From Z0OEY@ix.netcom.com Fri Oct 27 16:59:40 1995 X400-Received: by mta NT.COM in /PRMD=NT/ADMD=MCI/C=US/; Relayed; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 14:00:40 +0000 X400-Received: by /PRMD=NT/ADMD=MCI/C=US/; Relayed; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 15:54:43 +0000 X400-Received: by /PRMD=NT/ADMD=MCI/C=US/; Relayed; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 15:55:46 +0000 Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 15:55:46 +0000 X400-Originator: Z0OEY@ix.netcom.com X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:; X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=NT/ADMD=MCI/C=US/;mcigate.nt.856:27.09.95.15.54.43] X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Content-Identifier: Re: Consider ... From: Greg Wait Sender: ggwait@nt.com To: swbaker@vela.acs.oakland.edu, cleggp@cleggp.ultranet.com, jharmon@mtu.edu, alex@arcfan.demon.co.uk, vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Subject: Re: Consider Everything ->STREAMLINE the thread. Organization: BrainTrust Communications X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; HP-UX A.09.03 9000/712) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide X-URL: news:46pgai$41v@pace1.cts Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 2811 Status: RO X-Lines: 59 If we stick to the issue of what will IMPROVE PGG, we can streamline this thread greatly. IMHO a few of the issues we are discussing are non-issues when you look at the bigger picture right now. If we're really cosidering some drastic changes in the structure of PGG, we need to stick to the pertinent issues, and resolve them first. Here are the issues that I think we need to deal with first: 1. Should we dump the author credit? 2. Should we allow editors to archive without permissions? 3. Who can write a revised/replacement article? 6. Should we dump the Unreal articles? 8. Should we go to HTML/some other format? These issues go to the actual, physical Guide itself - how we handle existing and new articles. The other issues are secondary. We need to decide whether or not we're going to change the format entirely before we worry about the %k field or reality index - these sub-issues of issue #8. We need to decide on a direction - where we want to go, what we want PGG to become - then the issues of REAL vs. UNREAL and article style will be easily answered. Until we agree upon a direction, these points are moot. As to whether article authors should have ID numbers, I think this has always been a non-issue. It's a simple value-added equation - what purpose do FR numbers serve? What value do they add to the project? How do they simplify the article evolution and maintenance process? Answer: They don't. I propose streamlining this thread to the following high-priority issues: 1. Do we keep the author credit? What do we lose or gain by keeping or losing it? 2. Should we have exceptions to the author approval process? What conditions warrant archiving without author consent? 3. What conditions warrant revising an existing article? -Should we 'clean-up' the existing articles to improve readability and fix grammatical errors? -Should we modify existing articles to update or supplement the information? 4. Should we consider guidelines for Guide articles - such as style, reality, content, and originality? Should we remove existing articles that don't meet these new guidelines - such as unreal or plagiaristic articles? 5. Should we change the article format? If so, how? I think these 5 questions touch on the most important issues we are currently considering. I propose putting other issues (such as FR#) on the 'back burner' while we focus our attention on these questions. Let's work on deciding what the next generation of the PGG is going to be, before we decide what color pencils to use. :) __ // _ / _ / ___/ / / Greg Wait (z0oey@ix.netcom.com) - // /' / / / ___/__ // Editor 7, Project Galactic Guide ____/____/____/____/____// -=May Joy and Innocence Prevail=- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- From vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Thu Nov 2 17:41:14 1995 Date: Thu, 02 Nov 95 17:39:49 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Project Galactic Guide X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4c) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Subject: Re: The Guide of the Future X-Url: news:479f5p$p34@caesar.ultra.net Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-------------------------------13365595801032704229556132282" Content-Length: 9269 Status: RO X-Lines: 174 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------------------13365595801032704229556132282 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii news:479f5p$p34@caesar.ultra.net ---------------------------------13365595801032704229556132282 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain From: cleggp@cleggp.ultranet.com (Paul J. Clegg) Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide Subject: Re: The Guide of the Future Date: 2 Nov 1995 03:50:17 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Message-ID: <479f5p$p34@caesar.ultra.net> References: <46rntc$ak4@caesar.ultra.net> <46to6m$al9@pace1.cts> <472qe2$d26@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <473ka8$83i@caesar.ultra.net> <47= 5fes$p4d@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <4767p3$dq7@caesar.ultra.net> <478h4f$nks@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> Greg Wait (Z0OEY@ix.netcom.com) wrote: : cleggp@cleggp.ultranet.com (Paul J. Clegg) wrote: : What you call "playing nice-nice" I call civility and tact. From my point of : view you portrayed your opinions as if they were the only reasonable and : acceptable viewpoint. Perhaps it was not your intention, but your post came : across as condescending and dictatorial. I would be inclined to think that : perhaps I was a little thin skinned about this, but I have an inbox full of : e-mail that seems to say otherwise. Condescending, maybe. We all have bad days (I seem to be having a lot of them of late). Dictatorial? I don't think so. Well, maybe. You see, _I_ know that I am not making any decisions here, so I just write like "one of the guys". Perhaps you think/thought I carried more weight around here; maybe I do -- but I don't think so. Trust me, you'll know when/if something become "official", and chances are, you'll have fair warning beforehand. :) : >PS> I'm honored that you imply that you're doing this for me. :) : > : >PPS> I found your article in the in-box, after guessing it was one of the : >in-box.art articles. I just skimmed it over, and the situation was worse : >than I thought. As an Unreal article, most of it's okay, but you CANNOT : >be referencing Bugblatter Beasts of Traal; we outlawed that kind of thing : >a LONG time ago. : This copy was a draft, and has no business being anywhere in the archives. The : Bugblatter reference was removed prior to submission of the final draft. The : finished article should be in the cargo-bay, where Roel is putting the finished : articles until Steve can get to them. Hmm, I just double-checked, and the cargo-bay appears empty... : >And you're right, Frajoom and Flimwiggians are NOT mere references, but an : >integral part of the article -- parts that I have no interest in, because : >they have no foothold in reality, which was a big part of the discussion I : >thought we were having. : But Waterskiing does have a foothold in reality, which is the discussion _I_ : thought we were having. The substance of the article does not, though. See, the connection between waterskiing (real) and Frajoom (unreal) is fictitious (unreal). Hmm, how to explain better... Okay. I think this might make it a tad more clear. Maybe not. Hopefully. Personally, I don't like fictitious , but I do enjoy fictitious . So, I don't like the waterskiing article because it connects the real with the unreal. I like things like my Pizza Physics article because it connects real things with fictitious logic. To use an example that is not my own; refer to the article on Boredom. No fictitious "things" appear in the article; only fictitious "connections". Let me say again, this is only what like, and has no bearing on what will become of the Guide. : >I