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

Dear Editorial Team:

I've already posted this request in the Editorial Feedback section as proscribed, but I'm concerned because a note in the section states:

'Questions posted to the feedback area are answered either by the h2g2 Curators or by the in-house team (the Curators are volunteer Researchers who have extra editorial access).'

You see, these curators may be the same researchers who are my current concern. I just want to make certain that I reach the actual H2G2 Editorial Staff.

Here is what I posted in EF:

I'm experiencing a problem in PR, that seems to have upset the Scouts. I'm concerned that because they are upset, it may impact my entry's chances at being included in the EG.

To be frank, I really thought this would be a one-and-done, with maybe a page of feedback. What I'm finding, and what you'll see, is page after page of posts, almost all of them negative, which would be fine with me if they pointed out any factual, spelling, or grammatical errors; or, could point to any part of the Writing Guidelines that I've violated.

The complaints seem not to be with content, writing style, or the guidelines, but a sense that 'this kind of entry' is either not good for the guide or will lead to its demise. Yes, that is what was claimed.

I don't want to prejudice you for or against the entry. I'm trying to determine whether there is any use in continuing the PR process if the Scouts have already signed of against it en masse.

What I would like is for a calm, cool, head to read the entry, A65950257, without first being influenced by the vitriol in the 'Peer Review', and get back to me on whether there are any errors in execution or against the guidelines.

Then, if the Editors would be so kind, feel free to make a ruling as to whether the subject or content is forbidden.

Lastly, if acceptable, I'd like to work directly with someone to finish polishing it up and get it somewhere in the EG, the Guidelines, or other official section of the guide.

If not acceptable, I'm truly interested in a rational, comprehensive reason why it cannot be part of the guide - other than, of course, a personal Guide Entry.

After seven years of going through PR and having entries reach the EG (and participating in PR to help others reach that goal), I don't think I'm asking too much, and I'm hoping that you see it that way too.

Thanks for everything, past, present, and future.

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you Fords. We've been enormously busy of late. We're not ignoring you! We'll have a look at this and get back to you.

Thank you for the reassurance!

I'll be waiting

Dear Fords, I'm afraid, at the minute, that your Entry as it stands is not quite suitable for the Edited Guide.

Some users have argued that your Entry is too niche for the Edited Guide and that it wouldn't make much sense to the casual reader who doesn't know about the Hitchhiker's books. And certainly that's correct to some extent.

In truth, the main reason for this is that we've already got a pretty definitve Edited Entry on the number 42 and the relation it has to the Hitchhiker's canon: A19229763

We also have any number of unedited Entries about the ultimate question which haven't made it into the Edited Guide for whatever reason. We think your version falls in to this category:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/Search?searchstring=ultimate+question&searchtype=goosearch

In one way, it's great that your entry has generated such a robust debate in Peer Review but there does come a point for sanity's sake where we'd ask you to call a ceasefire! We hope you understand.

h2g2 Eds.

Thank you, Eds, for checking it out.

Please allow me a point-by-point reply, after which you may give me a final response (assuming that I've answered your concerns).

Yes, some have argued that the entry may be a niche piece of work, but you've already admitted that the guide made an EG entry on 42. So, my question would be, doesn't the 'Question' deserve and entry as well as the 'Answer'?

Yes, the entry A19229763 describes 42 just fine. I really liked it, but it alone may raise questions in the mind of the reader, and inspire them to delve more deeply for the Question that it answers.

True, the unedited entries on an ultimate question have not made it into the EG, adn for good reasons. Most of them don't meet the minimum criteria set forth in the DNA stories. For example, 'fortitude' (while clever) doesn't answer take into consideration the fact that this is an English word, which probably would not have been used by the pan-dimensional beings engaged in conversation with Deep Thought. Forty-two, obviously, was a translation from the conversation as delivered to Arthur by the Babel Fish.

Of the search you cited, only two entries rightly reached the EG:
A68555 The Answer To The Ultimate Question Of Life, The Universe, And Everything Edited 16%
A656787 Heidegger's Ultimate Question Edited 16%

A68555 is another '42' entry; the answer, not the question; and the very excellent A656787 is about a completely different philosophical and physics question that I also really liked.

What has been missing is a discussion of the "Question". If you've read my entry, you know that my purpose was simply to describe the question in terms that are derived directly from the DNA stories. None of it is conjecture or opinion, and it leaves the matter open to discussion and debate as to the actual 'Ultimate Question'.

