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

I've just had a look at the pending entry on Coriolis force. I wrote the original entry, and there's a bit at the end which I wrote saying "if you want to experience Coriolis force for yourself....".

Bizarrely, the "finished" version now suggests that the reader try turning round while holding a spinning bicycle wheel. I didn't write that bit. I can tell I didn't write it because it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Coriolis force/effect. The difficulty encountered when trying to turn a spinning bicycle wheel is due to PRECESSION - the tendency of the axis of spinning bodies to move in a direction normal (i.e. at ninety degrees to) applied force. This explains things like toy gyroscopes balancing on small plastic models of the Eiffel Tower, Harlem Globetrotters casually spinning basketballs on their fingertips and the fact that you and I can ride bikes without falling off. It is *utterly* *unrelated* to the Coriolis effect and I have absolutely no idea why it should have been added. Wasn't one (correct) example enough?

If not, how about throwing a tennis ball down a bus while it's cornering, or projectile vomiting on one of those whirling fairground rides that usually feature card suit decorations and stick you to the wall by spinning round very fast (I've always wanted to do that ). The odd behaviour you would notice in those situations are actual examples of the Coriolis effect. The bicycle wheel is (pace Python) something completely different. I can see I'm going to have to write an entry on that now.... actually, thanks for the inspiration. Please, please, do take this mistake out, before it gets onto the front page with my and other peoples' names on as the apparent writers of this... inaccuracy.

H.

PS. I've had very productive discussions with subeds on my entries up to now. If there was a real need for another example, why not just ask me? I've shown several times that I've no desire to second guess the editing process, but it's a bit annoying when I go to the trouble of writing a factual entry, knowledgable folk help me improve it, I go to some trouble to make sure they're all given due credit, then it gets taken out of my hands and factual inaccuracies are added in the editing process.

Deep breaths, Hoovooloo. Deep, slow breaths.

I added that example myself in an attempt to show another, more accessible, manifestation of the Coriolis effect. It is, however, completely wrong, as you say - I wasn't thinking... I'd thought that because they were both a direct result of Newton's 1st Law, in a very similar way, they would be the same phenomenon.

In fact, thinking about it, they probably are the same effect, but one's planar and the other's axial... What do you think?

I'll take that bit out then... sorry about that.

Thanks for taking it out. They're really not the same effect at all. I was serious though about thanking you for inspiration - gyroscopic precession is another one of those areas of basic physics which is WAY counterintuitive but really easy to demonstrate. It's pretty tricky to explain, too, which should make writing the entry a challenge and the Writer's Workshop/Peer Review discussions interesting!

Sorry if I came across as over the top, but the subed was courteous enough to let me look at the entry before he sent it in, and he seemed to think it was finished. I was happy with everything he'd done, and I'd thought I could forget it, so the addition came as a shock. You could have asked first... I'm online most nights and I'm a conscientious replier to messages.

Anyway, it's done now, no hard feelings etc. Look out for the gyroscope entry...

H.

Glad that's sorted out then.

Unfortunately, it's not really possible to ask every (and therefore any) author whether they mind if we change their entry in a way we think might improve it. We edit absolutely everything that comes in, even from Subs, and we couldn't run every change by the authors - there's simply not enough time or resources available.

I was attempting to improve your entry by including an extra example that I thought would make the phenomenon more familiar to your readers. I happened to make a mistake, which you noticed, and which I subsequently corrected, which all turned out fine.

The corrections we make are very rarely factually wrong, and if one is pointed out, we correct it immediately (assuming it is wrong, of course). We simply don't have time to check everything beforehand, and await email responses - it's not practicable.

Besides, if everyone was perfect, we wouldn't need editors at all!

This is going to be a long post, with a bit of whinging, but there is a constructive idea in it, so please, read and give it some thought.

"Unfortunately, it's not really possible to ask every (and therefore any) author whether they mind if we change their entry in a way we think might improve it. "

It's possible to email every author on the day the thing goes onto the front page. I assume that happens automatically.

Why not an equally automatic email seven days earlier, or the previous week (or whatever best fits the schedule you use for deciding what to put up when) which says "Your entry is completely finished. It will appear on the front page in exactly this form next week (or whatever). This is your last chance to point out factual or grammatical errors which may have been added during the editing process before the entry is put on the front page. Please reply on the correction page, not by email. If the entry is factually and grammatically correct, please do not reply"? If the author doesn't respond in the seven days, well, they obviously aren't paying attention. It would take very little time to set up a page, similar to Peer Review, for writers of entries to respond to the auto emails - just a page, linked from Peer Review, saying "This is the corrections page. Start a conversation below if you're entry is about to go in the guide and there's a grammatical or factual error in it." Just like Peer Review, the subject line would be the entry number and name, the message would be the correction - it would all be really quick and easy. You'd only need to read the first message or two of each conversation, as anything after that would most likely be blather or people going over old Peer Review ground, pointlessly.

