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

Hi FM,

I don't know if you've been following it, but after our recent conversation about the lack of quality in Peer Review - see F48874?thread=5475211 - I started a couple of discussions on the unofficial PR discussion forum. I've had a good response, too.

The first one (an open discussion about what's wrong) has shaken a few things out of the woodwork and cleared the air somewhat: F3719964?thread=5482356

The second one (which I started this morning) is inviting anyone to suggest actions we can take to improve things: F3719964?thread=5500615

As, like many of us, you're clearly concerned about Peer Review, I'd really appreciate it if you could have a read and add your own suggestions. I'll leave the thread running for a few days and then I'll try to collate them and get some consensus going about which ones are best to take forward.

Some people have already suggested that we get the 'older' researchers involved, and if you are in contact with any others then I would appreciate their contributions too.

Hope to see you there!

You're on, sunshine

I think the answer to this problem requires a degree of distancing oneself from what h2g2 is about. Ask yourself the question; under what circumstances would a total stranger to h2g2 be inclined to first encounter it? This is pretty obvious: through a search engine. Now, ask yourself under what circumstances would they be inclined to return to it? I'd suggest this answer is less obvious. They'd be more inclined to come back and use it as a first point of reference if:
* it actually told them something they'd want to know
* it did so in its own distinctive style
* it conveyed enough of its own sense of identity and purpose to differentiate itself from the countless other websites out there.

I think h2g2 fails at the first and third points. It's become more a repository for some people's own little obsessions that anything else. There's been few truly informative entries recently: Matt's Nottingham Castle series being a prime example of what the site should be about. Moreover, it's such an unstructured melange of trivia that it doesn't actually come across as having any clear remit as a project.

As most people know, I led an (unsuccessful) one-man campaign about having any more song analyses getting into the Guide. I detested this kind of writing because it was lazy, tedious and formulaic. It was Writing By Numbers, no more. My better half who knows a thing or two about writing (but doesn't spend much time online at all) asked me what I wrote about on h2g2. I showed some of my writings. She liked them and asked me what others write about. I mentioned lots of things, but dropped the song analyses into the conversation as neutrally as I could. She looked at me despairingly and asked 'Do these people really have nothing better to do with their lives?'

THAT is how h2g2 is perceived in the outside world, I'm sorry to say. A bunch of people who, on the whole, have nothing better to do with their lives. I'd like to change that perception. I'd like to see h2g2 become far less cliquey and the prevailing type of EG entry a good deal less worthy. I'd like to see some incisive writing, even opinionated (providing the opinions served the subject matter) about the real world. Finally, I'd like to see the primary purpose of reading the EG as a springboard to actually experiencing first-hand those evnts, places and activities that the author writes about, not as an end in itself.

h2g2 has disappeared up its own backside. Plain and simple.