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

Well, the positive spirit of the first post didn't last too long before we're back to more talk about how bad h2g2 is and why it shouldn't be recommended to anyone new. I thought it was too good to last.

Anyway, just since it's now the topic of discussion - no, I'm not in the least offended or feeling personally insulted. I've seen - or read - more than one thing on h2g2 which I consider to be bullshit, so why should I deny that response to anyone else?

"I've seen - or read - more than one thing on h2g2 which I consider to be bullshit, so why should I deny that response to anyone else?"

We have to confront what some of us who love this place, think is just so wrong...and destined for total failure, before we can move on.

My friend who came round today writes music for film, and she's pretty successful at it.

She well knows the complexities of fitting music and sound to imagery of film.

It only works when you face the relationship of the two.

You don't take one as just *decorating* the other.

It's to do with *relationship*.

@KB, hope I didn't come across as insulting, I apologise if I did, I liked the illustration

it is just the real thing just doesn't make me feel sick, I do understand that it makes others queasy, that's

*thinks she is not keeping up with this thread very well, niether is she an artist or a writer and should go away and be quiet*

it was an inappropriate interjection, I accept that

It seems the old iconoclasm issue is as alive and well as ever.

We don't need those Protestant thugs over the centuries, smashing every image existing of any worth, with their literal hammers and chisels.

Just make make imagery dumb stupid and decorative as a thing to be assessed.

Not something to have all kinds of interesting relationships with text.

And how do you propose we better integrate the images and the text? Bearing in mind that the site needs to be easy to follow, easy to write, easy to maintain (these two being at least partially code related) and not too memory/bandwidth hungry. There's a reason why web design still relies on blocks of text juxtaposed with square/rectangular images. Yes, it is possible to do all kinds of wonderful things with text wrapping and transparancies and stuff but that's a lot of time and effort to impose on people who are doing this in their spare time.

Are we talking about square pegs and round holes?

The subtext here seems to be that there are 12 year old processes which have over time become a round hole but if we wish to be taken seriously we should change and accept the work of pegs that are triangular, square, pentangular, hexagonal and so on. Fixed publishing processes meet creative artistic temperaments and .... nothing ensues.

It gives rise to some interesting questions, in particular should the processes change, or is the round hole the way to do it? The answer to that question depends on what the site is there for, what it is trying to be and become.

The banner on the top of the Front Page says "Help us write the Guide". The wording changed when the site moved away from the BBC, so we have to assume that this is an important and considered message.

Essentially, those who write for or seek to illustrate the Guide are working to a brief, albeit a loose and flexible one. So the site isn't about creativity and artistic freedom, the blogosphere is there for that. h2g2 is about using (or developing) your skills to the furtherance of a specific aim and within specific guidelines.

If we are going to "make this place work" we need to ask "what IS the best way to create the Guide?" The other questions, the ones about about fostering community, about selecting images, about providing feedback, about creativity and the quality or otherwise of decisions made by the volunteers, all feed in to that one.

Comrade you are entirely missing my point.

It's not to do with a load of test wrapping or whatever stuff...though of course it can be that.

It's to do with a way of *thinking*

(I don't expect to get an email from people who have clearly not even bothered to *read* the text when they dismiss imagery for the very things that make it *fit* with the text.

They call themselves *artists*.

Artists think in the round of creativity. That's always been my experience.

Anyway I'm fed up for a bit of banging my head here on this thread to do with h2g2.

Who cares if it works...? I don't much, just now...I might feel better though once I've had my Kohlrabi soup experiment I'm just starting on.

If I'm missing your point it's because I'm not sure I understand it... if you're not talking about fancy coding stuff and other kinds of things that make the text and the image one whole piece what are you proposing that's different to how we do things already?

Is it then not a matter of how the picture is presented but the picture itself?

In which case isn't the process we have already adequate?

I plan on illustrating my Entry on buying amplifiers with a photograph of all my amplifiers in a big stack, I may do some image manipulation before sending it off and may even provide several versions but ultimately I'll defer to the wisdom of the people who have *volunteered* to handle the arty stuff on the site, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

Everything I post here is as a result of doing 3 years at Goldsmiths following a Foundation at City Lit in London.

Take it or leave it. I'm not succesful myself in the real world I fully admit in any commercial sense..but I know those that are as friends.

anhaga is also a succesful now practising artist with both high achievement in Anglo Saxon word based, and now the visual arts

You can take our input or not.

