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

Well, it could be challange h2g2, or something simular...

I've noticed something (I think), which is very* weird.... Some of the very* old entrys; Going by their A number, and looking at the dates of entrys a few away either side, are coming up as being from years later, on the 'date created' bit, (in pliny), than they could possibly be... or at least that is how it appear to look... 14 read/checked now still a little way to go, but I@m getting a bit tired now, so probalby not a good time to look at any more tonight maybe

Can you give an example of one where the creation date looks wrong?

yes... but not now (I must copy the Excell spreadsheet onto my pendrive, its sitting on the netbook, which is what I tend to be using, later in the day/at night, and I'm on the main PC at the moment) I'll try to remember to post it here later.

Was just talking to Pastey though, and he was saying how the creation date of entrys can actually be changed, so maybe for some reason (or indeed by accident), that has been done to a few entrys

I know that the BBC editors didn't know how to change the creation date. They had to get the techie people to do it for them. But the BBC's entry publisher, when changing an entry to edited, used to set the created date to today. Pastey has written a program which the eds run manually to do this now.

ahhh. at a guess;
Viewing the entrys in Pliny, (which I find a lot betterer than using alabaster/ripley, for viewing entrys anyhow), at the top, just before the 'heading' for the entry, it has the 'created' date, then the 'last updated' date; I think the 'last updated date', is new... possibly only since Pliny,; guessing* this didn't exist pre-pliny, maybe the old 1999 entrys, which show a 2000something date, for 'created', when viewing htem in the pliney skin, is because it didn't ahve the ability to store a 'last edited' date, under the old system; hence it could only change the created date (the only date stored with the entry), at the time of any post-publishing/going edited, date, the entry origionally had? hmm I might not have expalined that too well but it vaguely sounds like a plausible explination to me anyhow... Still doing housework, I'll have the netbook turned on later, and I'll try find an etnry or two, wehre I think the date[s] look weird>

On an edited entry, the created date is the date it was published. Most edited entries are published soon after being made. Remember, it is the copy made when the entry is picked that is published. Projects are different. The entries made by the author, which might be years old, become published.

The h2g2 database may not be the most accurate source of information about when an entry was published. I can think of two more accurate ones, one of which you have access to and the other one which the guide editors have (although whether it still exists in the Pliny world I can't say)

1. SEF compiled a front page archive, which you will find at

If you search for "A253900 archive" for example, you should get a hit for the frontpage archive page telling you when A253900 hit the Front Page.

2. The Eds store old front pages in hidden entries, and their search tools may be able to confirm the same thing (but SEF's pages are pretty accurate).

Icy

Whoops - omitted the link to the FrontPage Archive site at U230056

I found the frontpage archive page too and have been looking at that as well Its one of the way I've noticed a bit of an anomaly (well I think), I'm sure I saw guide entrys, from frontpages, back then, which then on the entry had a date, post 1999 (when the frotn page was from)... and, actually, now I think of it, maybe not that* unsuaual; I'm only guessing* that back then, the entrys had got the edited status when they were featured on the FP, which might not be the case of course; certainly some that were features on the FP, back in 1999, no longer have edited status (though of course, for some, I think that may be because the edited status has been removed ) Mystory and intregue...

OK... on the netbook now, and excell breadsheet to hand

South Africa; A883

which has the entry Mountain biking A667
(Feb 18 1999.
) just before it, and the entry Garnish; A937
(mar 23 1999.
) just after it.. yet the date on the South Africa entry, seems to be Apr 17 2000..


Also the article, just a bit down, Rhubarb, A1251
seems to have a date way in advance of entrys again, of the 1999 period, either side ( A964
and A1422
)

I suspect that A-number A883 may have got reused.

It's on two front pages, but the 1999 front page alludes to the entry as a 'from our own correspondent' feature. Was it an edited entry then? (see A2211346)

Where would the peer review thread for it appear.... err, did there exist peer review threads back then? hmmm... I thought after it gets edited status, the peer review thread moves to the conversation list at the bottom fo the entry? (I had a look on the edited one, there, and couldn't see it)...

I'm thinking maybe origionally, it was an even more first person entry, when it appeared the first time ion the front page; probably as an unedited, then later on, got re-edited (by multiple people looking at the researcher list), then went into edited guide... at the later date

The system wasn't the same at the start. There wasn't any peer review. Some entries were written by the paid Old Writing Team. Others were written by Researchers and just got picked. What we now call "Edited" were called "official guide entries". I don't know if they were actually edited.

The rhubarb entry was written by the OWT back in 1999 and updated in 2007 so it got a new date then. The update process was always manual so it was done in different ways over the years.

I notice that the South Africa Entry has a created date of 17 April 2000, but there's a conversation attached to it ("Zaphod Beeblebrox") which is dated 2 May 1999. The author list includes the Old Writing Team and Ashley one of the BBC Editors.

I suspect that the entry was written by the Old Writing Team and published on 2 May 1999. Then in April 2000, Ashley added some information to it and updated the Created Date to April 2000. Finally, it went through a major update in June 2010, and the other authors were added. The Editors decided not to alter the Created Date at this time, but put a message "Updated 9 June, 2010" at the start of the entry.

Gnomon - as an extremely experienced and knowledgible person, on h2g2, espeecially in terms of guide entrys, the edited guide and all that side of things; Would you agree with my verdict, on that* entry in particular; the South Africa one, in that it either needs a rewrite or update? It kind of read very strange to me; the first paragraph I seem to recall, once it gets going, seems to refer 'back' to something else in the entry, which clearly isn't there anymore, and it really didn't seem much of a guide to South Africa, just a pick through a few aspects and places in particular...

Yes. It's not a great entry on South Africa. It should probably be renamed A Tourist Trip through South Africa. But until someone writes a better one, this is the best we've got to represent the country.

Thanks|! At least I have an idea now I'm 'looking at them' 'right', My notes in the spreadsheet were 'rewrite, or rename article and have seperate article writen new on the country'. I really oughta get on and bash through soem more of the spreadsheet, not got very far yet Once I've done... A certian number, I'm going to go back, over the ones I've done, and probably submit update thinggies, to the update forum, for those entrys that look fine, but, say for example, need links to other articles put in, or very slight changes made well... I think* that's my plan... plans may change

I looked at about 300 of them today, but just for the inability of Pliny to display them.

That seems an aweful lot! Is there a bug then in pliny affecting the display of some entrys? I've not noticed anything weird... but if its just a visual thing on the screen, I'd probably not notice (well, so long as the screen-reader, is able to 'grab' the 'code' behind any element, and read it, the fact that visually it might be displayed 'odd', or 'wrong' would potentially just be unoticed by me)

Checking through the entrys if they're OK, and don't need updating/rewrting is pretty quick, one just seems to get a 'feel' if the entry is OK or not, but its the checking links etc., that can take the time, and/or trying to decide if the content itself is correct/up to date, especially on ones for subject areas I'm not necessarily informed on Simularly, the entrys that are patently not in keeping with edited guide entrys as of more recent years, or just woefully inadaquat, they're sort of easy to spot straight away... Its the ones half way between, that are awkward, as a descision needs to be taken, which in some cases, could just about go either way, as to whether they're 'good' enough or inadaquate in some respects