds who know how to behave as if they were older (and older people who remember how to be a 14 year old).”

Amen.

Sir Mort: “I don’t think it matters on how many schemes a person is involved in providing they have the time and energy to do what is expected of them. [However,] I also have concerns when I see somebody applying for 3 volunteer schemes in the same 10 minutes.”

I took months to build mine up. It still felt rather quick, but I added one at a time to see how I coped. We should be encouraging, if not requiring, people to complete a tour of duty [ie. A round of picks, a subbing batch] before applying for a further badge.

KerrAvon: “Experience as a Sub-Ed will improve people's ability to work as a Scout, and to an extent, vice versa.”

So, ACE and Guru frequently overlap, and Scout and Sub-Ed, originally being one job, still complement each other well. I agree. Why not take it further? Gurus often answer GuideML questions which subs inevitably know the answers to. Now I’ve linked them all in a chain.

Wildman: “My own feeling however, is that the fewer iron-clad rules the better.”

I agree with this. I do think that the volunteer pages, like Writing for the Edited Guide (<./>Writing-Guidelines</.&gt, could do with a revamp.

I&#8217;ve read down to post 518 and will be back after lunch to answer some more.

Whoami?

Apologies for the smartquotes - I blame the word processor that I used to compile my response.

It did make it very hard to read. Use NotePad or some other plain text program instead, or as an intermediate stage.

NB You've lumped me in with those wanting to restrict badges to one at a time. I was opposed to this, just as I'm against discrimination on the basis of age - and to assuming that people have a life.

I'm not convinced by the badge limitation theory...

I think the whole thing about volunteering is that it should be up to the individual... if they can't do the job they should give up the badge... I've had upto 3 badges at any one time on my space... I'm currently down to one because _I_ felt I wasn't doing them justice... Surely that's the whole point of being a volunteer... you do it because you both _can_ do it and _want_ to do it.

Stopping people from holding more than one badge, whilst it would mean they would theoretically have more time on their hands for their duties,would instantly decrease the number of available volunteers... thus upping the workload for the rest, and might also have the effect of driving away volunteers altogether. If someone considers they are doing a good job with two badges and they are told they can't do it, they might just decide not to hold any badges at all.

Secondly, where do you draw the line... should community artists be forbidden from becoming Aces? the two groups have nothing in common... an artists work would be mainly done off-line, when the volunteer is not even on the site - similar sort of thing for Sub-editors, they might be working for the site whilst unable to actually connect to it.

Plus, there is the point that a few people have bought up... the fact that the jobs do overlap.
eg.
Scouts telling people about GML, formatting, and spelling problems in PR aids the Sub.
Aces having to answer technical questions help the Gurus
Gurus responding to newbies problems in technical forums are often helping the Aces.

Sorry for the misquote, SEF! It's been a long, erm, week!

Whoami?

Hoovooloo: "Ever hear the phrase "jack of all trades, master of none?"."

Yes, I've heard it. I do four, quite specific things on h2g2. Your point is?

"I think limiting people to one scheme at a time could only increase the quality of the work they do for the scheme they're in."

No - I think it might increase the quantity. I'd turn over batches quicker if all I did was to be a Sub, but they'd be just the same.

"it may even be that there should be "qualifications" for some schemes. Scout, for instance"

I think the existing system of giving people a chance isn't harmful. Why do you think Subs work on *copies* of Entries?

I don't think any one volunteer scheme is more important than another. How do you judge importance? They're different. That's all.

"[The Scouts could be limited] to people who have EITHER already been a sub-ed OR have had a number of entries Edited. That way you could be certain they know what they're getting themselves into."

This is, to my mind, unnecessary élitism. If you hang around in PR long enough, you'll get the idea of what Scouting is and does.

Whoami?

"if they can't do the job they should give up the badge..."

Sadly you're making the assumption that everyone is honest, with themselves as well as with others. It is obvious, indeed demonstrable from the recent backlog of this very thread, that not all volunteers are honest. On the contrary, some of them are persistently dishonest in the face of requests not to be.

Is the pool of volunteers so shallow that we don't have enough willing participants for each scheme? I have no idea - I assume either a keen volunteer or an Italic could answer this one. But I was always under the impression there was a waiting list for admission...

"If someone considers they are doing a good job with two badges and they are told they can't do it, they might just decide not to hold any badges at all."

