A Conversation for Ask h2g2

Dear Jimster...

Post 41

U1250369

Well *done*, Whisky.


Dear Jimster...

Post 42

LL Waz

Well let's also raise several glasses to those noisy researchers who complained, disagreed, discussed and campaigned for such things as reactive moderation, the use of links and places to discuss elections.

Staff did their bit, but so did the likes of Zaphodistas and the SBVM. If h2g2 researchers had politely stayed quiet I don't believe we'd have those developments. How could the staff even justify asking the BBC for them with no visible demand to meet?

The equating of disagreement and dissent with whinging, moaning, ingratitude, abuse and moping will kill off more than conversation.

Even PR was, I believe, the result of researcher dissatisfaction, leading to discussion and then to proposals.

I'm raising a glass to them anyway smiley - bubbly, I owe them big-time.



Going back to post 1, it was interesting because it's not my perception that h2g2 is becoming more community run. It's certainly more community administrated, but I'd say researchers have less influence on the tone, feel and character of the site than they used to.

Better use being made of the volunteer resource is excellent. Hasn't reached its potential though. Wonder where we'd get if the BBC invested in a Volunteer Manager. Natalie, Jimster and Beth are all Producer/ Editor orientated - there is a people management aspect to a site like this and I do think the BBC are overlooking it.


Dear Jimster...

Post 43

Whisky

"Staff did their bit, but so did the likes of Zaphodistas and the SBVM. If h2g2 researchers had politely stayed quiet I don't believe we'd have those developments. How could the staff even justify asking the BBC for them with no visible demand to meet?"

Absolutely, and I should have included that in my waffle!

smiley - ale

"The equating of disagreement and dissent with whinging, moaning, ingratitude, abuse and moping will kill off more than conversation."

smiley - ermHope that's not what I came across as doing... The trouble is, the initial post, to me, seemed more of a retrospective look at the 'old' hootoo rather than a look to the future - hence my use of the word 'moping'.

smiley - ale

However, having said that...

"Wonder where we'd get if the BBC invested in a Volunteer Manager. Natalie, Jimster and Beth are all Producer/ Editor orientated - there is a people management aspect to a site like this and I do think the BBC are overlooking it."

_Is_ a way of looking forward to the future of the site...

I'm curious as to see what you think the role of a volunteer manager should be though...
The first thing that struck me on reading that was:
You'd need more than one,
You'd need a group of them,
They'd be responsible for making the site sticky,
They'd be responsible for helping out newbies,
smiley - ermThat's starting to sound familiar!
Aces?

Or do we need some kind of 'Head Volunteer' for each of the volunteer groups? and if so, what would they bring to the site?


Dear Jimster...

Post 44

Andy

Whisky

they had a section head badge but i dont think it was implemented not sure if the section head was meant for the head Ace/guru/artist beeing called section head the section head page can be found here A439148 and bruce was the first guru his is still on his page U25551


Dear Jimster...

Post 45

Reefgirl (Brunel Baby)

I happen to like the disscussion and chat part of h2g2 and you can learn a lot through it, while the EG is an integeral part of h2 it's not the be all and end all. IMHO there has been a decline in the standard of entries, they used to be fun to read, sometimes I'd have a bit of a giggle too, but now everything that makes the piece 'yours' has to be removed. The EE's are dry, humourless pieces that could have come straight out of an encyclopidea there's nothing that says WHY the writer likes the suject so much. Personally I think there's too much "You must write for the guide this isn't a chatroom" emphasis put upon people, let them find their feet before putting pressure on them to write.


Dear Jimster...

Post 46

Whisky

As far as I remember Bruce was the _only_ person ever to get a section head badge... But that's before my time...

smiley - yikes I've just realised I've just missed my fifth hootoo birthday!


Dear Jimster...

Post 47

Spankmunki: The Answer is Lemons. Next break in the current workload due mid-December.

smiley - cakesmiley - bubbly Happy hootoo birthday Whiskey!

