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

Not really, because if I was reimplementing the message boards using DNA technology I'd lump them together under one DNA site and use the categorisation system to reflect their hierarchical structure. So to me the messageboards each seem just to be single pages of a single site, not multiple separate parts of BBCi. The different DNA sites are more like /cbbc/, /gardening/ etc in that they all have their own style, staff, and tone.

spelugx

That I can understand, althought you loose me a bit with categorisation systems and hierarchical structures. You imply that Message Board could be looked at as a site and that it could be operated using DNA technolgy. Then why not do it ? After all its only a gaggle of conversations with predetermied subjects. Says he with little or no knowledge of Message Boards .. What is it that seperates the DNA sites from the rest ?

Exactly there's little which separate DNA from all the rest. The only reason message boards use h2, not DNA is historical, h2 was here before DNA really took off. And since h2 is usable and there's lots of exciting new projects arriving on DNA practically constantly, there's not really the need to move message boards from where they are.

spelugx

There has been a lot of discussion about moving the MBs over to DNA. I think it might happen sometime, but there is no real need for it at the moment, so it won't happen soon.

Tango

I take it then that you think that it is not necessary to establish and collate DNA Sites.
Take a layman's view.
The BBC's origins lie in broadcasting, TV and radio. The move to digital brings the advent of BBCi with interactive TV and the internet. Interactive TV becomes a direct expansion for the BBC's activities in broadcasting. The internet however is an area of broadcasting/communication that goes beyond the radio and the TV set. This area has two possible outlets, the Personal Computer or an all singing all dancing set top box, but that's another story.
Sticking with internet. Activities in BBCi/communication in this area open up two requirements. A direct requirement that relates to the TV and broadcasting side of the BBC, and another requirement to provide an open area of communication not directed at BBC programmes and celebrities. This would be in line with the BBC motto 'Let Nation Speak Peace onto Nation' or something like that.
At the moment h2g2 meets that requirement although maybe not in a manner that fits the BBC image.
That is where I feel there is a need for a collation of DNA Sites to be developed to meet that requirement. A collation of sites 'Powered by DNA, the BBC's community website engine' and managed and controlled in line with the philosophy of DNA the man.
I can dream can't I.
Ancient Brit

The philosophy of DNA the man is in h2g2, not in the DNA software. However, i do agree with you that DNA sites should be linked together better. The software lends itself perfectly to people using multiple sites, and i think they should be encoraged to do so.

Tango

I don't think it's necessary to collate DNA sites _alone_. I think they should be collated but not just with other DNA sites but with any part of the BBCi website. A community website _doesn't_ have to be powered by DNA (in fact to get technical, a lot of the newer DNA sites pervert the core DNA technology with additions such as Flash *shudder* and DOMs written in JS).

DNA's vision was more about h2g2 than the current suite of community sites. I think he was looking more for the guide than for the community. (The name is just a tribute to DNA, it doesn't mean he indorses the software.)

I think the thing which is a pity, is that DNA wasn't designed from the ground up for the BBC's website. If it was, I'd have tied it into myBBC much more, so that your preferences are shared with the whole of the BBC website, hopefully improving linking not just between DNA sites, but with other areas too. (I don't really like the current 'exclusivity' of DNA, where all urls include DNA. Hopefully some future projects will push more to integrate DNA into existing pages using technology such as SSI and url rewriting).

spelugx

I agree that DNA should be linked more with the rest of BBCi, but that is more technical. Just encorageing people to use multiple DNA sites is just community stuff, and doesn't need technical stuff doing.

Tango

I think another thing which could be done is to break down h2g2, and put in more separation between parts of the community and the guide (there are I think some potential sites in the future to interest some h2g2 users). I think part of h2g2 current problems is it's size, which means that instead of allowing the staff to easily focus on the Edited Guide, Talking Points, the UnderGuide, the Post, etc, it means that they have to do a *lot* of work to keep non-contributing parts of the community undercontrol so that they aren't disruptive to the rest of the site.

The problem is that you can't do a blanket off-topic ban on h2g2, because everything *is* the topic...

spelugx

After writing that I just realised that I was about to suggest that the modest proposal should only be followed for researchers that were volunteers or had contributed to the edited guide, and that in all other cases instant 3 week suspensions should be the norm.

ladies and gentlemen, sanity will be restored shortly...

Is that *the* modest proposal? Could you provide a link, because it's a while since i read it.

Tango

See A623288 for the proposal, it links to an older version and the current procedure. Perhaps I'm not so insane after all and a changing demographic on h2g2 means that my procedure would lessen the work load, like the original?

spelugx -- crazily controversal

Prehaps a rule should be brought in that anyone that has been on h2g2 for more than 6 months, and isn't a volunteer or an EG contributer, is automatically put on a kind of pre-mod, but with a timer, not a person, doing the moderation. In other words their posts always remain hidden for 10 minutes after posting. It would certainly encorage people to contribute (or create new accounts...).

Tango

I wasn't really aiming to get people to contribute, more just to say that there's better places to expend resources.

Another thing could be a fixed limit of moderations in 24 hours (for example), over which you'd be temporarily restricted until the editors arrived the next morning. The problem with this is that there's no central person on duty overnight to see the problem and hit the button, so it would have to be automated.

spelugx

I know what you were saying, but i still think that people that use h2g2 but don't contribute are abusing it, and should be stopped. They are expending resources in the form of CPU time, hard drive space and bandwidth. If only those that contributed were allowed on h2g2 there wouldn't be any server problems.

Tango

That's the more extreme version of what I was suggesting. A more flexible approach would help because not everyone contributes immediately, making some friends and thinking up some ideas to write about does take time.

spelugx

I gave 'em 6 months, what more could they want?

Tango