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

Jodan:

As Elentari said, can we have an example? I'd certainly like to know your justification for your second & third claims. The disputes I've seen in PR are about content as much as style.

Perhaps those that want something different should volunteer to be scouts & pick what's closest to their ideal?

"Don't we have a Guide ... not an encyclopedia, that's why we have entries that have personality."

It doesn't really feel like that though. It feels like we're neither one thing or the other. It feels like we're trying to be wikipedia with the odd bit of lightheartedness thrown in every now and then. I may well be wrong, but it feels like we have a potentially vibrant creative community thats not being reflected in the output. I just feel that its like we take a colour picture and then put it in black and white.

If that sounds disrespectful towards the people still in Peer Review then I'm sorry, but it doesn't feel right at the moment. We need to be coming from the premise of having the wild entries and calming them down a notch rather than ones already coming in sanitized, and then sanitizing them even more. Thats just the way I feel.

No problems Terran, so why don't you drum up some of those wild entries .... presumably you know the authors you have in mind, then get them into PR and we'll see what happens, but I hope you all stick around to see them through to the EG.

Heres one I made earlier : A29251758

A846434

A854859

And why not stuff about the Guide itself : A1321471

Or should I say its community... its mentioned (or it was) in Wikipedia

My review of that would be ..... one overly long sentence which I'd try to break up, and I'd replace some of the *Doctor*s with *he*.

Other than that I see nothing wrong with this - it appears perfectly acceptable guide material ..... although it should be noted that I'm not a Dr Who fan and you may have missed some important hat episodes and my punctuation is atrocious.

IMO that's worth putting in PR, though I expect it would receive quite a few suggestions e.g. provide more detail about the hats, before being ready for the Guide.

The only problem I see with the second one is the first person .... and that'll come up every time.

Mind you I don't hold with armies and the like.

The second & third offerings appear not to have enough research behind them. Both are a good basis for entries but you need to check out relevant existing guide entries concerning the former and there's potential to expand the latter one.

PS I suspect most mathematicians will tell you that they don't actually use numbers much, if at all.

"PS I suspect most mathematicians will tell you that they don't actually use numbers much, if at all."

My A-Level exam papers disagreed with you

Terran, seriously I don't see the problem in you finishing these entries and submitting them to PR - the first one looks about ready to go there..... I won't comment on them but I'll watch and see what happens, you'll get some suggestions - but it's up to you to act on them or not.

Go for it .... you know you want to.

Take a look at this for a modern PR thread...... http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F48874?thread=4787569&skip=0&show=20

But if our "Strength" is that we are "Unconventional" and not "Encyclopedic" then why cant we have first person entries? I just don't see it.

Like it or loathe it PR standardises the type and writinfg of entries, whilst at the same time massively restricting the flow. When I read the "books" It seems to me that it would be more than possible to have first person entries in the HHGG.

Surely a "Guide" that wishes to be about "Life, The Universe and *EVERYTHING*" Could be loads more variable than PR makes our Guide?!?!?!?!?

Thats the things for me, thye guide really is "Wiki light" and that is why I really cannot be bothered with it. I only come here for the friends and sense of community this place has.... the guide is a poor relation.

Hi guys. Looks like in the time I left this morning until lunchtime, there have been a few posts. Apologies if I skip a few points that required addressing, but I've got to eat too I don't really expect people to read through this *entire* post, so feel free to just skim it if you want to see my response to your point.

Spelling and grammar are important. Presentation is important. The best writers realize this, and I think that most writers proofread their own work. I am not suggesting that we stop worrying about spelling, format, grammar, etc. I am simply saying that PR is not the best place for that kind of thing. Subbies, Curators, Editors and Feedbackers are better. The best way to stop typos is by simply asking the author to proofread and run it through a spell checker. There will be typos. There are always typos. I just think that the fact that they monopolize so many PR threads is bordering on the ridiculous. PR should focus on other things, because there are no other steps along the process that focus on the content and writing, whereas there are plenty to doublecheck the presentation.

"What does that have to do with opening the guide up .... surely that says more about those of us that are contributing."

I don't think that writers are really challenged on this site. I think they can pretty much scrape by with a bare, simple entry and nothing is said to them. Just about anyone in Peer Review right now can improve his or her writing. There is nothing in the Edited Guide process that makes them want to do that, though. I don't think it says as much about the contributors as it says about the process.

"IMO the guide is good, the underguide is good and to relax the guidelines to let any rant in will result in the very rapid end of the guide."

Quite a strawman being laid out, there. I'm not sure where anyone would get the idea that low quality "rants" would get preferential treatment in an open guide, but that's just not what's being proposed. That's exactly the opposite of what's being proposed in fact.

"If we scrap the guidelines we are opening up the house to any rant - unless you are suggesting we replace the guidelines with a different set....."

Post Six.

Psycorp, I really strenuously agree with your Post 23.

"I don't know why you say I butchered the Guidelines. I cut and pasted them from the writing guidelines page. Those were not my words, they were the words of the Editors who wrote the Guidelines."

I was just joking around But there really is no "Write in your own style, not DNA's" guideline.

"Could someone please post an example of an entry that got submitted to PR and thrown out as unsuitable?"

A2902600 is one. There are more examples, but I'd have to go searching for them, and I'm already running low on lunchtime. I'll find the A-numbers later today, hopefully. If someone else can find others while I'm away, that would be appreciated.

"Maybe if someone could post the specific things that they think need to be done - as opposed to just saying we need quirky."

It's about freedom, and an attitude of unconventionality. Do you want someone to say that every entry should have at least three jokes (maximum of 1 in a footnote)? It's difficult to be specific about something like that.

"So if the people currently in PR aren't doing a good enough job, why don't the people who could do a better job turn up and do it."

PR is not a friendly place. I have friends who are scared to join in on the Peer Review conversation. For those of us who aren't intimidated by it (IE, exactly the sort of people who would take the time to participate in a conversation like this), that seems kind of silly but it's a very real feeling. I'm trying to encourage them now though (see my recent journal entry).

In reply to post 37-
Those five are just my ideas for new guidelines. What's not to get? It's just an initial proposal, up for debate.

"Perhaps those that want something different should volunteer to be scouts & pick what's closest to their ideal?"

I agree with that. I've re-volunteered to be a scout.

"The entries that are never submitted to PR because the authors have seen similar things go down in flames. Worst of all, the entries that are never written for the same reason. There are more than a few."

It's hard for me to think in the same way that some of you do, I guess. I'm someone who's got a foot in both the EG and AWW/UG camps. I have experience in talking to writers who are excellent at what they do, but who will NOT write for the EG because of the stifling atmosphere there and the closemindedness. These people are my friends. It's an interesting perspective, compared to an EG-centric view. Maybe more Peers should take a trip down the mine shaft

Well if the poor relation folds so does your community contact list.

I still don't understand why you can't go into PR and try to change it.

First person entries aren't allowed unless they're 'exceptional circumstances' I didn't make the rules - that's what they are.

Now if you want a campaign to change *that* rule ... it may have legs.

Where are you getting the quote 'exceptional circumstances' from?

The rule is very simple. The <./>writing-guidelines</.> say "There are exceptions to this: there are certain topics that do benefit from being told in the first person, and it might well be that your entry is one of them." Like a wise man said once, I didn't make the rules - that's what they are.

"I still don't understand why you can't go into PR and try to change it."

Am doing so. No reason why not. I've been a bit slack in the past four days, I admit, because I was away from all civilization since Friday, and I'm trying to catch up I'm all in favor of being the change that I seek.