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

Perhaps they should decrease the number of recommendations per scout and increase the number of scouts. It would let them each have a more thorough search, turning up better entries

It seems to me that PR is not visited by the vast majority of researchers, the comments that you do see there are often from the same people - and while they are wise and almost-all-knowing they really can't know everything about everything.

There are plenty of special interest groups around h2g2, perhaps authors could be encouraged to find a group appropriate to the subject of their entry and post a link to the article there. Thay way more people that might have some knowledge of the subject could become aware of the entry before it hits the front page.

I rarely feel qualified to say much more that "I don't understand this bit, could you explain it for a blonde girl please?"

Here's a concrete suggestion, my first on this thread:

Make it part of an ACE's duties to encourage new users to visit PR, and to explain what the point of the Guide is and how it grows. Make it part of an ACE's remit to encourage them to write something for the Edited Guide, or at the very least to *comment* in PR. The more commenters, the more eyes, the less errors.

I've been ACE'd quite a few times (I've started several accounts over the years ) and although they've been friendly and welcoming and pointed me to things which explain how to use the site, they've not really "sold" the idea of writing entries.

The community and all that other stuff is pretty cool, but isn't the Guide the thing which ties this site together and makes it what it is? And shouldn't the ACEs proactively try to get new users to become active writers for it?

H.

Even if that is all you say then it's still a very valid comment! and extermly useful for you too say!

Hoovooloo:

Yes. I think that is a wonderful idea.

The special interest groups were rather the point of my idea of categorising peer review articles - which Whoami disliked so much. Are you expecting the authors or scouts to know the most relevant club/society and post on their homepage (still assuming members are actually subscribed to that)?

To again agree with hoovooloo (worrying that ), I came here thinking something worthwhile was going on. I planned to care. Once I discovered the secret rules/practices in operation behind the scenes I found that I couldn't contribute in a meaningful way. I was actively being prevented from doing so as well as inadvertantly. I now have to adopt a position of not caring because the current setup is very wrong and I can't do anything about it. So inevitably I keep flicking between those two positions because it is very hard not to care but dangerous to do so.

For anyone who doesn't have a thread tree structure, that was a very slow simulpost (too much self-censorship required).

I wasn't really expecting anything, just trying to think of a way to get more eyes run over entries. I don't want to divide up the pool of people that already look at PR, that has the problem that Whoami talked about, just trying to think of a way to involve more people.

Basically, a bit of searching on the part of the author should turn up any related groups, or researchers who have commented on it in the past. If they have gone to the trouble of researching and writing an entry then 5 minutes searching here shouldn't be too much trouble.

"Perhaps they should decrease the number of recommendations per scout and increase the number of scouts. It would let them each have a more thorough search, turning up better entries"

We only have to pick three entries every four weeks, and whenever one of us announces on the Scout group that they can't make their picks for some reason, those picks are always hungrily grabbed by other Scouts. Personally speaking, I rarely have difficulty finding entries to pick which have had a good discussion thread, which have been declared 'finished' by the author, and which I consider to be EG material (sometimes with a bit of extra effort from the Sub-ed). I don't think there's any need for a more thorough search as long as a Scout spends plenty of time in PR, and once or twice a month goes through the backwaters of PR looking for good entries which have somehow slipped by unnoticed or entries which need to be moved to the Flea Market or back to entry. I certainly wouldn't have any problem with taking on more Scouts though

Hoo, I think yours is a great idea, as long as we first implement some of the suggestions made in the discussion I mentioned earlier about improving the submission process. As it is, we already have new Researchers sometimes thinking that they have to submit to PR each and every new entry they create, until they're politely told that's not the case. Also, with PR as the default choice on the submission form, a lot of entries get submitted to PR because the author didn't have to make a choice and didn't take time to RTFM.

Without addressing those and other problems with the submission process, PR is going to get into an even bigger mess than it sometimes already gets if the ACEs promote it to new Researchers. I don't think that it would be right for the ACEs to have to give a long-winded description of what should and shouldn't go into PR. They need to point the newbies to a Help Page telling them all about the Edited Guide, which PR forum to submit entries to, and why you don't have to submit everything you write. I don't think such a Help Page currently exists, and until it does I'd rather the ACEs remain schtum about it.

