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

Liking your nickname atm...

OK, so we are thinking about next month's Create and I'd like for the idea you pointed me towards, the one about the group committed to writing an entry a month, to be part of it.

I've contacted Skanyrich to see if he's ok with it, or would like to revive it himself.

If the answer is yes and no, I was wondeing if you would like to take on the job as host, or perhaps share it with the researchers of your choice?

Failing that, do you think there should be any changes made to the original idea?

There may be more questions!

Hi there, sorry for the delay in replying.

I wouldn’t be able to take on that job I’m afraid. My time on h2 is too strictly limited at present. Apart from that, I think you will probably need someone who has a greater h2 'street cred' than I have. The obvious choice is the original instigator Skankyrich. Failing that, I think it would have to be one of the editors or a prominent researcher who has a much higher and popular, profile than me. Frankly I don’t see anyone responding to a plea from myself in the same way as any number of other better known names who have greater prominence within h2.

Further thoughts on it:
Skankyrich’s initiative came at a time when h2 was on something of a downward trend, and PR entries were drying up. His initiative addressed the particular problem of getting more entries into PR. Although a fair number of researchers responded to it, and it worked quite well for a time, the initial enthusiasm seemed to run out of steam. I think part of the reason (but only part) was that the commitment for two entries, each and every month, was pitching it too high, and that very few researchers could keep up that level of production. Personally I struggled to meet the one entry per month that I committed to. So, if it is to be launched, I think the commitment level should be only one entry a month, and anything else would be regarded as a bonus.

Clearly there are researchers whose output is prodigious and at the moment it seems to be a few old regulars who are providing the bulk of entries in PR. But it’s not the high achievers that you need to attract as they will probably continue to do what they do anyway. But you do need to get them on-side to encourage the capable writers that do the odd one or two entries a year that would respond to a challenge and maybe give it a try.

The big question is whether there would be enough volunteers to make it viable.
Really, the vibes that I’m getting from this place recently, suggests to me that there may not be the response that would be needed. Over the last few weeks I have perceived a negative and fractious element that seems more ready to argue the toss over the minutia of the organisation of h2 than to write entries for it. If the effort put into the arguments in the columns of threads which prevail across h2 at the moment, could be channelled into writing entries, PR would be flooded and there wouldn’t be a problem. I don’t know about other researchers, but personally I find the aura of negativity on some of those threads quite off-putting.

There is also a question regarding Factual vs Creative entries. I think that some thought needs to be given as to whether a new scheme would be limited as Skankyrich’s scheme was, to factual entries only, or is it going to include creative entries, and if so, how are they to be managed and accredited with equal status when accepted.

Deke