Note: I'm not being snotty when I say the bit about factual errors - I'm trying to save you time. Such phrasing would (one hopes) prevent people from bothering you with stuff like "I don't like the way you've changed the second paragraph" and restrict it to specific wrong things which can simply be removed or put right.

"I was attempting to improve your entry by including an extra example that I thought would make the phenomenon more familiar to your readers."

How far do you have to walk from your house to reach a child's playground with a roundabout? (me - about half a mile) This article got a fair bit of stick in Peer Review and *not a single comment* said "You need another example". One suggested that the roundabout thing works better with water pistols, but I did think that was asking for trouble...

"The corrections we make are very rarely factually wrong"

So far I've had four entries on the front page. So far, having submitted grammatically and factually correct entries in each case, I've had to point out a grammatical error added by an editor in one, and a factual error added by an editor in another. This is not a strike rate which fills me with confidence in the editing process.

In both cases the entries have been corrected before they got to the front page. In both cases I have been told off for the tone of my postings about the corrections - "deep breaths"? I don't get paid for writing this stuff, but when I've finished it, it's right - often thanks to the help of people more qualified than myself who contribute in Peer Review, and who sometimes contribute, shall we say, quite forcefully. You DO get paid for editing it, but its *my* ID at the top of the entry when it goes on the front page. I would have expected anyone to understand that seeing unnecessary errors added in my name is vexing to say the very least. It's even more vexing when I realise (as I do today) that it's only because I'm here *every* day and paying attention to what's happening to my entries *every* day that I spotted this.

"We simply don't have time to check everything beforehand, and await email responses - it's not practicable."

I'm not sure what you mean by "check everything beforehand". *You* added something to the entry. Are you saying you didn't have the time to check whether it was correct? Doesn't that make the whole system of requiring entries for Peer Review to be factually accurate pointless? Doesn't it make Peer Review a waste of time, if the editing process can add details the factual accuracy of which there isn't the time to check? If you really haven't the time to check whether something *you* want to add is accurate, surely the sensible thing to do is not to add it in the first place, isn't it? The answer comes down to how much you care about whether the Guide is accurate, and whether you care about offending the people who write the entries by potentially putting an entry on the front page with their name on it which contains errors they didn't make.

I'm emphatically *not* suggesting you wait for email responses. Of course that would just slow things up intolerably. I would like to seriously suggest you send out an automated warning email, just as a courtesy, and assume that no response on the site means the author is happy.

Once the page is set up (and how long can that take?), I don't think this would cost you any extra time - if there *are* errors in the entry you're going to correct them anyway, right? This just gives the author a chance to correct them for you *before* they get to the front page. You're happy because the entry goes in correct, the author is happy because they get a final look at the entry before it goes up to make sure you've not added anything problematical, and the all the readers are happy because they get a Guide with truly factual entries and they don't have to bother writing postings saying "the bicycle wheel thing is wrong" or somesuch.

I hope you view this as constructive criticism. I honestly think this idea would save you time, and it would certainly enhance the experience of contributing to the Guide, which is what we're here for, isn't it?

H.

The thing is that although you've had a high proportion of your entries with problems, 99% of other people either are not as bothered as you are about their entries, or see no problems with them because there *are* no errors in them. Cases like yours *are* extremely rare - there are nearly 3,000 Edited Entries now, and I'd be surprised if we've received complaints about more than 30 or 40.

Because this is, therefore, not as large a problem as you think, the current system of fixing them when people complain is efficient enough. In a way, we already have a two-week 'alert' period because if people *are* paying attention to their entries, they'll notice when they go 'pending' and point out any errors then, before they go live. Just like yours.

So, the system is already in place. Implementing another system such as the one you suggest, would entail dealing with the hundreds of emails and possible responses they would generate. This would increase our workload to a level that would be impossible to deal with.

I made a decision, when editing your entry, that I thought was correct at the time I made it. As an Editor, I have the right to enact those things which I consider appropriate - that is my job. But I am fallible - I make mistakes, as any human does. And there's a system in place - namely that you can enter into discussion with me - so that mistakes like this can be caught and corrected. 'Checking' an entry also means seeing whether it can be improved by adding explanations, links, etc. That is also editorial policy, and, as you've seen, it's also subject to human error. Did you notice anywhere in your entry where I actually *improved* it?