" I don't think such a Help Page currently exists"

So write it.

I wrote about 20% of the current Peer Review page and the whole of the Transgressions Procedure Help Pages - the Italics are very receptive to things that help them run the site better and easier. Just write the page, then tell everyone you know about it. I'm not sure what you're after, or I'd be tempted to write it myself.

I agree the default option for review forum submission should be "Flea Market", or possibly, just possibly, writing workshop. It CERTAINLY shouldn't be Peer Review.

But the ACEs need to do more than just point people at Help Pages. I'm not talking about long-winded, detailed descriptions. I'm just saying that they should say something along the lines of:

"The lifeblood and raison d'etre of the site is the Edited Guide. This is where contributors just like you write informative, factual articles about whatever they know about, and other researchers comment on them in the forum. Those which get a positive response, and which meet the , get a polish from the editing team and are publicised on the - the first place new users come. Five entries get this honour every weekday.

YOU can contribute to the Edited Guide! It can be as easy and quick as reading an entry in Peer Review and commenting on it, or as involved as writing an indepth entry on something you're passionate about. You choose your level of involvement, but I'd encourage you to get stuck in - the Edited Guide needs YOU! "

H.

The default option should be 'Choose a forum', and there should be plenty of information about which one to choose. I'll look into writing something.

I'm glad that Hoo has started thread on this subject, because it's been going around my head since I saw what was going on on the Console Wars entry - I even talked it through with my husband in the shower this morning (No -*I* was in the shower, *he* was brushing the baby's teeth)...

Like Hoo,I am sometimes concerned by entries getting throughthe process with gresater room for improvement than I’m happy with. I think we all do a great job (Group anyone? ) but that’s no reason not to try to keep making things better...

I wonder about the subject of the 'C' categories, where entries end up once they're in the EG - might it make sense for either:

A researcher, who has written an entry to hunt out the relevant C group where their entry would sit, find a reseacher who had written a similar entry (not necessarily the same subject, but a similar theme, eg another book review?) and invite them to takle alook

A Scout, who is not an expert on the subject, to hunt out the relevant 'C' group and ask the same question?

Alternatively, use the hootoo search engine!

I've just tried this working from the console wars entry, and I have ended up at the page of... Hoovooloo, among others. OK, it's not a perfect trial, but I wonder... Hoo, I know you're not playing such an active part in the EG per se, but would you have responded to such a query?

I doubt this would be required for all entries, but might be an option for some?

I wonder if the Scouts who pick 'problematical' entries are the Scouts who wouldn't have time for such work? God knows I've rushed my picks at times, but I do try to keep my standards (judge me at A822386) - I think If I was in a rush I mighht pass over an entry whcich needed such work in order to go for a safer bet, in which cases technical or more specialist entries might sit in PR for much longer...oh dear.

Unlike Gosho, I do sometimes struggle to make my three picks, perhaps because I *will* pass over entries that I feel are too specialist for me

" would you have responded to such a query?"

Definitely. But that's just me. Assuming of course I'm even about the place - I usually am, of course, when I haven't stormed off in a fit of pique or nipped off snowboarding somewhere or something.

In fact, I'd think most people would be flattered to be asked - I know I would. The trick is, knowing who to ask. Don't ask me to suggest how that could be done... I'm all idea'd out after that ACE suggestion above.

H.

Thoughts of Z so far...

Guide entries are always going to contain some entries that are inaccurate and incomplete, even if they were accurate and complete when they were written then things do change. For instance when I've finished writing an extended essay on HIV vaccines I'm planning on writing a guide entry on the subject. I can garentee some more research will be published. For a situation that DNA envisied where the Guide really is the definate guide to life, the Universe and Everything. We need to have a better update system. If an entry could be quickly updated, then when situations such as the console one arose the person who queired the entry could be asked to update it.

However good a system we get of checking guide entries, it will always let the odd one or two through.

I'm genuinely curious to know what SEFs experience of the EG process was, again if he wishes to mail me off site, he can get my address from the ACE's e group, where he and I are regular posters.