think the big reason why stuff like this irks me is because it imparts : >no information at all, and does not show that the "Researcher" did any : >research at all. Sure, it may be entertaining, but personally I think the : >guide should ALSO be informative to some degree... I'd hoped I'd clear up : >what I think is informative (and yet still fiction) and what isn't... Maybe : >I'll try to post something that shows my thoughts more clearly. : This I think is the root of our disagreement as to the nature of The Guide. : When I found it (actually Tilton's Web version) I saw a collection of articles : that were entertaining, and _occasionally_ informative. You would like to see : a guide that is exclusively informative, and entertaining only within a truly : informative article. I can understand that. Please understand the origins of the guide, though, which is where I'm coming from (and, I think, several other "old timers"). The original concept was for vaguely useful articles written humorously; fiction was added only because we needed it to spurn interest. IMHO (please tell me you know what IMHO means) I think we gained the interest because people saw the Guide as being an easy way of "publishing" their amateur fiction. This was not at all supposed to be, in my eyes, a place for people to simply churn out fiction and have their names distributed about the planet. : My article that Roel was in the process of editing, "Leif, Miss Universe, and : Everything," imparts a little trivial information, but it's mostly just funny - : hopefully in much the same way that DNA's stuff was funny - because that's what : _I_ think the Guide is supposed to be. That's why I said, "I'm sure the : misunderstanding was on my part from the start." I read the FAQ, I wrote : articles, I got involved. Now you tell me I don't have the Guide Spirit - I'm : not a trooper. My interest, efforts, and talent come to nothing, because I : don't see through Paul Clegg's eyes. Apparently, we both want PGG to be more "Guide-ish", ie. more like our origin -- DNA's Hitchhiker's Guide. I want it to be more Guide-ish in the sense that it's an "indispensable reference for the galactic hitchhiker", you want it to be more Guide-ish in the sense that it's entertaining fiction? (please, correct me if I'm wrong here) You think articles should have a galactic "feel"; that's exactly what I don't want -- I would much rather have galactic _coverage_. I wish I could explain my view more clearly. : I don't think you could be more wrong about what draws - and will draw - people : to the guide. People want to be entertained first. If they can learn : something along the way, great. But first, you need to make them laugh. I : think the guide should comprise both informational and entertainment articles. : Hopefully all would be entertaining, but they needn't impart any useful : information. Your article on Pizza math is entertaining, but is not useful. : You can argue that the math actually works, and I can argue that you don't : really need a boat to waterski. It doesn't matter. The articles stand on : their own merits. An informational article might be so poorly written as to : detract from the guide, and a fictional, entertainment article might be so well : written that it adds value. By removing all fictional/entertainment articles, : you would not only throw the baby out with the bath-water, but you'd throw the : bathtub out as well. I would much rather separate the two. But I also hold that entertaining and informative do NOT have to be separate. As I said, I'd rather see the Guide become a reference of some dubious sort, not a forum for amateur fiction. : You also imply, perhaps unintentionally, that writing an entertaining fictional : article takes no effort at all. It would be much simpler for me to write an : article explaining how to deep-water start on one ski than it was to write the : article I did. That is not to say that I couldn't make such an article : entertaining too. But I wrote a good article that adds entertainment value to : the guide, and you feel it has no value at all. So take it out. That would be completely unintentional. What I imply as taking no effort at all is coming up fictitious names (and I'll be the first to admit even that's not easy). But there's a difference here, IMHO, between "difficulty" and "effort". It may be difficult to write an entertaining piece of fiction, but it takes no effort. Doing research may be easy, but it takes effort. What I'm saying, I guess, is that if you can sit down behind a word processor and churn out the article (even if it takes you five days to do it), it isn't an "effort". If you run down to the library, check out two pamphlets on some topic, and write an article based on that, in five minutes, you've made an effort. IMHO. Definitely IMHO. : There's no need to post an example of what you mean - I get it. I just think : you're wrong. Perhaps it is time to roll back the clock and turn the guide : back into something that resembles your original vision. Or perhaps it has : become something else, and you should acknowledge that and deal with it. You're implying here that I'm personally going to change the project to reflect my own personal feelings. I insist that I will not, that I CANNOT do any such thing. But I still feel that if we let the situation go as it is now, our quantity will increase, but I don't think our quality will improve. .Paul. ---------------------------------13365595801032704229556132282-- From vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Thu Nov 2 17:48:50 1995 Date: Thu, 02 Nov 95 17:32:42 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Project Galactic Guide X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4c) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Subject: Re: Consider Everything ->STREAMLINE the thread. X-Url: news:471bo3$l9g@hermes.cair.du.edu Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-------------------------------5535625615851497981365448871" Content-Length: 5983 Status: RO X-Lines: 140 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------------------5535625615851497981365448871 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii news:471bo3$l9g@hermes.cair.du.edu ---------------------------------5535625615851497981365448871 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain From: ruhl@phoebe.cair.du.edu (Robert A. Uhl) Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide Subject: Re: Consider Everything ->STREAMLINE the thread. Date: 30 Oct 1995 02:02:43 GMT Organization: University of Denver Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <471bo3$l9g@hermes.cair.du.edu> References: <46mhi2$rdc@caesar.ultra.net> <46qv9n$ktm@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <46s1nt$ad2@hermes.cair.du.edu> <46tfon$h0l@caesar.ultra.net> In article <46tfon$h0l@caesar.ultra.net>, Paul J. Clegg wrote: > >I really don't have a personal opinion on this one, I don't think. A >part of me think we should drop it, to be more like our basis, but I >don't see the harm in keeping it. I think, perhaps, though, we should >really consider using ID numbers for field researchers if we keep it; >I know all my old article have the wrong e-mail address on them, now >that I've moved on. This is one of the plusses to FR numbers. >My original point was actually harkening back to moving towards a more >HHGttG style -- researcher submits article, editor trims it a bit, and >everyone's more or less happy. In otherwords, drop the approval >process altogether. Well, I see approval as politeness. The editor needn't send it back, but he does because we are not savages. >Hopefully all these problems will have been fixed by an editor. Because >of the way we run our archives, I don't think we should "Add" a copy of >an existing article that simply changes a few mistakes. Mistakes that >get through this way should stay until the article is changed/replaced >by a significant amount. We should do whatever is necessary to replace silly mistakes, IMHO. Poor grammar, language &c. are marks of not caring about our work. >Note that this does NOT mean taking the old article out of the archives! >This simply means that an article with the same Title, etc. gets appended >to the archives, for