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

Anyone who hasn't yet commented? Whaddya think?

I think they all died. If we're going to do the nominate and seconding system, then we should probably limit the number of votes a week to about three.

personally i am fine with the voting system, that someone picks an entry and says why they like it, then it goes up for vote for a week, then at the end of that week depending on the number of yes and no votes that week, then entry is either accepted or rejected. you could then eithe say 'certain number of yes votes it goes in' or you could say 'majority of people vote yes' it goes in. i like that idea.

of course the seconding a pick idea is not bad either, but if 2 people like an entry, and everyone else does't, the system doesn't work.

spook

I think that if we go with the voting system, it should be a certain number of yes votes to get it in, and then some sort of final approval so that miners don't waste their votes. I think that if a crappy entry gets in, it should be able to be vetoed as well by a majority of the miner community as well

I like the three. It's really just a thirder to follow a seconder rather than a voting system. And a 'no's is just a miner voicing an opposing opinion. The problem arises in how to take the 'no's into account.

All these 'votes' would be offsite and only the miners would take part in them. Perhaps it would work to leave the entries offsite thread open for a given amount of time, during which any discussion can take place, then if it still has three votes for it at the end of that time, it goes in. The discussion would not be voting it would be a chance for a miner with strong reservations about an entry to voice them and for the entries first, second and thirders to take account of the objections, or not.
Waz

so the conversation would go like this, "I nominate this entry for the UG." "I second it" "I third it"

So, what would be real point of voicing you opinions

Ideally, yes.

There will be entries which will cause flamewars and fights. One entry submitted to PR caused a Scout to resign because they felt so strongly that it should not be included in the EG.

During heated debates the Author may change the entry a great deal, so the voting for and against may also change.

Also - to hark back to the first entry mentioned, the one where the Scout resigned - I thought it was fine for the EG up until the point where the Scout resigned. When I realised that someone disagreed THAT strongly, I changed my mind, such as it was. So arguments and discussions do affect how people vote.

Ben

but how will the author have access? What are we going to do, post our concensus on how to change it? Or will we invite him/her?

Jodan, there will be two sets of separate conversations about an entry going on in two separate places.

1) AWW - the entry itself, and an open conversation about the entry itself, what works, what does not work, how to improve it, whether the author is still here, that sort of thing. This is what is already happening in AWW and in PR. ANYONE can contribute.

2) The Miners'-Group Mailing List - Miners only. I assume that this is where the voting will take place. I am not a member of the Scouts' group, so I don't know what else goes on in these lists.

As I said - this is my assumption - Anna and / or Ashley can tell us if they think this is unworkable or ill-advised

Ben

Oh, i misunderstood.

MMkay

Hey Everyone,

In absolute agreement with Ben about quality. And if anyone is in disagreement about the choice of Entry, they can either say so, or the decision about accepting it can be postponed until a consensus is reached.

I've just thought of another reason why a voting system wouldn't be so fabulous (sorry Ben). In the early days of the Scouts scheme, we didn't have any tools to manage it, and everything came through via email. Early Scouts were brilliant (and still are) but the sheer volumne of emails was diabolical to keep track of, as was the accounting system (ie who picked what when and who didn't). So not sure about a thirder for entirely practical reasons - it's just another email to keep track of.

However, at that point and now, Scouts had/have to justify their selection with a comment about why they like an entry. It signifies that you've put some thought into your selection.

> So arguments and discussions do affect how people vote.

Interesting point - which is why it is so important for Scouts to read the PR thread, as it will be for Miners to read the AWW thread - that way Scouts/Miners can accurately assess the Community consensus. We're back to collective responsibility again.

It's probably also worth remembering that there will be a natural evolution of the scheme once it's set up. You/we will come up with solutions to problem areas when they arise. Which is good

Anna

that is good

just got his first entry edited

I'm finding this picking v voting issue mind boggling to think through. One difference between UG and EG - EG Scouts have clear guidelines to make their choices by. Detailed guidelines which lay out the standards for Underguide entries are very difficult, if not impossible. We want entries that spring from a writer's heart rather ones written to conform to a format, so the guidelines need to be as open as possible.

