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

so what difference will this make? I could write loads of technical entries but my experience is that some prat will comment on the style instead of the facts. Some of the rubbish that gets on the guide which is factually inaccurate but scans well is unbelievable! I don't believe it!

Or, looking at it from another perspective, if you're going to be abusive and rude to people who are pointing out where you've failed to adhere to the sound Guidelines for the Edited Guide, why should anyone try to help you further?

Yes right Jimster. So you think that the way scientific entries are dealt with is adequate? Fine. Don't listen. Carry on. Stay with the entry on the liver in the guide even though by all the feedback so far my entry is far superior. Have your own little empire. Enjoy it.

Leo, that's not what I'm saying and I'm not the one refusing to listen (I've just asked you on another thread to point out areas where you think the entry could be improved). But by the same token we don't abandon the Guidelines just because you refuse to acknowledge them.

I suggest you take a walk around the block to calm down or something. You're lashing out in the wrong directions here and it's not helping the point you're trying to make.

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'The h2g2 University' to 'A few notes'.

Some of the rubbish members who get in the guide who are actually idiots but spams well is unbelievable! I don't believe it!

I guess people who post such vituperative crap as this on messagebaords, communities, email lists etc all over the web have no idea just how ridiculous they appear to the rest of us who live in the real world and have some good manners and respect for others. I also have to guess that not only do they seem to think that this MO is going to get the same sort of results you can sometimes get when you try it on a cowering shop assistant (an action which is thoroughly despicable), but they're also going to burst a blood vessel sooner or later.

It's really not worth the aggro. We're not talking about a matter of life or death here - it's just a piece of writing on a website that most of the world have never even heard of. Get some perspective on the matter and try to understand how pathetically tiny this beef of yours is in real terms compared to *real* issues.

Well said BH!

Interesting that the new researcher 'I' has only posted on Leo's threads, isn't it....

Who'd a thunk it

What he said.

Do you think I could add weight to my side of the argument by simply signing up for another user account, or would that be too obvious? Just a thought, chaps...

It would be a great way of recruiting more scouts, anyway

I'm not suggesting anyone on this thread has possibly even thought about doing this, by the way

Those that know nothing should keep out of it. "I" is nothing to do with me, esp as at the time in question I couldn't post.

I would keep out of an argument that's nothing to do with you.

"I" is an individual who for some reason chooses to harass me - if you read the posts again you will see his badly worded invective is against me.

ignoring everything else, leo has made a valid point about the scientific entries.

I have had experience of correcting in threads stuff which was scientifically inaccurate, only to have it ignored by the author.

even when the author gets it correct, I have seen stuff go through the approval process, only to have the corrected mistakes put back to their previous incorrect form.

if a mistake is spotted in an entry after it has got to edited status, the ability to get it corrected is almost nil.

There is definately a problem with making sure that the factual entries, or factual parts of less factual entries contain the correct information.

this problem does not seem to be addressed under the current policies.

"if a mistake is spotted in an entry after it has got to edited status, the ability to get it corrected is almost nil"

If you post your corrections under the entry then I admit that corrections may not be flagged up.

However if you use the correct predure ie post in <./>feedback-editorial</.> then the staff are alerted to minor changes needed.

The system is there, and not hidden at all.

For those that don't know - once an entry has reached Edited Guide status - neither the author or the Sub-editor is able to ammend the entry.

The only way to have things corrected is via the staff - hence the editorial feedback system.



Mort

I am familiar with how it is supposed to work.

I have posted to the right places.

the response is then to treat it the same as if you spotted a typo.

If I point out that there is a problem with phrasing, the usual response is to say that they prefer the existing phrasing.

if the problem is to such an extent that it is equivelent to saying that the value of pi is 7, rather than 3.1415926, they still say that they prefer the original wording.

this is the extent of the problem.

where it is a matter of opinion, it is treated as such.

unfortunately, when it is a matter of fact, especially if it is one of the more obscure facts, it is STILL treated as a matter of opinion.

and you still struggle to get it changed, because it continues to be seen as a matter of opinion.

Interesting. I've spotted at least a half a dozen fairly serious mistakes and they've all been changed the next day...

Same here.

We do relish feedback and appreciate it when people take the time to point stuff out to us that might have been missed along the way. In fact, generally, the only time we waver over corrections is a) if the correction is not clearly expressed or b) if the correction seems to be a matter of some debate. In those instances we ask if there might be a consensus reached, so that we don't have to keep changing the entry to appease someone with a different opinion.

Actually, there's a c) - if people are unduly rude when delivering their feedback. We have a whole different procedure for those kind of contributions that involves a long flight of stairs, a dark room and a sign that reads: 'Beware of the leopard'.

None of the in-house Editorial staff comes from a scientific background so we rely on Community members to do the fact-checking. If you look at Editorial Feedback each morning, it's actually very rare for us to bat away a correction without some kind of discussion first.

Now, if we *miss* a correction, well that's another matter entirely.

However, hopefully I'm not saying too much out of turn to say that we have a proposal in to improve both Editorial Feedback and responses to corrections under entries which we hope will improve matters immensely.

That's not to dismiss your own experience, Xyroth, just that it's not one I can honestly say I recognise as being typical. But I'm sorry you've had a less-than-positive experience with feedback in the past and hope we'll be able to improve in the future.

Jims