browsers to replace properly. Of course, the archives ought to be archives. Of course, browsers should replace when they come upon the same article number. Title, date and authour will all probably change, but not article number. At least, that's how I feel it ought to be. >: Universal format. >: No Guide readers needed. >: Available for mst platforms. >: A pain to convert. > >Pain to convert TO? Or FROM? Both, but mostly from. HTML is awfully unreadable. Oh yes, and browsers are memory and disk space hungry. >: PGGML >: ===== > >: Already implemented. >: Sufficient for our purposes. >: Relatively unchanging (no Netscape to add on to our format). > >It doesn't matter if Netscape ADDS to HTML; so long as their browsers >support a SUPERset of HTML, we'd be fine. So this isn't a problem or >a benefit. It's a non-issue. But you never know when they will change and support a subset; the public will blame us, not them. The public are stupid sheep at times... >: Guide readers needed, thrusting our name into the public view. > >Of course, when readers don't work, or aren't available, that ALSO >puts our name into the public view, and not in a very nice way. At >least if we base our stuff on Netscape, we can blame THEM. :) Well, yes. But I really find it an advantage to have custom browsers. When PGG is a corporation it will be able to make browsers for all platforms. >: I feel that PGGML ought not be replaced. There is no reason to >: convert; we would derive no real benefit from it, IMHO. > >I'm not entirely sure about this. I think we COULD easily keep going >with our existing format, or something slightly different, but I wonder >if we should go HTML. With the WWW in the spotlight of the world at the >moment, it could be a great advantage, especially so far as advertising >goes; we could set up a truly official Web site, and market the URL around >and easily get a LOT of interest and support quite quickly. As it stands >now, someone has to hear about what we're doing, and then hunt down how >to get the software, the articles, and how to set it up on their machine. >Since most people have access to the Web, it'd be trivial to simply give >them a URL to check out. Actually, I've always thought that it's sort of a filtering process for PGG; only those who actually care about it can get to it. Besides, PGG Inc. won't make much money off of a web page with all its articles on it. We ought to have, as we already have, _pages_ which tell about PGG in a non-FAQ format and have links to the necessary files and browsers. This will enable people to get the product and get started. >HTML also adds other nice things -- device independent formatting, the >ability to handle images, sounds, true hypertext, tables. HTML doesn't do device-independent formatting; Netscape HTML does. HTML is supposed to not rely on anything on the host machine. >The more I think about it, the more I think HTML would be a Good Idea. >We'd lose the plaintext readability, but how many people here are reading >Guide articles plaintext anyway? (Hmm, I guess those people who read the >approved articles on the newsgroup...) Still, it's something to consider. I do all the time. BTW, I've written a PGGML interpreter in perl. Anyone who is interested may just write. -- +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Bob Uhl | Spectre | `En touto nika' + | | U of D | PGG FR No. 42 | http://mercury.cair.du.edu/~ruhl/ | +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ---------------------------------5535625615851497981365448871-- From vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl Fri Nov 3 09:16:35 1995 Date: Fri, 03 Nov 95 09:16:35 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Leiden Observatory X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl Subject: Re: The Guide of the Future X-Url: news:47b0ib$1ud@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-------------------------------7881832691880022341993715307" Content-Length: 7557 Status: RO X-Lines: 168 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------------------7881832691880022341993715307 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii news:47b0ib$1ud@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca -- _______________________________________________________________ Roel van der Meulen (vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl) Project Galactic Guide Field Researcher & Recruiter & Librarian Upkeeper of the PGG Home Page at the Research Vessel Leiden: (http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~vdmeulen/RVL.html) "He wonders if he too might have made a similar mistake" _______________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------7881832691880022341993715307 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain From: Greg Wait Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide Subject: Re: The Guide of the Future Date: 2 Nov 1995 17:53:15 GMT Organization: BrainTrust Communications Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <47b0ib$1ud@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> References: <46rntc$ak4@caesar.ultra.net> <46to6m$al9@pace1.cts> <472qe2$d26@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <473ka8$83i@caesar.ultra.net> <47= 5fes$p4d@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <4767p3$dq7@caesar.ultra.net> <478h4f$nks@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <479f5p$p34@caesar.ultra.net> cleggp@cleggp.ultranet.com (Paul J. Clegg) wrote: >Greg Wait (Z0OEY@ix.netcom.com) wrote: >: .... Perhaps it was not your intention, but your post came >: across as condescending and dictatorial. I would be inclined to think that >: perhaps I was a little thin skinned about this, but I have an inbox full of >: e-mail that seems to say otherwise. >Condescending, maybe. We all have bad days (I seem to be having a lot of >them of late). Dictatorial? I don't think so. Well, maybe. You see, _I_ >know that I am not making any decisions here, so I just write like "one of >the guys". Perhaps you think/thought I carried more weight around here; >maybe I do -- but I don't think so. Trust me, you'll know when/if something >become "official", and chances are, you'll have fair warning beforehand. :) I have my share of bad days. I don't use that to off-handedly excuse everything I do. I call that being an adult. I believe that it was not your intention to come across the way _I_ think you did, and I'm trying to take that into account. I don't view this as a flame war, and I don't want it to become one. It is your tendency to cast aspersions on the opposing viewpoint with which I take exception. >: But Waterskiing does have a foothold in reality, which is the discussion _I_ >: thought we were having. >The substance of the article does not, though. See, the connection between >waterskiing (real) and Frajoom (unreal) is fictitious (unreal). Hmm, how to >explain better... No need. I believe my article, and others like it add a lot to The Guide. I think this thread is wasting time, because we simply want The Guide to be different things. You pointed out that you haven't been contributing anything concrete to The Guide of late. Well I have, and it irks me to have you suddenly pop up out of nowhere and say, in effect - "First thing we do is get rid of all those stupid fictional articles" - effectively removing me from the Guide. I understand that it's just your opinion, but it might sit a little better if you'd been doing something lately other than simply offering opinions. >Let me say again, this is only what like, and has no bearing on what will >become of the Guide. And my posts are likewise only my opinion. >I can understand that. Please understand the origins of the guide, though, >which is where I'm coming from (and, I think, several other "old timers"). >The original concept was for vaguely useful articles written humorously; >fiction was added only because we needed it to spurn interest. I do understand the origins of The Guide, and I understand that you were voted down by proponents of fictional articles. >IMHO (please tell me you know what IMHO means) I think we gained the interest >because people saw the Guide as being an easy way of "publishing" their >amateur fiction. This was not at all supposed to be, in my