I do value this discussion, though - it's a matter of trial-and-error when working out the best way to do things like this. No-one's ever done it before, and it's not perfect yet, so it's still open to improvement by discussion. The chances are, though, that there will never be a solution that works perfectly for everyone - only a 'best-fit' solution. Come the end of the Universe, we'll have it, though!

Hi. Still at work after 18:00???

Thanks for reading the rant. I appreciate the workload issue, and as you very validly point out, I'm almost shooting myself in the foot here because the system you've got actually worked! (although only because I was paying *daily* attention to it...)

In response to your question about whether I've seen improvements, one thing I make a point of *NOT* doing is comparing the finished, Edited article to my original word for word. That way madness, second-guessing of editorial decisions and possible offence at what you butchers have done to my deathless prose lies.

Instead, I read the finished thing, in isolation, and try to forget what I originally wrote. If the finished article is something I'd be happy to put my name to, then I've got no complaints - I don't want to waste yours or the subeds time with petty arguments over "why did you change this word to that word" or whatever. If there are grammatical or factual errors in there, I'm usually pretty sure I didn't put them in (that's when I'll go and check if necessary).

A recent example is the Hard/Soft SF entry. The sub ed has added a fair bit of introductory material, and probably made other changes. Since none of it is wrong, none of it contradicts what I wanted to say in the entry, and it's all grammatically sound (and well written, I might add), I've nothing but praise for his efforts. So I'm sorry, but no, I haven't seen anywhere where I could specifically say "that's an improvement on what I wrote" - but that is in some backhanded way a compliment, because if it's correct, and I didn't write it, I'd probably like to pretend that I did!

In conclusion, thanks for engaging in this dialogue. I'll keep paying attention, and I'll take a deep breath first next time...

H

Thanks Hoovooloo - glad to have been of help, and thanks for your patience. The Subs are, in fact, discussing this whole process at the moment over our Subs mailing list, so it's changing even now, hopefully for the better.

I guess that's what we (and other readers) have to remember - we're providing somewhat of an 'invisible' service - if no-one sees anything they don't like, then they don't comment. And that goes for most of the material sent in to us as well - we leave untouched those parts that are good, which is the vast majority. We have to remember that the 'default state' for everything is, in fact, contentment. Or possibly apathy, if I were feeling cynical.

Cheers H,

Chris

Hello again Chris. Breathing very deeply, and very relaxed. I just came by from the Bussard Ramjet entry. Not sure if you're editing this, but if you're not, could you pass this on to the appropriate person, please? Ta.

The final header in the original read "Bussard Ramjets in SF". That header in the Edited version reads "Bussard Ramjets in Sciece Fiction". If you really do feel the need to spell out this very, very widely understood term in full, the least an Editor could do is spell it correctly.

What was it you were saying before about the strike rate being good most of the time?

H.

That was clearly a typo - not a spelling mistake - which I've now corrected. It is not our - or our Subs' - job to be perfect.

You're welcome to become a Sub yourself if you like, but only on the condition that you never, ever make any mistakes whatsoever. Up to it?

Ooh, I might give it a try!

I didn't mean to be nasty (did it come across that way? - please note, I posted to this thread only because it was already there - I'm absolutely not implying this was a "serious error". Looking back, I should have started a new thread called "Hmm, a little typo, methinks" which would have sounded much less 'orrible.), and I'm trying to help. Between us we're doing OK, I think. Thanks for the attention, as ever. I promise, absolutely, that if I spot anything else I'll start a new thread with a nicer title. I don't suppose

On a technical note, do you have the facility to run a spell-check on Entries at any stage? I write mine in Notepad, so I don't have a spell-checker, and obviously the entry box in IE5 doesn't have one. Just wondered if you've got one somehow.


H.

Hi H,

Any entries that come back from a Sub get to go through two more in-house Subs, who do have spell-checkers. If they're working properly, (and if we remember to use them!), we should be able to catch the vast majority of errors.

We also reserve the right to have our abilities affeced by the weather, the day of the week, the time of the month, the current disposition of the planets, etc.

I'm afraid your "If you really do feel the need to spell out this very, very widely understood term in full, the least an Editor could do is spell it correctly." came across as unnecessarily sarcastic, though - you only have to mention a mistake and we'll fix it up right away - you know that. We're doing okay, though, I guess!

I agree, you are doing very well, and you're right, I did sound sarcastic. I am sorry. One thing I would say is that anyone who asks will get nothing but positive stuff from me about the experience of getting entries into the Edited Guide. It's *fun*, and I do recommend it to anyone who cares to listen at every opportunity.



H.
signing off from this thread for good, and starting a less sarcastic and altogether friendlier one next time I spot a mistake.