But if I was building a bridge, I think I'd take fairly seriously the input of engineers..Yes maybe that's a dodgy analogy in some ways and limited as all are..but it entertains me for 5 seconds here.

Look Comrade. I don't know who makes the decisions around here about the people running the show?

Noesis, Robbie or Consortium?

It's clear as mud.

But I'm communicating with people calling themselves *artists* I expect what it says on the can.

Back later.

'The subtext here seems to be that there are 12 year old processes which have over time become a round hole...'

In fact the artists never worked like they do now. We are completely reinventing the process because it just doesn't work like we did things with the BBC.

The artists and photographers are one group now for instance to allow more artistic freedom that we never had. The Photographers were for instance never allowed to manipulate images, would you believe that? We also have - as lil mentioned - installed a review process for art in which the volunteers are constantly reviewing each other's pictures and improving them. And we are working closely with the Guide Editors who also review the pictures to see if they really fit to the Entry. I don't think this was ever the case before, but I was a Photographer, not an Artist. The Photographers never really worked with the Guide Editors, we always just sent them finished pictures and they took them or not.

You see, there are loads of changes in the Community Artists, we're probably the volunteer scheme that changed most. And as we don't have access to as many pictures as the BBC had we really make almost all pictures ourselves and we have to do this *on time* because they have to be finished when the Entry hits the Front Page.

Good points Tavaron.

Effers, you remind me of the people who complained about the constraints of the Edited Guide and who went on to set up CAC/GAG/AGG and the Underguide. However, they never said the Edited Guide was *wrong*, merely that it was *limited*.

> But we have this weird thing here whereby the two are considered entirely separately.

Not necessarily. For Gnomon's articles on Mathematical Knots A43825827 and The Decipherment of Linear B A4596735 the illustrations were considered as part of the text during Peer Review. And they were in the BBC era. Due to technical constraints, this was tricky, but it was done.

Usually, though, they are considered separately. And the process can be a little strange. In many cases, though, the illustration just "sets off" the entry, and is not important to understanding. I don't know what the sign in A34088024 means, and it's hard to see anyway because the signer is not wearing a plain shirt. But it suits the entry fairly well (a plain shirt would make it better). And the keyboard in A54511986 is rather wonderful, and I love it, but it's not exactly informative, is it?

TRiG.

Okay soup is on the go.

More thoughts.

We were under the Beeb umbrella for aeons as the net developped. We were closeted. We copuld indulge ourselves.

Now we are a limited company of a strange 3 way kind. We have to survive in the capitalist world.

If I was running a limited company...I wouldn't have 99% staff as volunteers.

Also I'd have clear guide lines about the staffs' suitability for the jobs...qualifications...training etc...proper interviews.

But I don't run a limited company.

But as sure as hell I'd have a proper structure in place about who was the boss. And if you didn't perform you'd be sacked.

My idea of performance in a capitalist structure would be clearly spelled out.

But then 'my' is a bit daft. The dog's breakfast is 3 different owners...and no-one has a clue where the buck stops.


(A charity or Co-op could have been set-up. It wasn't.

New h2g2 is a limited company that has to survive by making a profit. That's the FACT. Having everyone on staff as unpaid volunteers can work well I suppose...

Thank you for explaining that to us. Your insight and inside knowledge into running a business, especially running this one .... wow. Just wow.

What soup's on the go? L made a wonderful baked potato soup the other day. She's a culinary artiste sometimes.

It's a new soup featuring kohlrabi. I had a good long chat with my favourite guy up the shop; it turns out he's a Kurd from Northern Iraq...and seems to know a lot about how you can use kohlrabi

I'm taking his advice as I got the strong impression he knew what he was talking about.

The leaves and peel are good for making the stock...being strong in flavour.

But add the 'meat' of the Kohlrabi which is delicate in flavour but cruchy...just at the end.

(I've chucked in plenty of onion, crushed garlic, thyme and bay...a few green lentils and a sliced up tatty as well).

Shall consume with a bit of yoghurt chucked in at the end...poss cheddar...or whatever else to taste.

One thing I've learnt from watching Master Chef is 'keep on tasting' as you cook.

Here's my extremely famous recipe for baked potato soup:

F23574?thread=6084665