eyes, a place >for people to simply churn out fiction and have their names distributed >about the planet. Amateur means, "One who does something simply for the love of it." I make my living as a writer, I write for The Guide for the love of doing it - and for what little exposure it affords. And if we gained people's interest by allowing fictional articles, as you say, won't we lose their interest by disallowing the same? So far we don't seem to be in danger of losing field researchers and authors by including fictional articles - we will by excluding them. >Apparently, we both want PGG to be more "Guide-ish", ie. more like our >origin -- DNA's Hitchhiker's Guide. >I want it to be more Guide-ish in the sense that it's an "indispensable >reference for the galactic hitchhiker", you want it to be more Guide-ish >in the sense that it's entertaining fiction? (please, correct me if I'm >wrong here) You're wrong here. I want it to be more like the original guide in the following ways: ALL articles should read like Guide entries - there's too much variation in style. The original Guide had at least one entry (I forget the exact reference) that was completely UNTRUE (read UNREAL), but the editors felt that it was a much better story than the truth. It may not be true that one can ski without a boat, or that waterskiing was invented by the Frajoom, but I think it makes a good article. The Guide should comprise BOTH informational and entertainment articles. (The two are not mutually exclusive concepts.) >: An informational article might be so poorly written as to >: detract from the guide, and a fictional, entertainment article might be so well >: written that it adds value. By removing all fictional/entertainment articles, >: you would not only throw the baby out with the bath-water, but you'd throw the >: bathtub out as well. > >I would much rather separate the two. I, and what I believe is a healthy majority on the project, would rather not. I think it's time to put forward a vote on this issue. *****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++ Okay - field researchers, editors, librarians, telephone sanitizers, and pizza mathematicians - I'm calling for a vote. 1 Should The Guide be stripped of all unreal references, all fictional/ non-informative articles, and continue as a reference tool only? --------======== OR ========-------- 2 Should The Guide comprise BOTH fictional and informative articles? (Please vote by number, so we don't have to wonder what 'YES' means.) *****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++ I'll post this in a separate thread, "Voting Booth." Please append your votes to the 'Voting Booth' thread (in the format: votes ), so it will be easy to see how we all stand. I think this is the simplest way to end this thread and get the PGG moving forward in some form or another. I'll wait to make any personal decisions until I see how this shakes out. Thanks for all the supportive e-mail. -- Greg Wait (z0oey@ix.netcom.com) -=May Joy and Innocence Prevail=- --+-- ---------------------------------7881832691880022341993715307-- From vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl Fri Nov 3 09:45:45 1995 Date: Fri, 03 Nov 95 09:45:45 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Leiden Observatory X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl Subject: Re: The Guide of the Future X-Url: news:47ba1f$rsv@hermes.cair.du.edu Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-------------------------------42718774815422744451423072066" Content-Length: 6332 Status: RO X-Lines: 130 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------------------42718774815422744451423072066 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii news:47ba1f$rsv@hermes.cair.du.edu -- _______________________________________________________________ Roel van der Meulen (vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl) Project Galactic Guide Field Researcher & Recruiter & Librarian Upkeeper of the PGG Home Page at the Research Vessel Leiden: (http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~vdmeulen/RVL.html) "He wonders if he too might have made a similar mistake" _______________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------42718774815422744451423072066 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain From: ruhl@phoebe.cair.du.edu (Robert A. Uhl) Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide Subject: Re: The Guide of the Future Date: 2 Nov 1995 20:34:55 GMT Organization: The Edgar Allan Poe Colouring Book Co. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <47ba1f$rsv@hermes.cair.du.edu> References: <46rntc$ak4@caesar.ultra.net> <475fes$p4d@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <4767p3$dq7@caesar.ultra.net> <478h4f$nks@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> Greg Wait spake thusly: > >First, your posts don't come across as if you're trying to "talk about it." >You don't converse - you hold forth. Second, you should be able to appreciate >the difference between childishly refusing to be flexible, and stating your >limitations. Several people made it known that for them the author credit was >non-negotiable - not in a spirit of "I'm taking my toys and going home," but to >supply the group with information as to one outcome of such a change. Your >portrayal of it as the antics of a recalcitrant two year old is an insult to >the mature adults who attempted to express the strength of their convictions on >this point. Well, I can see his point. But I also believe that is nice to have some sort of credit for one's work. Even the World Book Encyclopedia has authour credits (they're really small, and at the end of the article). I'd like to be able to say, and prove that, `I wrote that!' Where is the damage in that? >What you call "playing nice-nice" I call civility and tact. From my point of >view you portrayed your opinions as if they were the only reasonable and >acceptable viewpoint. Perhaps it was not your intention, but your post came >across as condescending and dictatorial. I would be inclined to think that >perhaps I was a little thin skinned about this, but I have an inbox full of >e-mail that seems to say otherwise. This part here reminded me of a discussion we were having on rec.games.bolo (Bolo is a 1-16 player game, playable over AppleTalk, Ethernet, TCP/IP, modem &c). There is a term now being used--base raping--which refers to depleting the stores of a refueling base and then taking it. Many players dislike the term because of the modern meaning of rape and have been arguing against it on the grounds of politeness. The other have basically said, `Scr*w politeness! We'll do what we want!' Of course, the valid counterargument, that `rape' actually means `take,' has not been brought forth. Sigh. Anyway, politeness and decorum are important. Without them we would devolve into a chaotic mess. Mr. Clegg has written in such a manner that it seems rather evident that he finds himself quite the ueber-editor. Since this is not so, and has not been for some time now, I feel that he needs to review the facts. Mr. Wait has written and made several good points, not one of which dictated to the group as a whole. He gave his opinion, and, while allowing that there are others, also set forth his opinion that he is correct. I happen to agree with him. This isn't, and is, a big deal. It isn't, because there are much more important things going on in the world. It is, because we need to set the focus of PGG. If PGG is not as I and Mr. Wait believe it to be, then I will join him in leaving. >But Waterskiing does have a foothold in reality, which is the discussion _I_ >thought we were having. Mr. Clegg seems innately inable to distinguish between reality and unreal references. When I make reference to King Leofred the Mildly Deranged, it's a joke. Methinks that Mr. Clegg would sit and scrathc his head, trying to recall when good ol' King LtMD reigned. >This I think is the root of our disagreement as to the nature of The Guide. >When I found it (actually Tilton's Web version) I saw a collection of articles >that were entertaining, and _occasionally_ informative. You would like to see >a guide that is exclusively informative, and entertaining only within a truly >informative article. `Entertaining and _occasionally informative.' Much like the original Guide. Have any of y'all ever read Dave Barry (an American humourist)? He often makes things up (and prefaces real things with, `I'm _not_ making this up!'), and yet has an amazingly large audience. Humour does not preclude unreality. PGG, by virtue of its very _name_, is humourous. Don't fight it; it _is_. To say that it _must_ be informative above all else is to say that the sky _must_ be cloudy or else. Yes, clouds are pretty, but the sky can be beautiful without them. Information is nice, but PGG can exist without it. >My article on Waterskiing doesn't tell you how to do anything. But people who >find the guide who like to waterski (and many who don't) will find it >entertaining. I found it hilarious. >There's no need to post an example of what you mean - I get it. I just think >you're wrong. Perhaps it is time to roll back the clock and turn the guide >back into something that resembles your original vision. Or perhaps it has >become something else, and you should acknowledge that and deal with it. Once again, I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Mr. Wait on this matter. -- +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Bob Uhl | Spectre | `En touto nika' + | | U of D | PGG FR No. 42 | http://mercury.cair.du.edu/~ruhl/ | +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ---------------------------------42718774815422744451423072066-- From vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl Fri Nov 3 09:51:32 1995 Date: Fri, 03 Nov 95 09:51:31 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Leiden Observatory X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl Subject: Re: The Guide of the Future X-Url: news:47bhl9$2te@caesar.ultra.net Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-------------------------------9757947356004490842102014405" Content-Length: 3871 Status: RO X-Lines: 81 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------------------9757947356004490842102014405 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii news:47bhl9$2te@caesar.ultra.net -- _______________________________________________________________ Roel van der Meulen (vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl) Project Galactic Guide Field Researcher & Recruiter & Librarian Upkeeper of the PGG Home Page at the Research Vessel Leiden: (http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~vdmeulen/RVL.html) "He wonders if he too might have made a similar mistake" _______________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------9757947356004490842102014405 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain From: cleggp@cleggp.ultranet.com (Paul J. Clegg) Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide Subject: Re: The Guide of the Future Date: 2 Nov 1995 22:44:57 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Message-ID: <47bhl9$2te@caesar.ultra.net> References: <46rntc$ak4@caesar.ultra.net> <475fes$p4d@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <4767p3$dq7@caesar.ultra.net> <478h4f$nks@crchh327.rich.= bnr.ca> <47ba1f$rsv@hermes.cair.du.edu> Robert A. Uhl (ruhl@phoebe.cair.du.edu) wrote: : Greg Wait spake thusly: : >But Waterskiing does have a foothold in reality, which is the discussion _I_ : >thought we were having. : Mr. Clegg seems innately inable to distinguish between reality and : unreal references. When I make reference to King Leofred the Mildly : Deranged, it's a joke. Methinks that Mr. Clegg would sit and scrathc : his head, trying to recall when good ol' King LtMD reigned. No, I wouldn't sit and scratch my head. I simply find that these attempts at humor are all too often completely not funny, and, if haphazardly thrown into an otherwise okay article, completely detracts from the flow the article already had. I don't like seeing a good, solid flow of text suddenly interrupted by a reference to a completely fictional, obviously-made-up name that has little to no bearing on the article, except as a "joke". : >This I think is the root of our disagreement as to the nature of The Guide. : >When I found it (actually Tilton's Web version) I saw a collection of articles : >that were entertaining, and _occasionally_ informative. You would like to see : >a guide that is exclusively informative, and entertaining only within a truly : >informative article. : `Entertaining and _occasionally informative.' Much like the : original Guide. Have any of y'all ever read Dave Barry (an American : humourist)? He often makes things up (and prefaces real things with, : `I'm _not_ making this up!'), and yet has an amazingly large audience. : Humour does not preclude unreality. PGG, by virtue of its very : _name_, is humourous. Don't fight it; it _is_. To say that it _must_ : be informative above all else is to say that the sky _must_ be cloudy : or else. Yes, clouds are pretty, but the sky can be beautiful without : them. Information is nice, but PGG can exist without it. There are lots of places to find humor and entertaining fiction -- check out your local bookstore. :) Likewise, there are lots of places to find dull information. Check your library. :) Personally, I'd like to see PGG be something special by being one of the very FEW places to find humorously written information. The big trick to making it big is to be original and unique. IMHO, if we continue simply accepting works of fiction, we're nothing more than another collection of net.fiction, and would be taken about as seriously as alt.shared-reality.startrek.cardassian would be. I'd like to see PGG evolve to something better, bigger than that. I want PGG to shine on the net as an original. .Paul. ---------------------------------9757947356004490842102014405-- From vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl Fri Nov 3 13:03:20 1995 Date: Fri, 03 Nov 95 13:03:21 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Leiden Observatory X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl Subject: Re: Consider Everything X-Url: news:46os12$7ta@hermes.cair.du.edu Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-------------------------------189580449689895110344168071" Content-Length: 2992 Status: RO X-Lines: 88 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------------------189580449689895110344168071 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii news:46os12$7ta@hermes.cair.du.edu -- _______________________________________________________________ Roel van der Meulen (vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl) Project Galactic Guide Field Researcher & Recruiter & Librarian Upkeeper of the PGG Home Page at the Research Vessel Leiden: (http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~vdmeulen/RVL.html) "He wonders if he too might have made a similar mistake" _______________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------189580449689895110344168071 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain From: ruhl@phoebe.cair.du.edu (Robert A. Uhl) Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide Subject: Re: Consider Everything Date: 26 Oct 1995 20:45:22 GMT Organization: University of Denver Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <46os12$7ta@hermes.cair.du.edu> References: <46mhi2$rdc@caesar.ultra.net> In article <46mhi2$rdc@caesar.ultra.net>, Paul J. Clegg wrote: >Okay, there have been a lot of things flying around in consideration >recently. Let's see if I can pin them all down... > >1. Should we dump the author credit? I don't think so. Give the authour credit because it is, after all, his work which PGG is publishing. >2. Should we allow editors to archive without permissions? Do you mean without Authour Conf? No, the authour ought tobe able to confirm or deny changes. But it is up to the editors to reject the article if it is unsuitable. >3. Who can write a revised/replacement article? ANyone; it is up to the editors to change it for good. An editor might ask the original authour's opinion, but then again he may not. >4. Should article authors have ID numbers? Yes; but I have 42 no matter what:-) >5. Should we dump the Reality Index? Yes; in my opinion it hurts all articles. LEt the reader decide. >6. Should we dump the Unreal articles? No, but discourage truly Unreal articles. Editors shoudl tell authours that, `this really isn't the PGG sort of thing.' >7. Should we add the %k keyword markup? How is it different from %i again? >8. Should we go to HTML/some other format? No; HTML is too messy for what we ar doing. PGGML is a nice format for what we are doiung. You cannot beat a custom style for anything. >9. Should we require articles in the style of Douglas Adams? No, but they should be encouraged. -- +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Bob Uhl | Spectre | `En touto nika' + | | U of D | PGG FR No. 42 | http://mercury.cair.du.edu/~ruhl/ | +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ---------------------------------189580449689895110344168071-- From vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl Fri Nov 3 14:07:48 1995 Date: Fri, 03 Nov 95 14:07:47 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Leiden Observatory X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide To: vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl Subject: Re: Consider Everything X-Url: news:46os12$7ta@hermes.cair.du.