We need more people to be involved in the Peer Review process, a campaign "PR needs You!" anyone

I think one of the barriers people have to commenting at first is that Peer Review is quiet a cliquely place, when I first went it commenting seemed to be the perogative of the few who knew the writting guidelines and could point out errors in spelling and grammer. However what PR needs more of is people who say "I enjoyed reading this entry but I didn't understand the paragraph on XYZ" or "I may be wrong but didn't the first episode of TV programme Y go out on a Thursday not a Wednesday"

as has been said before there are two type of people on here, those that are heavliy involved in the EG and those that are more involed in the community. As quiet a few ACEs tend to be heavlily involved in the community rather than the Guide I'm not entirly sure that they would be the right people to encourage people to get more involved in the Guide.

Perhaps we need an newcomers guide to writting for the guide and the editorial process, are people here up for helping me write one?

the entire reason I stayed on h2g2 was that Bossel saw my first entry to the Writing Workshop and told me it ourght to be entered for Peer Review, I'm ashamed to say I don't often go into the writing workshop myself, which is awful because I know I should. I also find the Peer Review process of getting my own entries reviewed very statisfying, it has increased my grasp of English (I'm from Birmingham)imensely.


the reason I don't have time to do the same is because I'm too busy when scouting saying "this isn't really edited guide material" to someone's personal rant. If we had more scouts then we should have more time to do this. Perhaps the role of the scout should be to encourage newcomers to write enteries and help them develop it, aswell as picking entries.

There has recently been a push for shorter edited enteries in the scouts and the sub's e groups, I don't think this encourages quality enteris, rather we should reccommend splitting long entries, as this encourages better qualility.

I'm hungover and I need a

So in conculsion Z's recomendations are...

A quicker and more effective update system, (recomendations please!)

More scouts, and to encourage scouts to help new writers more.

Help page about contributing for newbies, simalar to "I'm new what do I do now" ( A868098 ) subscribed to by helpful scouts, and ACEs who are familar with the EG process, and ACES to link to this page in there welcome if the newcomer shows an interest in writing for the Edited Guide. I'll start work on this after my exams, if anyone else wants to do it first then I'm more than happy

Z to go into kitchen and make a

HVL said, "Make it part of an ACE's duties to encourage new users to visit PR". While this is a nice idea, the ACEs are community volunteers. Their job title even includes the word Community in it. Of course, the gurus are supposed to be community jobs, they deal with some editorial issue.

There's also the issue of the natural selection touched upon by Gosho in post 49. New researchers that will contribute to the EG will automatically gravitate to it, ask someone or just find it. People that won't contribute to the EG will not care. I'm not sure if this idea will really help...

Anyway, you'll obviously have to check with Mina and Abi, and do they even require certain criteria for their greetings.

>>Z- "Perhaps we need an newcomers guide to writting for the guide and the editorial process, are people here up for helping me write one? "

They have quite a few help pages on this subject. Are you talking about a more specific guide?

>>those that are heavliy involved in the EG and those that are more involed in the community

I believe quite a few people take exception to that. You aren't necessarily an EG person or a Community Person. There isn't that sort of polarization. I like to think I'm a little of both, but care more about the EG.

>>A quicker and more effective update system, (recomendations please!)

There are two types of updates. Incomplete, which would require a more extensive system and incorrect, for which we have the editorial feedback center. If you post a link being wrong or something mispelled there, an italic will come along and fix it rather quickly.

as a lurker (and very occassional poster) in PR and as someone trying to find the time to write my first entry for submission to the EG (although admittedly it's because I found an EG entry on a topic I know a bit about which is hopelessly inadequate and needs updating not an addition to the guide)

I know how you feel. I rewrote the Calvin and Hobbes entry and it's in PR, what is inadequate to you?

(curious)

A206452

You're right. I look forward to an update

It might be a long wait - I'm all fired up ATM because hubby just bought a new chair but once the novelty wears off it might go the same way as my clay entry (which never got past the first sentence)

I don't find writing easy, and I also know the standard of entries I would want to see submitted to PR so I'm wary of bodging the job.