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

According to my records, I started sub-editing in August 2007, seven years after I joined the site. I have now sub-edited 398 entries, although they haven't all been published yet.

I suspect that not many have done as many. It's a fascinating task, as I learn something from each entry I work on.

I'll certainly do a few more.

Well done, Gnomon

Personally, it takes me all my time to sort my own editing


lil x

And much appreciated, all of that effort.

Sometimes I think not everyone realises just exactly how much work that is. (But I do. )

About 90% of the text can be just read through so it doesn't take long. It's the other 10% That makes it tricky.

Ah but that's exactly what subbing is all about, sticking with it and getting that last 10% right. That's where the satisfaction is.

It also makes the Eds' job easier

I’ve always thought that you guys who do the subbing, do an exemplary and for the most part, a timely job. It’s not a job that I could do, but for my part I do appreciate the subbies efforts and on any entry I’ve submitted, I’ve always tried to make it as complete and as little work for them as possible.

What I do find quite off-putting though, is the inordinate amount of time that the finished article kicks around pending in the ‘What’s Coming Up’ column. For something that for all intents and purposes is ‘finished’ I’ve always found it very disappointing to wait a minimum of six weeks before it makes the front page.

Anyway, thanks to those of you who do put in the effort. I’ve always appreciated it.

Just my two pennorth...

Deke

When I was one of the Editors, the biggest delay was getting a picture for every entry, which could take months. Now that we don't require a picture for every single entry any more, it shouldn't take as long.

We who only write cannot say it enough;

Thank you (and all the others) for your hard work and dedication!



F S

You may have noticed that we are now making new Entries 'live' in the Guide every day or so, and that we are featuring four Entries a week on the Front Page, two at the weekend and two mid-week.

This should mean that going forward, the time 'lost' after subbing before an Entry appears on the FP is reduced.

I wasn't aware that we were ever putting an image on every Edited Guide Entry. How long did that last? Was that after Auntie? Was that when we only had 1-3 new EGEs a week?

If so, everything was taking longer then. A required blob was a bit counter-intuitive at that time.

I prefer entries to just come up to the front page as fast as they're finished. But I did also like the (beeb) days when we'd have 5 new and one featured entry per week. That was the era when I was actively writing and I felt so privileged to get a custom blob on one of my entries. (A1132138) I really felt like getting a blob added to my entry gave it a more... cache/importance/gravitas.

That said, that was in the days when there were extreme restrictions on art. All blobs had to be in a certain style and there were very few artists, and I'm not even sure that general researchers were invited to submit art.

I definitely think more art, and more entries is the way to go.

Have you sent your photos in to the Artists for their latest drive, BG? They're asking.

No...



I've got...

Creative issues.

An entry with a picture will get far more hits. We tend to think of our readers as being the people we talk to here every day, but in fact about 95% of the readers are unregistered and never comment. They like pictures and leave the page very quickly if there is no picture.

Good point, Gnomon.

In fact, somebody with too much time on their hands and a grant studied this.

If there's a picture on the page - even if the picture doesn't really relate to the content, or doesn't 'prove' anything - the content is perceived as more reliable.

Dumb as this is, it's a good reason for us to trot out all the pics we can find.

Which is why I spend my spare time rooting in the Library of Congress and online collections of out-of-print books.

Do you remember that picture from last week, on the FP, of the babe with the cigarette? That was a lady anarchist, and she turned up in the Library of Congress, free and clear.

Now, that picture proves nothing, except that the subject of my Entry had a nice-looking wife with Attitude. But hey, it helps people read.

Wasn't it Lewis Carroll who said something like, 'What good is a book with no pictures or conversations in it?'

Indeed Dmitri

Prof Boss recently told me about something she calles Neuroporn. If a newspaper report about any science to do with brains is accompanied by a picture of an MRI scan then the public will perceive that it is more accurate than a study that is accompanied by a picture of a scientist.

Oh, those sexy scans...

We probably need a good section on the legal status of internet images, which are public domain and those that are covered by copyright?

Under the BBC the policy was 'If it is not your own we can't use it'. However I see thousands of sights that share pictures, often with an acknowledgement caption or link.

If we knew and understood the rules we could probably easily illustrate almost all of our entries, and let the artists be creative as they see fit.

this is not meant as a rant, only an honest question.

FS

And a good one.

We could work on that.

Z, I actually find articles with pictures of MRIs more suspect, at least if they're FMRIs. FMRIs have been used for a lot of bad science, for instance how they were touted as infallible lie detectors a few years ago.

But, that's just me.