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 4874 Status: RO X-Lines: 104 >Paul J. Clegg wrote: >>Okay, there have been a lot of things flying around in consideration >>recently. Let's see if I can pin them all down... >> >>1. Should we dump the author credit? No, I want to receive credit for my work, but more important: feedback. >>2. Should we allow editors to archive without permissions? Yes, but only if the authors can't be reached anymore. A comment should be added then that it hasn't been author confirmed. Actually this question reaches to the fundamental question who has the final responsibility for the archived article: the editor or the author. All questions about how far the power of an editor reaches can be answered when we have an answer to this fundamental question. At present the answer is unresolved and we stumble around in that vague area with reasonable success; if we decide to do something about the quality (everyone agrees on this) the question has to be answered. We might not like the resulting answers, but they are unavoidable unless authors give up certain rights. >>3. Who can write a revised/replacement article? An updated article: the author or a new author in cooperation with the old. If the old one isn't available anymore, the absolutely new information should go in a new followup article. The archive clean up operation that will probably soon commence should take place in close cooperation with the original authors. I suspect that many of them won't be available anymore.. my thoughts about this situation aren't clear yet. Without changes of information or article spirit there is no problem if we can't find them, so we'd probably better leave it at that. >>4. Should article authors have ID numbers? The only use I see for them is the easy change of email address (especially in my case) and more space to use aliases (which could add extra fun to an article). Tracking who came first or later should not be done I think, so as to discourage a hierarchy. I vote yes for author ID numbers, but for randomly distributed, three or four digit numbers. >>5. Should we dump the Reality Index? No, further sharpening of them supports the ability to choose subsets of articles to create sub-Guides of different style (a very flexible whole) >>6. Should we dump the Unreal articles? No, just some of those articles that plagiarize DNA's work or come so close to it that breach of copyright is apparant. I don't want to build on top of DNA's universe, I want us to build our own (for as far as I want references to alien cultures in it. As little of them as possible, is my opinion. Articles completely about them, with no reference to anything earthly should be discouraged. >>7. Should we add the %k keyword markup? Absolutely, to allow for a much better search on subject. I also think that browsers should be made so that an alternative article (%I) isn't simply a rearrangement of the words in the title (%t). If that's the case already, forget what I said. >>8. Should we go to HTML/some other format? For the whole project, No. I am all in favour of a central WWW site with all our articles and a browsing system which shows all the best features of the seperate browsers, and maybe some more. I remember somebody offering such a place not long ago. Someone should be appointed especially to maintain this site. Hypertext should also be used for the cross-references, and we should lighten it up with pictures, movies and sound, as far as possible. The articles should however basically look the same (style), to let it be clear that together they form one entity. So no varying background pictures and a uniform format. The other browsers should support the basics, text that is. Not much more really. Then leave the rest to evolution. We will notice it soon enough when people start copying the html stuff and no one uses other browsers anymore. But I don't think that that will happen in a long time. When the question of incorporation might once come into play, we must think it over again. >>9. Should we require articles in the style of Douglas Adams? I think that what Stephane put into one of his pictures states best what almost everyone wants to do here: to apprehend reality like it's never been apprehended before (possibly not the exact words). Douglas Adam's style is very good at this, so it is a good style to follow. But there are more. Just stick to what you do best, I would suggest. _______________________________________________________________ Roel van der Meulen (vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl) Project Galactic Guide Field Researcher & Recruiter & Librarian Upkeeper of the PGG Home Page at the Research Vessel Leiden: (http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~vdmeulen/RVL.html) "He wonders if he too might have made a similar mistake" _______________________________________________________________ From vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl Fri Nov 3 14:08:34 1995 Date: Fri, 03 Nov 95 14:08:35 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Leiden Observatory X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl Subject: Re: **Voting Booth** X-Url: news:47cock$eam@highway.LeidenUniv.nl Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-------------------------------1862148496902716041392723086" Content-Length: 5517 Status: RO X-Lines: 127 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------------------1862148496902716041392723086 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii news:47cock$eam@highway.LeidenUniv.nl -- _______________________________________________________________ Roel van der Meulen (vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl) Project Galactic Guide Field Researcher & Recruiter & Librarian Upkeeper of the PGG Home Page at the Research Vessel Leiden: (http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~vdmeulen/RVL.html) "He wonders if he too might have made a similar mistake" _______________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------1862148496902716041392723086 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain From: Roel van der Meulen Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide Subject: Re: **Voting Booth** Date: 3 Nov 1995 09:45:56 GMT Organization: Leiden Observatory Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <47cock$eam@highway.LeidenUniv.nl> References: <47b0ls$1ud@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <47bgt3$2te@caesar.ultra.net> cleggp@cleggp.ultranet.com (Paul J. Clegg) wrote: >Greg Wait (Z0OEY@ix.netcom.com) wrote: >: 1 - Should The Guide be stripped of all unreal references, all fictional/ >: non-informative articles, and continue as a reference tool only? >: >: --------======== OR ========-------- >: >: 2 - Should The Guide comprise BOTH fictional and informative articles? > >Also note that your wording of 1 is slightly biased; what I was pushing >for was not to remove all "non-informative" articles as you write; I was >pushing to remove all "no foothold in reality" articles. I've been keeping track of all arguments in this dispute, to be able to get a balanced opinion on