This entry is merely a reminder of those restrictions that have been left us by DNA himself. And, I think that his words deserve some small space on the subject, since we have a couple of entries that specifically speak to his 'Answer'.

Ceasefire, while an appropriate metaphor, would suggest that there is some battle being raged; but, if you'll notice that the main antagonis is a researcher that had been calling himself This Researcher, that person is one who has (on occasion) peppered the PR with similar complaints without justification that prevented other entries from reaching the EG (some of which that did make it through PR once he had tired out and gone away on the subject).

I find it very hard to imagine that his simple extract from the stories would be somehow objectionable to the powers-that-be; and that this thing deserves to be cut short, rather than improved until acceptable.

But, I await your review and determination.

Wait just a minute!

I just checked out the h2g2Editors PS site and realized that you've just authorised an update to:
A History of 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'

Yet you claim that may entry was 'too niche'!!

What's going on here? Why are you playing such favourites?

Why is one entry related to the stories 'great', and the other 'too niche'??

Us researchers deserve an explanation!!

FordsTowel

If 'Etiquette for Chess Spectators' and 'Alaskan Fish Plants' aren't niche entries, I'd like to know what the criterion are.

FordsTowel

One is a discussion about The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the galaxy - a radio series that span out into a series of books, a TV series a film and a towel.

The other is the punchline to a joke within the Hitch-hiker's Guide - therefore more niche than the first.

There are bits of your entry that I think could be incorporated into the wider Hitch-Hikers entry, but as I said in the Peer Review thread, I don't think you've covered the subject sufficiently for it to warrant a separate entry. At the moment, it still feels like a meta-entry about the discussions in the forums, rather than a subject in its own right which would pull in evidence from other sources). Going on the responses in Peer Review and in this thread, I'm not alone in feeling like that.

When I was a member of staff, I'm not sure we'd have accepted (for example) an entry on chapter 14 of a novel - we'd want an Entry on the whole novel, in which chapter 14 could be discussed. At the moment, this entry feels very 'Chapter 14'y. And other than what I've already suggested, I can't think of anything that could change that, sorry.

Hi, Smij:

Don't know how you happened across this thread, but I'd pretty much got your take on the entry in PR. No harm done; let's go.

Frankly, all of this is hogwash. Apparently, nobody is actually reading anything I wrote in the entry or the threads. They just form opinions and spout them as if they relate to the matter at hand.

The Eds wrote "Some users have argued that your entry is too nich for the..." EG.
Well, who cares. I asked for an objective reading and determination, not a re-iteration of the well-known obstructionist who called the entry the beginning of the end of h2g2.

The Eds wrote "...we've already got a pretty definitive Edited Entry on the number 42 and the relation it has..."
Again, who cares. THIS entry was on the question, not the answer.

The Eds wrote "We also have a number of unedited Entries about the ultimate Question that haven't made it into the EG for whatever reason."
And, THAT'S the POINT. They were all dreck! Every one of them fails the 'tests' that Adams set out in his stories!

Nobody, including the Eds, have pointed out one salient point where the entry doesn't meet the guidelines, or is factually inaccurate. We can always discuss changes that would have to be made to make it 'good', but it cannot truly be seen as improper.

Let's discuss your continuing assertion that this is 'Too Nich' for the EG.

Among our EG entries, we have:
A19229763 "42" Edited
A nice bit, yes; but it is an example of how one punchline (and this was the REAL punchline), is fit as an EG entry.

A48150830 "Occurrences of 42 in Astronomy" Edited
The only reason this made the guide is because of the number 42. There are not entries for occurences of 41 or 43.

A24591341 42 Amazing Facts About Sawdust Edited
Ditto

A30558288 42 Time-saving Household Tips Edited
Ditto

A30558323 42 Money-saving Household Hints Edited
Ditto

Strangely, one of the only 42 entries that does not play off the DNA 42 is my own:
A2960633 The Amazing 42-Minute Gravity Sled Edited
This is just the math behind a body falling through a tunnel excavated through the Earth. It just happens to take 42 minutes.

On you suggestion that 'the whole novel' is the only concept broad enough for the EG, we have:
A17451173 The Songs of Marvin The Paranoid Android Edited
A799419 Pan-Galactic Gargle Blasters Edited
and, undoubtedly, others.

Your arguments just don't hold water, do they?

I did actually argue that the Pan Galactic Gargleblaster entry wasn't really suitable any more, but was persuaded. Realistically, you've made more of a convincing argument to take material out of the Guide than add to it.