As some of you know only too well I am on-and-off member and have been for a while (original user number 195006). In terms of content contribution I have only submitted one entry to the edited guide. The community here is the best I've seen on any site, I'm not saying that to gee-up you all and try to patch up differences. It is by far the most well established and interesting group I've come across.

Is this community spirit (bleugh buzz words smiley - ill) being put into jeopardy by a change in the way that the site is managed? I think the answer is yes, without a doubt. So it falls to the community to ensure that the site develops, adapts, stays static in right ways.

Liam.


Dear Jimster...

Post 48

kelli - ran 2 miles a day for 2012, aiming for the same for 2013

Happy hootoversary Whisky smiley - stiffdrink

I'll be five tomorrow smiley - magic


Dear Jimster...

Post 49

Icy North

I think you have a good point, Reefgirl (post 45), but it's not quite as bad as you say. We have had some very good individual pieces recently, but I agree that some of them do seem to 'go through the motions'.

To some extent it's driven by the writing guidelines. Two of those are "Be original" and "Write about what you're interested in". There are limiting guidelines too, of course - "Write in your own style rather than that of Douglas Adams" and "Don't try too hard to be funny" are two which spring to mind. Maybe it's not always easy for people to tread the path inbetween these, and they err on the side of caution.

We can all help to put that right. Anyone can comment in Peer Review, and the more the merrier. (Best not post "this is a dry, humourless piece" though - there are more creative ways of saying it smiley - laugh)

There has been an influx of new volunteers in the last couple of months, who should be able to add their ideas. But it's not just volunteer scouts - ACEs help by directing talented researchers to the creative areas of the site, as can everyone else.

I agree that people should not be coerced into contributing at the expense of community spirit. We're all different, for one thing. It took me a couple of years before I felt confident enough to submit anything to PR. On the other hand, some people join up just to write for the EG.


Dear Jimster...

Post 50

LL Waz

I doubt it's feasible to expect people to take on management responsibility unpaid, so I'd say Head Volunteers wouldn’t work. In fact it could be disastrous, like back in school, having prefects around.

You need the right person with the right people management skills – a professional attitude, skilled communicator, all that.

They’d recruit, train, back up and support existing volunteer groups, and motivate, encourage and guide some of the unacknowledged volunteer groups like entry writers, SExperts and workshop reviewers etc.

They'd make sure the groups were used most effectively, focused on setting the right tone and focus. ‘Right’ being the one that fits the site’s goals. Volunteers can do a lot but someone has to coordinate them.

[Side issue - equating disagreement with moping, whinging etc. Whisky, you could have said 'Let's stop wishing things were back the way they were four years ago'. It certainly isn't just you, I've seen it a lot and it's too effective a way of killing off discussion for it not to be intentional on occasion, even if only subconsciously so. It's not a way to encourage an involved creative community. Happy belated fifth, btw]


Dear Jimster...

Post 51

Whisky

"You need the right person with the right people management skills – a professional attitude, skilled communicator, all that.

They’d recruit, train, back up and support existing volunteer groups, and motivate, encourage and guide some of the unacknowledged volunteer groups like entry writers, SExperts and workshop reviewers etc.

They'd make sure the groups were used most effectively, focused on setting the right tone and focus. ‘Right’ being the one that fits the site’s goals. Volunteers can do a lot but someone has to coordinate them. "

In other words - A community editor - the Job Abi, Peta and Mina used to do?



Dear Jimster...

Post 52

There is only one thing worse than being Gosho, and that is not being Gosho

A great deal of Volunteer goup co-ordination goes on in their relative Yahoo groups - often without the intervention of the Editors.


Dear Jimster...

Post 53

STRANGELY STRANGE ( A brain on a spring )

I have never written an Edited Guide entry, although I have made a few , hopefully, helpful comments in Peer Review.
I simply do not have enough knowledge about any one subject to write an Edited Guide entry, however there is still the unedited guide.
.....I don't think that a purely guide entry site would be a good thing since Misc-chat/Ask/Forum, etc has led onto guide entries being created, and things like The Post are an interesting thing. There are also some interesting and useful clubs/support areas that do a good goob, particularly areas that offer suport to those with medical conditions, etc.
I would NOT like this place to go down the "A.S.L" road though, which it seems to have avoided doing so far, thank God.