this subject (I didn't really know what to think, before). From the arguments I read I see that things are too complicated to be able to have this vote like this. Both viewpoints (Paul (et al.?) and Greg et al.) seem to require that "it's either this or the other, no comprimize". That hasn't been explicitly said, but I read that from the arguments, which make it clear that an alternative would completely miss the point. I won't go into these arguments further. What I do see is that there are so many options, that a comprimize is the only option, if we want to keep going on in the same spirit. I realize it is very difficult and that there is no 'best' solution, but maybe an idea I have, which is an adaptation of some other ideas I saw posted, will help us get there. * There is a demand for a guide that has articles in it that can be Real, Semi-Real, or Unreal, but without any references to complete fiction, with which mean no references to fictitios alien cultures and such. Only articles that have a foothold in reality, so about real things and real things explained by twisted logic (my how difficult it is to get these standpoints right). * There is a demand for a guide stripped of plagiarized articles and full of articles that are true or *could* be true, with no reality distinctions after that. * There is a demand for a guide about things with a foothold in reality, but with some off-world fiction for flavour. That is, *no* article should be complete fiction in that it has no reference to earthly subjects at all. How to explain this better? An example: Justice Lipo Ligantis would go out, Waterskiing would stay in. * Maybe some people would like to see the Guide stay the same as it is now? I'm loosing track now, so please alter or add to this list so that it expresses your viewpoint more accurately, but please keep it short. Anyway after all viewpoints have been correctly defined, I think the only solution to keep as much people happy as possible is that we add new reality tags. A tricky business, but it should be possible in a way. Maybe just a splitting up of the tags we already have into articles expressing Paul's point of view, which are a subset of articles that express Greg's point of view, and the rest of the Greg-set of articles, the ones with the extra flavour. So we get RU, SU, SF, UU, UF tags (U=unflavoured, F=flavoured). Is that something? It would still mean the plagiarized articles would have to go out, and the completely fictitios articles have no place. Maybe there's a better way to juggle with the tags? Please comment on this: Is the tag solution an optimal one, and is there a better way to retag than I presented here. Keep in mind that this solution is not the best for everyone, but I don't think a comprimize can be avoided. With the correct tags we can then adjust the browsers to give us a style of Guide, a bit more differentiated than we can do now by only selecting on R, S, and U. We can then select (I'm using these terms just for the sake of the argument, please don't take offence) Paul's Guide, Greg's Guide, and Everything. Hope this was of help, Roel _______________________________________________________________ Roel van der Meulen (vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl) Project Galactic Guide Field Researcher & Recruiter & Librarian Upkeeper of the PGG Home Page at the Research Vessel Leiden: (http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~vdmeulen/RVL.html) "He wonders if he too might have made a similar mistake" _______________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------1862148496902716041392723086-- From vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl Fri Nov 3 14:08:55 1995 Date: Fri, 03 Nov 95 14:08:56 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Leiden Observatory X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl Subject: Re: Near-Future Idea X-Url: news:47cpab$eam@highway.LeidenUniv.nl Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-------------------------------3101332681786931901557529266" Content-Length: 3828 Status: RO X-Lines: 90 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------------------3101332681786931901557529266 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii news:47cpab$eam@highway.LeidenUniv.nl -- _______________________________________________________________ Roel van der Meulen (vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl) Project Galactic Guide Field Researcher & Recruiter & Librarian Upkeeper of the PGG Home Page at the Research Vessel Leiden: (http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~vdmeulen/RVL.html) "He wonders if he too might have made a similar mistake" _______________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------3101332681786931901557529266 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain From: Roel van der Meulen Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide Subject: Re: Near-Future Idea Date: 3 Nov 1995 10:01:47 GMT Organization: Leiden Observatory Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <47cpab$eam@highway.LeidenUniv.nl> References: <47bi23$2te@caesar.ultra.net> cleggp@cleggp.ultranet.com (Paul J. Clegg) wrote: >I really like the idea of having a vote for each article before being >accepted; and this goes for ALL articles. The point of this is to help >bring up the quality issue. > >I propose we add a poll for every article in such a system: > >1. Article is edited as normal, and goes through the process we already >have in place, but instead of going to the archives, it's posted to the >group for a poll. > >2. People e-mail their ranking of the article, giving it a rating from >1(worst) to 10(best) -- keep numbers to integers (no 6.5's.) > >3. After two weeks, or a minimum of, say, 20?, responses (duplicate voters >will be ignored, or perhaps just use the most recent value they gave), the >numbers are averaged, and if the rating of the article is greater than 7, >it gets accepted into the archives. > I must say, it's a very confronting method. It does add to quality, but I don't see any constructional criticism here. I don't think it's a good idea to just say whether or not you like it (and how much) without telling why and offering alternatives. I also think it would scare of a lot of people to write there first article, when they would immediately be judged so unmercifully. They still have to get the hang of it. Further I think it would slow down the acceptence process a lot. Not in the least because discussions like the one we had this week would break loose, where everyone has different opinions, so the author doesn't know what to make of it. That is one way it could go, the other is that hardly anyone reacts, because it's a lot of work for everyone to judge every article he/she sees. All in all I like the idea of feedback, but not in this way. For the acceptence process to work smoothly, a smaller group should read the article and give suggestions. After the suggestions have been processed into the article (obligatory 'suggestions' and non-obligatory), the article goes into the archives. Then the whole community can comment on it and express their feelings, and the author can do with it what he/she wants, although taking those comments into account is highly reccommended. Sometimes this will result in an update. _______________________________________________________________ Roel van der Meulen (vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl) Project Galactic Guide Field Researcher & Recruiter & Librarian Upkeeper of the PGG Home Page at the Research Vessel Leiden: (http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~vdmeulen/RVL.html) "He wonders if he too might have made a similar mistake" _______________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------3101332681786931901557529266-- From vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Fri Nov 3 15:05:16 1995 Date: Fri, 03 Nov 95 15:03:50 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Project Galactic Guide X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4c) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Subject: Re: Regarding: **Voting Booth** X-Url: news:47bo4v$jda@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-------------------------------168747104012999743931914822718" Content-Length: 