As for how I found this discussion, I'm still subscribed to a lot of the Help pages across h2g2. It was just in my 'in box' when I logged on.

By the way, if you read the entry, you'll see that The Songs of Marvin the Paranoid Android is actually an entry about a real-life subject and not just an extrapolation of a concept from the book (the fictional Marvin wasn't known for his musical prowess). It's as valid as any other entry on a song that qualifies for a listing in 'The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles', even if it did only trouble the chart for four weeks and peak at #53.

(If anyone fancies writing us an entry about the history of the song 'Teamo' by Sultana, which got to #57 in 1994, I'd cetrainly look upon it favourably. )

['Teamo' by Sultana,] That would be sweet!

I guess I've missed my chance to chime in on the Pan Galactic Gargleblaster entry, but I suspect that I would be 'for it'. I don't need much persuasion if the topic is focused, the writing decent, and the guidelines met.

I'm nearly as surprised that there is no entry on the concept of the total perspective vortex or the infinite improbability drive; but at least I understand the why. These are fictional devices that are not only non-existent, but are totally and infinitely unlikely ever to exist.

But the subject of my entry relates to real life debates, even if they are on a subject from a fictional source. Virtually all philosophy is based on the unreal, non-touchable parts of life. The guide has philosophy entries on:
A455311 Ayn Rand and Objectivism Edited 12%
A21648783 Occam's Razor Edited 11%
and even
A48813735 Monty Python's 'Philosophers Song'

There is room in the Guide for Philosophy. We even have entry A472033 What Is God?

And there is room for entries on debate:
A20702062 The Creation / Evolution Debate 2002 - 2006 Edited
from 05 April 2007.

And then there is: A647859 h2g2 Guidelines During the Afghanistan Crisis
A Help Page entry on what the Guide condones and how it limits speech on the subject, which is how I see the DNA guidelines I cited.

FordsTowel

PS: Your entry: A823376 'Shoes' - the Royal Bank of Scotland Advert (Oct 11, 2002)
seems pretty niche, and the link to the advert is no longer active.

I know that Deep Thought said the philosophers could spend millions of years debating the thing, but as your entry is just telling the story of that chapter of the book and then imagining how these debates might follow through, I still don't think this should be an entry in its own right.

Rather than pointing at other entries you personally don't like, or throwing insults at people for not liking your entry, you really need to look at this entry and show examples of this debate existing in real life outside of the pages of The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy or within a clique on h2g2.

That's really all I can suggest. You can choose to ignore that if you like, but it probably won't help your entry's chances of progressing.

Regardless - the Eds have spoken now.

Smij:

I understand that you don't think that this should be an entry, but I've often thought that entries in PR should not be entries and never tried to stand in their way just because they didn't suit my tastes.

I understand and respect that DNA wanted many different types of researchers to post what THEY felt might belong in the Guide.

True, I have pointed out entries, but not because I disliked them. I point them out only when they are examples of entries that emulate what my entry is accused of being.

I'm also not intentionally insulting people for not liking my entry. I understand that it would not be to everybody's tastes, like 99% of the current entries are not to my taste. My personal opinion is 'So What!'. It's not necessary that I think that every defined word makes it to the dictionaries; or that every encyclopaedic entry be of interest to me. I appreciate that they are there just in case I should need them, no matter what interest they have for me.

I wouldn't dream of ignoring your opinion, but I've done my best to refute your arguments. The fact that you cannot admit that they don't hold water should not reflect on me or my entry.

I could post the links to threads where this question has been debated, but I don't believe that this is, or should be, necessary. Of course, there is no way of posting links to debates that occur out of the H2G2, so that suggestion is just plain silly.

I realise that your at a loss for suggestions, that is why I wanted the EDs to more officially, and objectively, examine the issue. Something which they appear unwilling to do.

You ssay that the Eds have spoken, while I maintain that they have simply acquiesced to the vocal minority that posted in PR.

I have received positive and supportive, if not as vocal, responses. The fact that you haven't read them is not my problem.

Just remember your arguments the next time something you DO like is shot down in PR by small minded, biased, pedantic researchers who do not share your focus.

Notice that you still have not pointed out one single thing about the entry that is false, or does not meet the guidelines. Notice that the guide professses an openness for whatever one chooses to write. Notice that PR is not about what subjects belong in the guide, but whether or not they are of sufficient accuracy, quality, or length for the subject.

I stil maintain that my extacts from DNA's works are entirely accurate, factual, and contain the entirety of what he had to say on the subject.

If you can find fault with any of those claims, I'm open to discussing them.