If miners don't have the support of detailed guidelines to make their judgements on they will be pick an entry based purely on personal opinion of it's quality, possibly influenced by any discussion on the entry's AWW/APR thread. If they have sole, or shared only with one A.N.Otherminer, responsibility there is a danger they will pay too much attention to the discussion thread. They certainly need to read it and take it into account - but not necessarily be decided by it. We don't want entries written by committee, where the author accepts all the thread commentary. We do want to be able to put good entries in where the author has said 'No, this is my voice, saying what I want to say my way and I'm not going to change it'.

I'm not sure what I'm saying - I think it's that I wonder how much community consensus you can have without detailed guidelines without it becoming in time a matter of playing safe. Then edgy, on the limits, daring entries get ignored, unless their authors tame them .

Voting shares the responsibility, not among the community, but among the small group of miners. A miner has the reassurance of knowing that at least two other miners (assuming a three vote system) will have to share his opinion before an entry is accepted so he will be free-er to take a chance with a piece he likes where there has not been much activity or much consensus on the thread or where the author has ignored the thread comments. The responsibility for UG standards will rest with the miners who, as a small group, will, I assume, spend a fair bit of time discussing them.

The admin. problems of a voting system are obviously an issue but on the smaller scale of the UG maybe not insurmountable? When the UG grows it can evolve and change its systems as necessary.

Having said all that - of the suggestions Anna has made I would choose the picking and seconding one. In some ways I feel we should just opt for a method, go do it, and iron out the problems when we hit them.

Waz

I agree with waz completely, and it's hard for me to do that! Poetry, fiction and narratives are all a matter of opinion, so the system would just be better with a thirding system, leaving less room for error. Ideally, it would be a fourthing system, but that would leave it more complicated. The only real difference of this from the restricted voting system is the against vote. This is also a negative feeling that could leave some people embittered.

The guidelines need to be as open as possible.

>>I agree, we should define them as two types of poems, emotion and story

I'm sure an italic will say one sentence that will clear all of this up

I don't know what that means.

????

Hey Wazungu,

I see what you're getting at. You speak sense

> In some ways I feel we should just opt for a method, go do it, and iron out the problems when we hit them.

To an extent that's what we've done with the other volunteers' schemes. There comes a time for action, not words!

---

Hey Jodan,

> The guidelines need to be as open as possible.

>>> I agree, we should define them as two types of poems, emotion and story

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking me here - what posting is this in?

> The only real difference of this from the restricted voting system is the against vote. This is also a negative feeling that could leave some people embittered.

Well, if people get embittered over an Entry, that's the time to take a breath and choose something else, and let the discussions continue on site. Revisit it after a few weeks and see if everyone feels the same way. It's not worth the flame wars.

This brings me to an important point and I can't remember if it's cropped up already. Do you want an italic to give the final okay to an Entry for the UG?

Anna

>Do you want an italic to give the final okay to an Entry for the UG?

I think having that final layer of 'authority' at the end of the day will make the picking/seconding system work easily. That's really what's behind the Scout system that makes it happen.

In the old days of Subbing when Sub-editors accepted or rejected material from the Queue, the italics still had final say - rejecting some that went through the subbing process or personally editing some that the Sub-editor rejected.

I reckon having that italic okay is pretty necessary - especially since this stuff will eventually reach the front page.

And the is simply my way of bookmarking (I don't like to leave stinky footprints about the place and I'm much more likely to return for my beer!).


- Jimi X

Don't mind me, I was just rambling.

is off to dunk himself in windex

Hi Anna. I have to speak sense once in a while, on the million monkeys and their typewriters principle. Were you referring to the whole muddled ramble or just to the last, rather clearer, sentence?

Regarding an italic giving the final I was assuming that was a given with the UG getting the very welcome staff and site support that is being proposed, if only to see that entries don't break house rules. Italic involvement adds substance to the UG, which is good. It adds authority to the volunteer scheme, as JimiX said, which is good. I guess the question is what is entailed in giving a final ok. Do you mean checking the house rules or checking the quality of the entry is up to scratch?

My opinion, just mine, is that italic involvement in maintaing the quality of UG entries is in the interest of the long term success of the UG, staff being constant while volunteers change. I think it's a significant extra layer of staff backing for the UG if they are prepared to do this. I also hope that it would never be necessary for an italic to do any more than take a cursory glance and give the thumbs up. In other words I like the idea of the italics as the safety net that you hope will never be used.

I'm just talking in principle of course - does it involve a lot of admin to have an italic ok? Out of interest, what would you italics prefer?
Waz

Just to say that I agree with Waz, Jodan and JimiX in posts 52 thru 59.

B