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

Oh yes we can!



B

Well we can, but I think that the less work we give them, the more they're likely to support us. That's what I would do.

Ye-es.

I am taking a slightly different approach, with all respect to Ashley's nails. Namely, the better it will work, the more they will support it. We do need to get as many details sorted out as possible, but there are some things that only they can do. My guess is that those will be reasonably clear to them and to the folks that have been rattling around here for a while.

You really like to understand things clearly, don't you? That is so good to see!

Ben

Is there any other way to understand them?

I'm glad I'm a compulsive nail-biter, I don't have to worry

I've never belonged to any of the official volunteer schemes either - I'm in the dark on this too.

Doing it on trust is the hard way - I'd like to give it a chance but I'd like to hear an italic perspective on it.

Re Jodan's 3) "With a limited number of votes per miner, an entry could become an issue of debate, and hypothetically, a lot of miners could lose a lot of votes on one issue "

I think in practice miners will want not to waste their limited votes so entries that are not popular just won't recieve votes. Of either kind. Personally with a system of a total of three votes (combined yeahs and nays), I'd need to feel pretty strongly against an entry to vote no for it.

There is a danger, (just occured to me) that if a miner is struggling to cast their weekly quota of votes then they might use one or two on some nays. Is that good or bad? It seems bad to me .
Waz

the term quota implies minimum, I think that in our case, it's more of an issue of maximum. We don't want to see people using their votes for something that they don't care about, so I don't think that a miner should HAVE to reach his maximum, but it would provide less activity and input. An interesting debate

Using up votes on nays seems pretty bad to me. Awful in fact.

I also think that maybe voting should stay open for a week. What would happen I write something which is completely crap, I get three of my pals to vote for it quickly, and then it is too late for others to vote against?

Or maybe the system could be more like the 'Have you missed' system, with votes staying open indefinitely, and whichever entries have greatest balance of 'yes' over 'no' votes being actually picked.

I like this idea, it is simple, elegent and has merit.



Most of the time it is not going to be a problem. We are going to get the odd entry like Seven Card W**kstain which will simply cause SO MUCH controversy that everyone will want to run for the hills. This is one of the reasons why (a) we need someone whose decision is final and (b) we need to vote offsite.

I suggest (a) is the UG Editors team. (Ugh - I hope we will still respect each other in the morning )

Ben

I also think that maybe voting should stay open for a week. What would happen I write something which is completely crap, I get three of my pals to vote for it quickly, and then it is too late for others to vote against?

this is another error in the trust plan. We should make sure miners have no friends

B

I'm gonna make a more organized entry culled from these posts of my opinions so I don't contradict myself

Cool! Will you please post the link here when you have done it?

Ben
*Really going to get some now*

ok, seeya, and if there's anyone else out there, I'm wondering, how does a miner let other miners know to vote at a certain forum?

Hullo,

I have to say I'm extraordinarily impressed with the quality and speed of action here. Really looking forward to this getting off the ground.

I'm not so keen on the voting system either. We've thought about them for h2g2 and don't like them for a number of reasons.

Voting systems are indiscriminate - it doesn't require any thought to click on a button. And I just think that h2g2 Researchers are a thoughtful, discriminating bunch and we should give people the opportunity to express that. A 'Peer Review' system works, because at its best it allows people to come to a consensus about an entry: there's a collective responsibility. And this would work especially well with the UG where there's only a demand of one entry a week - there's no pressure when it comes to your turn.

By using a voting system you're going to be making decisions by committee... and considering you are going to be dealing with subjective material, that is, potentially, a whole lot of discussion.

I'd like to propose a couple of alternatives. Have a scheme of 12 Miners (way back there were just 12 Subs so that's a good number to work towards) each with the responsibility of picking one entry from AWW over a period of 12 weeks. Personal responsibility is often a very good motivating factor in the running of volunteers' schemes. Everyone could take a turn picking from the AWW at the rate of one a week, thus building up your buffer. We aim for launch in three months, which takes care of the momentum issue that's been mentioned...

Alternatively, one Miner could propose an entry, and another could second it... this would also take place at a rate of one entry a week over 12 weeks. Actually, I think I like this. It adds another layer of collective responsibility, but I reckon it would be more manageable than 12 people trying to make the decision.

Just a few thoughts.



Anna

I second the idea about seconding

just thought i'd mention on an earlier point about rejecting certain entries:

please could you differ rejected entries to the Spaced Out guide at A962769. perhaps a standard rejection notice containing that would be good. in fact, a standard rejection using the underguide ID itself would be good.

spook

ps. seconding a recommendation would be a good idea.

So that's why they're having a jokeathon...

I see.

I made my idea on categorization, called the JODAN DOCTRINE, at A971200

Before you ask, it took me about 20 min to type that

I support the second one of Anna's propositions - a nomination and then seconded and it gets the green light.

Voting would get awfully complex.

It's then down to miners to take responsibility, wait for some kind of consensus on the quality of an entry before pressing the trigger.

Sprout

Who gives the green light? Will someone please tell me who's in charge of this?

I have been in quiet opposition of voting all along, and an italic had to tell you I'm right?

There seems to be a degree of confusion here. The vision is that AWW/APR will function in the same way as PR does, in terms of collecting the consensus of the community.

The reason we wanted more than one person to support a pick was that we are dealing with criteria which are subjective and qualatitive, not objective and quantative. Since whether or not an entry makes a good UG entry is a matter of opinon, we wanted to have more than one person's opinion on the matter.

However - 'cos I am reasonable - I will go with the idea of a proposer and a seconder for each entry.

Personally, I would like to explore the voting idea further, to establish whether we think it is workable, (I ALWAYS like to understand exactly what it is that I am rejecting). But I will accept proposer/seconder picks as a fall-back.

Does anyone else prefer my idea that each Miner gets up to three votes per week (either yesses or noes) and can use them to vote for new or existing entries in the MailGroup. The entry picked that week is the one with the greatest balance of 'yes' votes. (This is basically the same as 'Have you missed, except that people can vote 'no').

I really do want to protect the quality of the UG here, especially as the throughput is going to be so slim for a while. I think if it is One Miner - One Pick then we could end up with some weak entries.

Anyone who hasn't yet commented? Whaddya think?

B