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

I'm impressed

Sounds like it's coming together within h2g2

Comments on GTBs UG Process and Ashley's posting:

Not sure if I should be posting in this particular thread or under U967115, so apologies if I'm in the wrong place...


I can see a couple of little problems with the system as it's described...

Firstly the voting system seems hellishly complicated... what happens if someone recommends an entry in the e-group, the next two people like it (thus giving you your 3 clear yes votes) then the next 18 miners hate it?

Next... The scouting subbing process - tracing the history of an entry...

The entry's got to be identifiable, so before it can be scouted the original version of the entry (Version I) will have to be edited to include Underguide somewhere in the title... This is going to have to be done by the author as they are the only one's with editing rights.

Once it's scouted (recommended) by the UG Persona and accepted by the italics a copy is made and sent back to the UG Persona (Version II) (presumably this version will be marked 'recommended' - simply because it's gone through the in-house tools??? - This gives editing rights to the UG Persona.

Then comes the complicated bit... for the UG Persona to ship the entry out to a Sub-ed, there are two ways of doing it... Either the italics change the editing rights on the document again - following a request from the UG Persona... or, to avoid giving the italics even more work, the sub ed creates a new version of the entry to edit (Version III), when he's finished editing it, he informs the UG Persona who then has to copy Version III back into Version II, before returning version II (the official 'recommended' version) back to the in-house team (Thus changing it's status to 'pending')

From that moment on it's the in-house teams problem how the entry is dealt with and categorised... I've no idea how the in-house tools work or if having something in the 'pending' queue which isn't destined for the EG is a problem?

So, you end up with quite a complicated document path and three versions of the same entry

Version I - Author
Version II - UG Persona
Version III - Sub-ed's working copy

With Version II being the one to end up in the UG

I hope someone's got their head screwed on... coz organising that little lot is going to be a nightmare for anything over one entry per week

Hi all,

just found this thread today,

can't the UG persona copy also be the sub-ed copy.

Indeed, could we say that having access to the UG persona could imply a commitment to sub the entries, on a rota basis?

that would simultaneously lose one of Whisky's roman numerals, and add responsibility to the UG persona.

I'd think of the responsibility aspect as a positive factor, since otherwise *everybody* will want to be able to log on as the UG-editor. If there is a commitment to some effort, that may not be quite so much the case.

just a thought
spiff

Depends on how many entries you want to deal with...

I suspect the UG Persona would have to be limited to a max of 2 or 3 researchers... which would be ok if you only want one entry a week - but what would happen if you wanted to put together an entry a day? You'd be looking at subediting 2 or 3 entries per week each

Just a quick note about the persona problem.

You keep the management of the persona in a couple of people's hands who change the password on a regular basis....

Don't forget we are talking about a small amount of entries to start with.

I'll post again after the weekend.

Hopefully most of the entries sought out for or submitted to the UG will be in a more or less finished state anyway. The UG persona would probably not have to do as much work as an EG sub-ed, and in a way, I'd have thought that was the whole point. Yes?

oops half-post...

who then give that temporary password to the UG sub.

It ain't perfect but it is feasible.

just thinking...

i don't know if this goes with guidelines or what, but has anyone thought about linking to non-edited entries in UG entries? obviously EG and UG entries would be fine, but what about unedited entries, and even conversations? would we be following EG policy, for not? also, perhaps if UG entries are getting a status, would EG entries be allowed to link to UG entries?

spook

Hi Spook, I wonder if this might be a good time and place to talk about your 'Spaced Out' guide... I have held back from shooting from the hip in that thread for various reasons, but despite what you say, it does seem to be related to what this 'underguide' scheme is hoping to achieve. hmm i really ought to have a link here somewhere... http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=247550 there we go. :) I personally don't understand the real distinction between what you are proposing and what all these other people have got *together* to try to create. :( especially your post 74 in that thread. I just don't see the advantage in what you propose. you say, for instance, 'without criticism or rejection', but are you planning to accept just *anything*? you also say that the 'underguide' "won't cover the same kind of entries" (sorry, not a real quote, but pretty close) How so? and then there is the 'solo' aspect of it... a discussion forum seems cool to me, not to 'improve' entries, particularly, but to talk about them. And then you say it is a place for these entries to 'be read', well, we all want such a place, but surely the best thing is to create a single hub for this kind of thing. but of course, you have said that this is not 'similar to the underguide'... whereas i feel that it is; especially given the kind of thing people are submitting. I applaud your desire to create such a vibe here on h2g2, but beg that you consider joining forces with others and making it a communal effort. if nothing else, the review dynamic of PR is something that really encourages new writers. The fact of getting feedback on writing and discussing those comments... sorry to seem to be knocking your project, i know you want to make it work in your own way. But it just seems to be dividing our efforts, rather than uniting them. hope you will take all of this in a spirit of positive dialogue spiff

Oh Gosho! Gosho! Wear four heart though, Gusho!

wossup?

I am totally confused about what guide is what.
I Probably helped to confuse others also, thinking these two guides were one in the same

I will now stay out of this until all is settled!

Thought I'd get into the Valentines Day spirit Spiff... y'know - Romeo and Juliet, and all that jazz

Hey Abbi, don't stay out, come on in!

There is only really *one* guide, and anyone can get involved.

I think the edited guide developed as a way to harness some seriously useful amateur writing

What the underguide is all about, is trying to harness some equally worthy amateur writing, that isn't necessarily "factual and informative"

So if you've got entries that don't fit the edited-guide guidelines, but you think are fun or interesting, or you just want some feedback, drop them into the Alternative Writing Workshop forum, and see what happens...



cya
spiff

And, equally, if you want to read some good writing, and post in some gentle conversations and critiques, then join in the conversations there.

Ben

Oh, er.. oops... sorry bout that Gosho, me ol' china.

merry St Val's too you.

so, you up for a spot of underguidage?

I think it's a fantastic idea Spiff, I'm all for it

spiff - i didn't post anything about spaced out here as i didn't want to detract from the underguide discussion, however, since you want me to, let me reply to some of your points:

>"you say, for instance, 'without criticism or rejection', but are you planning to accept just *anything*?"

yes. anything. absolutely. no rejections. that is what it sys on the tin. it is about encouraging writing and giving people a place for their great entries to be seen, and they can do that without the risk of ritiscism or rejection, which can be off putting to people, especially newbies.

>"you also say that the 'underguide' "won't cover the same kind of entries" (sorry, not a real quote, but pretty close)
you also say that the 'underguide' "won't cover the same kind of entries" (sorry, not a real quote, but pretty close)"

spaced out will contain things such as A964406 and A965342 and A967584, which won't be in the underguide. however, it also contains things such as A963209 and A965298 and A964217, which may be suitable for the underguide, and whch you could therefore scout for it. it was the fun to write, no pressure, no rejection which the researchers liked.

>"if nothing else, the review dynamic of PR is something that really encourages new writers. The fact of getting feedback on writing and discussing those comments..."

yes, and there is also the fact that when people submit wrong things they have people telling hem it is total rbbish and should be moved to a suitabe forum, and are told it is spam and are threatened by banning when they don't understand, things that i have seen happen. this gives people a chance to have their work become a part of something, so they write moe, they are happy, and many enries become great and scoutable for the UG. the spaced out wins. the UG wins. everyone's happy.

so, what's your problem?

spook