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

I suggest that discussion of the Spaced Out guide be left on the thread that's already established. This one's going to get cluttered.

Does anyone else find it ironic that *spook* of all people says this:

"there is also the fact that when people submit wrong things [to PR] they have people telling hem it is total rbbish and should be moved to a suitabe forum".

Hardly a USP for the Spaced Out Edition.

Hey ho.





Blimey spook, y'all have created a backlog and a half in the last few days. I am amazed by your speed and energy.

I think I disagree with Spiff about this; or I do at the moment. It is early days.

I have seen a number of attempts at changing the guide. Some like <./>ThePost</.> are permanent. Whoami? made a systemic change to the infrastructure of the site itself by creating the page that became Writing-Alternative better known as AWW. The Popeye Chucklers of <./>AggGag</.>/CaC are the giants upon whose shoulders those of us working on the Underguide are not worthy to be considered dandruff. (I am sorry about that image, it has been rattling around my mind for a while, and needed to come out). And there is, or was, Fiction Central, and the Lost Poetry Office. So many places, so much hard work.

There have also been less successful attempts to change things. I don't know how many of you remember the News Editor, U188465 but I have been experiencing a frisson of deja vu today. (Forgive me again. A lonely gal must get her frissons on Feb Fourteenth wherever she can...)

I can however see enough differences between what it seems you are trying to do with the Special Operations Executive and what we are trying to do with the Underguide.

You have however managed to genuinely offend me on behalf of many other people on this site and in this thred, with your claim of being greatly involved in the development of the Underguide. I obviously cannot tell to what extent you have been lurking, but after the first week or so most of your posts were footsteps.

If I had to say who *has* made significant contributions to the UG they would be, in alphabetical order: ~jwf~, (the grandpappy of us all), Ashley, Captain Morgan (not a researcher, but mentioned here as a provider of dark rum to enliven my coke), friendlywithteeth, GTBacchus, Spiff, sprout, Subcom Deidzoeb, Wazungu, and Whisky (the researcher in this instance, but also another strong spirit). Others have joined in the conversations, and please blame the Captain if I have forgotten any one else. (At least it is 40% proof that you have not offended me, whoever you are, and I apologise humbly if I have offended you).

But hand on heart, spook, you have NOT made a significant contribution to the Underguide. At one point you did ask some interesting questions about it. As an asker of questions myself, I appreciate it when other people ask ones which are interesting. But significant? Nah. Sorry.

So - bitching aside - I think I can see what you are trying to do.

I wish you good luck with it.

Have fun!

Play!

That is, after all, what recreational websites are all about, and none of us can claim to be doing any more than that.

Ben

S**t! The Subcom is right, this should have been posted in the other thread. No point in spamming, it was addressed to spook, and doubtless he will see it here.

B

i have been significntly involved in the underguide agcb. i was one of the first people to throw around dieas and different ways of doing thins in the early days, with things such as the storybook poetry sections, h3g3 and all that. i was significantly involved.

the reason i have not been involved much over the last month is due to the fact that i mised a lot of messages on the msn group and therefoe a lot of chatter and development of proposals etc due to the fact that a month ago my mum died. therefore i have been out of the loop. i guess you easily forget things.

oh, and about your comment about USP - i learn from my mistakes. perhaps you should forget about the past for once.

spook

Hey - I am saying have fun. Get on with it. Go for it. You are doing something the rest of us aren't. You are helping people put more into the site. You are helping people get more out of the site.

En-bloody-joy for goodness' sake!

B

btw - and this is relavent to all - the MSN group is still there, and still moderately active - http://groups.msn.com/theH2G2Underguide

Ben

Spook

I'm sure that Subcom, agcBen, GTB, et al have a better handle on this than me, but IMO anyone that suggests material submitted to the AWW (APR) is rubbish will "be the first against the wall when the revolution comes."

AWW is not intended to be a forum with the same power/effect as PR. A researcher can completely ignore the feedback they receive and if they still poll sufficient support, they WILL make the UG.

Try as I might I can't remember an address for the specific example that I consider a classic UG entry; a picture of a researcher rendered into Guide ML using nothing more complicated than blocks of gray displayed in a table. It's a brilliant piece of work and is totally original.

Look around, spook, what you are trying to create is already underway

no it's not. u obviously don't understand what i am trying to create madent.

anyone gonna reply to my post just before spiff crought up the spaced out guide, about intent i think it was. it thought it was a good point at the time.

Hey, Madent, look lively eh? Pay attention! If you only concentrated a little more you would follow the cut and thrust of this particular debate considerably better.



B

Not meaning to butt in here guys, but purely for your information (and possible entertainment/historical reference etc etc) here is a list of the earliest attempts to group the site into some sort of order.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/P130852 Critique Fun Run July 1999 - vegiman - precursor of Peer Review
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/P183250 Rejection Slips Oct 1999 - vegiman and Loony - helping to explain rejection
A472277 Collaborative Efforts - Nov 1999 - the h2g2er formally know as Col Sellers - one early version of AWW
A225073 Think Tank Dec 1999 - another branch of AWW

Apologies for the extended link but, as you can see, these are so old they are still using 'P' numbers!

<./>ThePost</.> - in response to an earlier query in this forum - took around 6 weeks to set up from inception to first issue.

you mean:

>>
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
<<



i'm not sure what to say about that, though...

seems an odd question at this stage. I don't think we can really think about such administrative details until the ball is rolling with a little more momentum.

but in principle, whilst the current AWW, under whatever name, may be a place from which to glean good quality entries for the UG, i don't see that so much as it's raison d'etre. Possibly even the other way round.

A large part of this project will (i for one hope) a lively forum for discussing many different types of non-EG writing. And where items will prosper more or less, as they do in PR, depending on how people react to them.

Anyway, you aksed whether or not they 'can' link to other entries or threads? Well, why not, if it's for some good reason?

night
spiff

zzzzzzzz

Thanks for the Post-history, Shazz, (I assume it is you lurking behind that editorial mask, you international woman of mystery, you).

It is surprisingly hard to wade through the backlog when you don't know where it is, and the Post and I arrived here at much the same time.

Ben
*still feeling like she's a newbie*

agcBen

reality cheque > bounces > overdrawn

You have to be a little careful linking to unedited entries because there is a danger that they will be deleted by the author at some later date (or may contain language or content deemed yikesable)

I believe this may have already happened to a couple of the links provided to you spook - A963362 and A964848

I've just read A472277 and I am remindeed of the apocryphal tale of the ship to ship communication during fog, requestng a change in course to avoid collision. One of which was a lighthouse ....

Oops!

Yes - tis I

shazz

BTW it's hard to concentrate after 1-1/2 bottles of wine ...

agcBen

Ah, good point.

Ah, the old hands know woss wot!

this time i really *am* going to

spiff

If you enjoyed that, just wait 'til you read the 'test' rejection slips!

Anyway - interlude over - please do carry on

shazz

er, i mean good point Shazz, about the links...

and i didn't mean old... just, er... hands... erm... experienced hands... er, precocious? Intuitive? Naturally gifted?

something positive, anyhow.