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

Flea Market entries as AGG/GAG material?

To keep the intentions of AGG/GAG "pure," we could limit ourselves to only those entries which fall outside the scope of the Edited Guide. But would it cause any problems if we selected a cute entry with absent author (Wiping Out, for example), and it was later developed into a full-blown Edited guide entry?

Not in my mind....

=X has pooled the current nominations at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F80461?thread=154012 let's discuss their merits there. I have made comments agreeing on two and we need a third for #6. As to the question of whether an article can subsequently be developed for an Edited Entry I don't see why not. Being AGG/GAG approved should be seen as an encouragement not a death sentence . And just so everyone is clear about the one Spiff found, it was actually part of a series by Pinniped that has been 'edited' by the h2g2Postteam and already published in the Post. But full points to Spiff for recognising 'good' when he sees it. ~j~

Me neither, I was really just a bit confused and hoping to get an indication of how anyone else was thinking about it.

Although I have no wish to establish 'rules' that are set in stone, I do feel we need to try to keep a certain coherence to our selections. Clearly they will not all be comic, some may be very serious and most will fall between the two. But what really makes something a good nomination?

I don't think the fact that they 'could' become edited entries need be a bar to them appearing in the column. Far from it. Unless the author doesn't like it, and that seems unlikely.

I quite agree that the Surfing one is a good read. Some work might improve it somewhat, but basically I like it.

I see you are trying to bring order to the thread chaos, DeiZ. Good luck!

Seeya

Oh, about the 'Flea Market' one ..which was that?

Please, everyone, feel free to be critical of the nominations. I know I have been guilty of simply filling the page and meeting the deadline. You know this is not what we wanted and I worry that we may lose sight of the standards we first envisaged - I remind you that '27th Letter' was the standard I hoped for and that 3 articles a week seemed a bit ambitious.
While not everything we've recommended so far meets my own personal standards, I recognise that we are pandering to the widest range of ages and readership levels at h2g2, and I have a TV producer's nose for catering to public taste. That is, I just hold my nose and let 'er rip, working with whatever I've been provided.
The idea of everyone having access to the AGG/GAG ID (besides helping with the construction of the page and re-construction of the articles) was to allow anonymous criticism. If you don't want to go on record as saying something is drek then say it as AGG/GAG.
Gee, I hope I spelled drek correctly. I've never written it before and I only have Shrek as a guideline.
peace
jwf

Hiya,

I think the current issue in the Post is great. Two good pieces - one that we all agree is good writing and the other that seems sure to raise a laugh in many circles (we won't say 'universally' as there must be someone who disapproves, even on h2g2!). Your intro is a fair comment well made and let's face it, there wasn't much happening on-site for a while. It seems a fine effort under the circumstances.

As for what we chose and whether we should knock other selections, I have no probs with the way it is now.

I initially queried the idea about 'editable' pieces going in our column just because it occurred to me.

Here is an effort at the general question that I still feel I am unclear on:

*produces several attempts that really don't come close*

What should we be aiming for?

Deceptively simple question, but quite serious. I can tell you, those 6 little words took longer to type than it may appear.

Of them all, the Garibaldi one seems to fit the least with my personal criteria. This is because it looks as though a week in Peer Review would get it into the guide. If it came from the flea market, am I wrong in thinking that it is fair game and can be copied and pasted into a new page and resubmitted, presumably with the original author credited.

My point being that for me the Gary Baldy entry *should* and *could* go into the edited guide, rather than the Popeye-imitators. It isn't being kept out by the writing guidelines.

It just isn't A GAG!

Does that make sense? Anyone dis/agree?

A knowledge of Garibaldi is essential to understanding European history. Not to mention his being an admirable romantic character.
My point was that because he wasn't English speaking and had little direct (at the time) impact on the lives of the English speaking people, he is not one of 'our heroes', but a mere footnote in our authorised histories. I am all for getting the Truth, the whole truth (the global truth) out.

Yes, it (or rather, a better written revision) should be in the Edited Guide. Perhaps you could make that point in an intro to it, and suggest that you will begin to rewrite it for that purpose and thereby begin the Peer Review process of it.

Yes, what is our purpose? Our aim?
It seems we had a mission statement earlier, but these things do eveolve don't they. So let's hear from everyone about where they think we should be going.
For my part, it is to educate, elucidate and to entertain. My own philosophy with regard to education and elucidation is that entertainment is the best way to inform and cause readers to think.
A pun, for example, is more than the lowest form of humour, it is the first step in lateral thinking.

jwf

Hi,

jw and dei, if you are around, our names are up in lights!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/Info

I still think we need a collective noun for aggaggers. A shambles of aggaggers? A puddle of aggaggers? Perhaps an inkling of aggaggers. I don't know.

Seeya

Now, I know you gonna find this hard to believe ((Oh yeah, just how big was the one that got away?') but by announcing (not to say 'trumpeting') our presence at the lofty heights of the 'longest average postings' list I invadvertently lost my grip the top slot. (mmm... sounds like rather a good euphemism for losing your marbles)

Isn't there something about foxes and grapes that would be pertinent here?

Seeya
Spiff
*plummeting at an ever more dizzying pace down the list in question whilst his mind races for more things to put into the end of this message to bolster his flagging average*

No, I think that's it.

My personal criteria (sounds like a place where you go to eat tears) is based on my personal quirks.