I don't think that would happen, especially if the point was made that the idea is to allow them more time to do ONE job better. And if one or two people did spit out their dummy and refuse to cooperate - good. You don't want people like that waving a badge around in the first place.

And I disagree that the jobs overlap, to be honest, except inasmuch as some of the duties of some of the volunteers could be done by ANYBODY. I've given people advice on GML, and I've welcomed people to the site and given them helpful links before an ACE turned up. Not often, but I've done it more than once. I've never picked an entry from PR though, and I've never subbed one. And therein lies the difference.

ACEs and Gurus are an organisation and a structure put in place to make sure a job gets done - but it's a job you'd like to think that EVERYONE could do, i.e. be nice and helpful and welcoming to people who are new and/or in difficulty with something technical.

Scouts and Subs are qualitatively different - they have VERY specific duties which are central to the stated raison d'etre of the site - the EG. How well they operate is crucial to the quality of the EG. As someone has pointed out, Sub and Scout used to be the same job. Can anyone honestly say they think the EG is worse since those jobs were split out into separate schemes? So doesn't it make sense to extend that idea, and make it so that one person can't be both?

Oh, and one more thing - can't remember who mentioned it. The "Field Researcher" badge is quite different from all the others. You do a project, you get a badge, and you keep it. All other badges require an ongoing commitment, Field Researcher does not, so there's no reason at all why that one shouldn't be held by anybody.

I'm now starting to picture a table of possible volunteer combinations, showing what makes sense and what doesn't, e.g. Scout and Guru is OK, Scout and Sub isn't, Sub and Guru is OK, etc. I might put it together after a bit more thought (unless someone else does first... hint hint )

H.

"Sadly you're making the assumption that everyone is honest, with themselves as well as with others."

Why not trust people as standard, and deal with the exceptions?

"Is the pool of volunteers so shallow that we don't have enough willing participants for each scheme?"

Sometimes. The CAs are recruiting fiercely of late.

"If one or two people did spit out their dummy and refuse to cooperate [with a one-badge rule] - good. You don't want people like that waving a badge around in the first place."

I resent that. I'd probably resign my last badge not because I resented the lack of other badges, but rather the notion that welcoming people made me somehow 'unfit' to Sub-edit, or that answering technical queries rendered me unsuitable for selecting material for the Edited Guide.

"Scouts and Subs are qualitatively different - they have VERY specific duties which are central to the stated raison d'etre of the site - the EG. How well they operate is crucial to the quality of the EG."

True. But the jobs are not mutually exclusive...

"As someone has pointed out, Sub and Scout used to be the same job. Can anyone honestly say they think the EG is worse since those jobs were split out into separate schemes? So doesn't it make sense to extend that idea, and make it so that one person can't be both?"

That someone was me. I don't think the EG is worse for the split. However, I don't think it would be made any better by denying Subs the privilege of influencing their supply chain, or Scouts the opportunity to follow up their recommendations with action.

"I'm now starting to picture a table of possible volunteer combinations, showing what makes sense and what doesn't, e.g. Scout and Guru is OK, Scout and Sub isn't, Sub and Guru is OK, etc. I might put it together after a bit more thought."

I'd rather you didn't - IMHO it would be flawed and factually impossible to back up.

Whoami?

" "Ever hear the phrase "jack of all trades, master of none?"."

Yes, I've heard it. I do four, quite specific things on h2g2. Your point is?"

Yes, well there's always one irritating git who manages to be good at everything! However, we cannot judge everyone by your high standards. Like I say, if you're going to set standards and practices, they have to be ones that work for *everyone*, not just for prodigies such as your good self.

It's a bit like the highway code - the rules of the road seem incredibly conservative when applied to a person such as myself, a fit, skilled individual with good eyesight, good anticipation, quick reflexes and a brand new car with power steering and ABS. But they're not written for me - they're written to take into account the frail, short-sighted, timid, sixty year old woman driving an ancient Ford Prefect, probably while wearing a hat. We all abide by them because that worst case driver might be just around the corner. Similarly, I think the guidelines for volunteer schemes should assume, at least as a starting point, that people can do justice to one role at a time. If nothing else, it allows you to spend the remainder of your online time doing other things, and possibly even spend more of your time offline and in the real world! (hush my mouth... )

H.

"Like I say, if you're going to set standards and practices, they have to be ones that work for *everyone*, not just for prodigies such as your good self."

I didn't say I was perfect. I'm not.

The difference is that death doesn't figure here. I've never heard of a case of someone being hit by the Edited Guide at 71 mph.