Dear Jimster...

Post 54

LL Waz

I was never that familiar with Abi, Peta and Mina. It may be similar but I don’t think it’s quite the same. It’s hard to explain. ‘Editor’ doesn’t come into it though.

Abi, Peta and Mina all seemed very much part of the community, they seemed to instigate community events, for instance, as opposed to supporting researchers in doing so. They participated in, rather than chaired discussions… the role I see needs to be a step back from that. It couldn’t be done by one person if it wasn’t. The Community Editors seemed to me to try and create the community feel, as opposed to keeping an eye on how community is doing on its own, and giving a steer every now and then when needed.

But whatever the missing post is, I think it was a mistake removing the Community Leadership role completely. In the BBC’s Editorial Policy pages for these web sites it states that it’s essential to have a site Host. I think it’s an essential too, and I don’t think h2g2 has an identifiable site ‘Host’.

On h2g2, because researchers are more than just site-users, I’d say it would be ideal for that Host role to be effected via volunteers, but they’d need managing.

The current italic roles manage the processing of content, but don’t have the time to manage from the point of view of increasing membership, retaining researchers, motivating more entry writing…

This all seems a bit pie in the sky though, doesn’t it?


Dear Jimster...

Post 55

Zak T Duck

Well as New Media is being restructured, renamed and by the looks of it will also be hiring (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5194046.stm for that one), maybe there's an argument for the return of at least one community editor for their largest (and probably least publicised) community. Perhaps though we should not get our hopes up too soon.


Dear Jimster...

Post 56

Mr. Dreadful - But really I'm not actually your friend, but I am...

<>

It's not really that simple though. Just because a couple of your Entries were judged as being unsuitable you seem to have decided that standards are slipping. I've been a member of this site for nearly 2-and-a-half-years now, and was an unregistered lurker for about a year prior to that and I honestly cannot say that I've seen any decline in the standard of the EG, merely a decline of numbers.

I give my own Solo Edited Entry on Live Roleplay as an example of how the EG is still allowed to display humour and individual style.


Dear Jimster...

Post 57

Whisky

Reading between the lines a little...

Ok, the community is important to us all. BUT...

Given that the Beeb have axed the budget that originally paid for the Community Editors.

Given that Jimster makes comments about using MBs EG project on 'We didn't start the fire' to sell the site around the Beeb.

Given that he tends to push the edited guide.

I think we can probably safely assume that the Edited Guide is the bit of the site that gets the site its funding - and without that, the whole site would cease to exist... It's all very well us saying the Beeb should spend more on the community and that it's more important to us than the edited guide - but it doesn't look like the bean-counters in the beeb think that. Therefore, in my way of thinking - if we want to improve the community aspects of the site it's got to be done on the back of improvements to the guide.

Oh, and I disagree with both of you about the quality of new entries in the guide... But that's probably a whole different arguement anyway.


Dear Jimster...

Post 58

Reefgirl (Brunel Baby)

"Just because a couple of your Entries were judged as being unsuitable you seem to have decided that standards are slipping"

Not at all, I'm not the only one who thinks that. IMO h2 is trying to become too much like Wikipedia, instead of copying others shouldn't the guide be trying to set itself apart?


Dear Jimster...

Post 59

Whisky

"Not at all, I'm not the only one who thinks that. IMO h2 is trying to become too much like Wikipedia, instead of copying others shouldn't the guide be trying to set itself apart?"

Erm...

Wikipedia started in January 2001.

H2G2 started in 1998 with the current Peer Review system set up in 2000 (A395624)

Certainly, since I started writing for the Edited Guide in mid-2001 I've seen no major changes in what is or isn't acceptable or in the Writing Guidelines laid out for the site.

I'd hardly call that 'copying Wiki'.



Dear Jimster...

Post 60

Reefgirl (Brunel Baby)

Sorry I meant to say Copying Wikipedia's Style


Key: Complain about this post