But my choices are based on my reading:

Edgar Allan Poe: his literary hoaxes and sense of humor

Ambrose Bierce: his sense of humor

H. Allen Smith: ditto

Ernie Kovacs: ditto

Dorothy Parker: mondo ditto

Douglas Adams: way ditto

and Charles Addams: whoopee!

not to mention:

Gypsy Rose Lee
Peter Ustinov
Walt Kelly
Micheal Moorcock
Larry and David Niven
and ......
wait for it.....
James Joyce and Robert Burns.

I think we should be looking for that spark of intelligence that can ignite the fires of creativity in the reader.

(all of the above is a bald-faced lie. I only got into this to write my own dreck and have it read.)

tr, s.a.d.

On a completely different note;

why aren't the issue numbers (unless I missed it) on the post page?
Which issue is that up now?

Has there been any response by the general public to the issues?
Where would one go to find out?

If there are obvious answers to these, forgive me. I had to ask someone what a blog was yesterday.

Blog?
Here's a chance for you to try out your newfound knowledge. You can tell me what a blog is, because I do not know.

Numbers?
I'm just numbering the issues serially for our own reference. The Post goes more by a kinda date stamp thing. Then Lucinda adds them to the Archives, both serially and by date ..I think. Well at least in the order they appear.

What's a blog?

Feedback?
There have only been a couple short conversations, in a very few postings, in threasds off the Articles themselves mostly. But the last few 'holiday' weeks have not been a true indication of the usual readership and presence on the site. On the other hand, I don't think we can expect to change the world or create AGGGAG-mania after only 5 issues.

Tell me what a blog is dammit!
~jwf~


What's a blog?

it means 'weblog' in short.
in long, it is a new(er) industry in webtoys.
Blogging is a way of getting your personal musings onto the web without having to go all out with a web page.
Go look up Wil Wheaton and you will see what I mean.
It is basically a way for people to blab cheaply and voluminously.

So what issue is up today?

Last Thursday's edition (the current one) was #5.
I'll start putting #6 together tomorrow. The dealine is Tuesday night, so Shazz can have Wednesday to organise next Thursday's Post.
jwf

Have you run out of my junk, yet? The crap I wrote? Should I wrote some more?
I'll be back tomorrow. I think I'm bedding right now. It is 12:59pm my time.

What should we be aiming for?

Well, any piece that can get into the Edited Guide already has an excellent system for polishing and publicizing it, much better than we can yet accomplish. AGG/GAG is supposed to be an alternative the Edited Guide, showcasing those pieces that fall outside of the scope of the Edited Guide. So ideally, we should avoid anything that looks like it could get into the Edited Guide. The key is the Edited Guide's stylistic rules prohibiting fiction, opinion, too much humor, interviews, poetry, etc.

On the other hand, I think the Flea Market (dumping ground for Peer Review pieces that have been abandoned by inactive authors, entries that are still within the scope of the Edited Guide) should be fair game for AGG/GAG, at least while we're in this stage of groping for material. It would be better to showcase a few forgotten Flea Market entries, seemingly outside the scope of what AGG/GAG should be concerned with, than to run out of nominations and present only 1 or 2 pieces per week.

Also, it wouldn't be a tragedy if our publicity of a forgotten Flea Market entry inspires some other researcher to finish the entry for the Edited Guide. But if we get up to speed in coming wks or months, get a few more people in AGG/GAG to nominate entries, then we could probably make more of a commitment to selecting only entries that fall outside the scope of the Edited Guide.

My only objection to the Garibaldi piece right now is that it's still rough around the edges, needs polishing.

Can I rant a little bit about "blogs?" Sorry if this distracts from the organizational discussion, but I gotta do it.

"Blog" is a somewhat new slang term, but it's not really a new idea. A weblog (shortened to 'blog) is basically a list of links to websites, usually updated daily. There are a lot of popular ones like memepool or fark, just hubs where people can read about weird or interesting stories or websites they never would have heard about elsewhere. But another aspect of the "blog" phenomenon (yes, I'm afraid, may the good Lord Jimi protect us, it's sort of a phenomenon) is that people make their own blogs. Lots of people. It would be accurate to use the phrase "any idiot." Any idiot can make a blog. They've been doing it for as long as they've had internet access and the ability to write hyperlinks.

In some cases, a blog is a fascinating source of info. In many cases, it's the daily journal of an average person, documenting their cat's recent litterbox activity or their fights with girlfriends/boyfriends/other blog authors, with a few hyperlinks dropped in for good measure.

I guess it's like any form of art -- there are a few good ones and a whole mess of bad ones. But be aware that in its most common form, a blog is nothing more than someone's daily journal with hyperlinks added.

Thanks for blogs. Elsewhere today I read that Wil Wheaton has a webpage with a daily blog, and now I can say I knew what that meant. As for checking out WW's website...

Anyway, ATTENTION everyone:
At the risk of again being accused of taking over and making arbitrary decisions, but NOT seeing any 'intros' from anyone else, I have partially written a 'ruff draft for #6'. I have put up two articles which everyone seemed to approve 'Wiping Out'(#6/1) and 'Skating'(#6/2).
I look for some guidance on what I've written so far, and suggestions and perhaps an intro for our third entry (#6/3).

Lucinda seems to be working on the Archives, as that Entry has for the moment disappeared from the homepage, where you'll also see that Bossel has offered several new nominations in a thread called 'scouting for you'.
Hopefully Lucinda is listing all the new nominations and cleaning out some of the deadwood. Then we can have another look at the list and get recommendations for next weeks (#7) issue.

~jwf~

Now, where was I supposed to post this?http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A588963
I'm looking for some other things.
What did Bossel Have?

And I found this:http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A586073
tremendously invigorating.