But seriously, this is a situation where everyone can be given a chance; if someone is clearly substandard, they'll either be offered help to improve or advised to assess their situation and make some choices.

Whoami?

" the notion that welcoming people made me somehow 'unfit' to Sub-edit,"

Well that table you don't want me to do would probably show that I didn't think that at all. It's not about you being "unfit" for anything, it's more about saying "if we give you this set of responsibilities, we'd rather you concentrate on them than have you spending time doing this other time consuming task".

It's not impugning your abilities, it's about managing and directing them. Few people have your vigour.

H.

"Few people have your vigour."

Yes, but I would hope that rather more have the ability to manage their own responsibilities and commitments, or at least take others' polite hints. Why impose new rules on a system that fundamentally works, on the assumption that it doesn't? I do not believe that multiple badges cause any problems worthy of note.

Whoami?

Hey, I didn't say you were PERFECT!

"if someone is clearly substandard, they'll either be offered help to improve or advised to assess their situation and make some choices."

Really?

I find that difficult to believe. Has it ever happened? (no need to be specific, I'm just surprised that the generally "fluffy" vibe often mentioned would allow anyone to admit that someone was "clearly substandard".)

In my experience, substandard performance in such atmospheres is simply ignored, in the hope that either it will go away, or more likely those complaining about it will give up and go away...

This is sometimes, understandably, the case where there's a dearth of volunteers, but it usually has more to do with weak management not wanting to make waves or have to say something uncomfortable.

Basically I don't believe (for very specific reasons which are, admittedly, my opinion only) that that would happen.

H.

"I would hope that rather more have the ability to ... take others' polite hints."

You'd hope...

"Why impose new rules on a system that fundamentally works, on the assumption that it doesn't?"

Well, I can understand the attitude "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The only problem is that I'm not the only one here suggesting that it IS broke. I think you're right - fundamentally it works. But I think there MUST be some improvement that can be made. If there were no possible improvements, a thread like this would have died much sooner, don't you think?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about root-and-branch reform (I don't *think*), just tweaks. And I think limiting each person (or each account... now there's a thought ) to a single volunteer badge is a tweak worth considering in detail.

H.

"I've never heard of a case of someone being hit by the Edited Guide at 71 mph."

of course, with the presence of mobile web, never say never


i don't think i'd be in favor of limiting volunteers to just one scheme, like whoami? i'd like to think that people can judge for themselves how much they're able to commit. but i would be in favor of some stricter guidelines to become a volunteer. i probably wouldn't attach it to having had edited entries tho, even for subs or scouts. i would guess that most of the current ones would meet this standard anyway. but writing an entry and having it edited doesn't mean one has the ability to guide others doing the same in an acceptable manner.

sorry, i just realized that first part is misleading. it should say:

"i don't think i'd be in favor of limiting volunteers to just one scheme. i agree with whoami? in that i'd like to think that people can judge for themselves how much they're able to commit."

"Really? I find that difficult to believe. Has it ever happened?"

I once got some feedback from Anna or Chris or someone. I'd made a few particularly brainless blunders in the batch that included A666182 - "Heroin". It was 'fluffy' in tone, but its message was clear - I was to be more careful in future.

"Substandard performance in such atmospheres is simply ignored"

Not so. There are more recent cases.

"weak management not wanting to make waves or have to say something uncomfortable"

Er, no. I don't think the Italics are weak. More, erm, tolerant and understanding, to a point. But there is a limit.

"Basically I don't believe (for very specific reasons which are, admittedly, my opinion only) that that would happen."

I speak from experience. I pulled my socks up without anyone having to get angry or threatening me with marching orders. Is it not best that way?

Whoami?

Hoovooloo: "But I think there MUST be some improvement that can be made."

So you woud consider restriction as necessarily an improvement? Er, no.

Hoovooloo: "I think limiting each person (or each account... now there's a thought ) to a single volunteer badge is a tweak worth considering in detail."

You have succeeded in two things in this quote. First, you have identified a fundamental flaw in your suggestion, and second, you've noticed that this needs careful consideration.

I've considered it. It would affect my use of h2g2 for the worse, and that of others. It would, ultimately, serve to alienate me from the community aspects of my work. For me, a change of activity is almost as good as a rest.

Broelan: "writing an entry and having it edited doesn't mean one has the ability to guide others doing the same in an acceptable manner"

True.

And as for the mobile web, that's just plain cheeky.