1970 Status: RO X-Lines: 55 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------------------168747104012999743931914822718 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii news:47bo4v$jda@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com ---------------------------------168747104012999743931914822718 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain From: z0oey@ix.netcom.com (Gregory C. Wait ) Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide Subject: Re: Regarding: **Voting Booth** Date: 3 Nov 1995 00:35:43 GMT Organization: Netcom Message-ID: <47bo4v$jda@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> References: <47b0ls$1ud@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> In lthumper@bga.com (Jeff Kramer) writes: >First of all, there's also a few people who want to strip out the >semi-real designation, and a few that want no designation at all... It >would also be easier to tabulate if they sent them all to somebody and >that person counted them all. (Don't ask me, I deleted all of the >previous PGG Report Poll results by accident.) > > BrainSpace Unlimited lthumper@bga.com > http://www.realtime.net/~lthumper/me.html Jeff Kramer > - A processor cycle is a terrible thing to waste. - Jeff, I realize there are other questions to be resolved, but we have to start somewhere, and this seems like a logical place as it has become such a point of contention. If we can agree to make a decision on this issue we can move forward on all the other points. Can we focus on this one issue and resolve it? I personally would like to know how people feel about this, and the question touches on ALL categories - ANY articles that make reference to anything UNREAL. Please vote (post replies to the original 'Voting Booth' thread). We'll get to the other questions ASAP. Respectfully/hopefully, Greg Wait ---------------------------------168747104012999743931914822718-- From vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl Sat Nov 4 14:01:07 1995 Date: Sat, 04 Nov 95 14:01:07 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Leiden Observatory X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl Subject: Roel's point (was-Re: **Voting Booth**) X-Url: news:47dcrv$7hl@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-------------------------------108717503019218010792125161444" Content-Length: 5601 Status: RO X-Lines: 126 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------------------108717503019218010792125161444 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii news:47dcrv$7hl@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca -- _______________________________________________________________ Roel van der Meulen (vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl) Project Galactic Guide Field Researcher & Recruiter & Librarian Upkeeper of the PGG Home Page at the Research Vessel Leiden: (http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~vdmeulen/RVL.html) "He wonders if he too might have made a similar mistake" _______________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------108717503019218010792125161444 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain From: Greg Wait Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide Subject: Roel's point (was-Re: **Voting Booth**) Date: 3 Nov 1995 15:35:27 GMT Organization: BrainTrust Communications Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <47dcrv$7hl@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> References: <47b0ls$1ud@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <47bgt3$2te@caesar.ultra.net> <47cock$eam@highway.LeidenUniv.nl> Roel van der Meulen wrote: >think, before). From the arguments I read I see that things are too >complicated to be able to have this vote like this. >What I do see is that there are so many options, that a comprimize is >the only option, if we want to keep going on in the same spirit. >I realize it is very difficult and that there is no 'best' solution, >but maybe an idea I have, which is an adaptation of some other ideas >I saw posted, will help us get there. >* There is a demand for a guide that has articles in it that can be > Real, Semi-Real, or Unreal, but without any references to complete > fiction, with which mean no references to fictitios alien cultures > and such. Only articles that have a foothold in reality, so about > real things and real things explained by twisted logic (my how > difficult it is to get these standpoints right). >* There is a demand for a guide stripped of plagiarized articles and > full of articles that are true or *could* be true, with no reality > distinctions after that. >* There is a demand for a guide about things with a foothold in reality, > but with some off-world fiction for flavour. That is, *no* article > should be complete fiction in that it has no reference to earthly > subjects at all. How to explain this better? An example: Justice > Lipo Ligantis would go out, Waterskiing would stay in. >* Maybe some people would like to see the Guide stay the same as it > is now? >I'm loosing track now, so please alter or add to this list so that >it expresses your viewpoint more accurately, but please keep it short. Roel, this is a good list. Maybe the best way to proceed is to have people review this list and add any potions they don't see represented, then take a vote on all the options. The only problem I see with doing it this way is that we have such a small voting pool, that if we end up voting on one of 5 or 5 options, we will probably not have a clear majority on any one. That is why I thought we should start with two options. I don't care how the decision is made, as long as it is made and PGG gets moving forward again. >Anyway after all viewpoints have been correctly defined, I think the >only solution to keep as much people happy as possible is that we >add new reality tags. A tricky business, but it should be possible in >a way. Maybe just a splitting up of the tags we already have into >articles expressing Paul's point of view, which are a subset of >articles that express Greg's point of view, and the rest of the >Greg-set of articles, the ones with the extra flavour. >So we get RU, SU, SF, UU, UF tags (U=unflavoured, F=flavoured). >Is that something? >It would still mean the plagiarized articles would have to go >out, and the completely fictitios articles have no place. I don't think everyone agrees that totally fictitious articles have no place in the guide. If we're going to look at all options, keeping them should be an option. >Maybe there's a better way to juggle with the tags? >Please comment on this: Is the tag solution an optimal one, and >is there a better way to retag than I presented here. Keep in mind >that this solution is not the best for everyone, but I don't think >a comprimize can be avoided. Modifying the tags is probably a good option, but maybe we need to simplify them, not expand them. What about INFORMATIVE and ENTERTAINMENT (I and E) as article categories? Or F for factual articles and f for fictional? Also, are we really going to demarcate reality vs. nonreality based on wether the fictional reference is earthbound? If the real problem is fictional reference, why are some fictional references better than others simply because they are earth-based? It seems as though one camp would throw out a reference to a small green man from mars, but keep a reference to a small green man from Kent. >With the correct tags we can then adjust the browsers to give us >a style of Guide, a bit more differentiated than we can do now by >only selecting on R, S, and U. We can then select (I'm using these >terms just for the sake of the argument, please don't take offence) >Paul's Guide, Greg's Guide, and Everything. >Hope this was of help, >Roel -- Greg Wait (z0oey@ix.netcom.com) -=May Joy and Innocence Prevail=- --+-- ---------------------------------108717503019218010792125161444-- From vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl Sat Nov 4 14:03:20 1995 Date: Sat, 04 Nov 95 14:03:20 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Leiden Observatory X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl Subject: Re: Near-Future Idea X-Url: news:47e55c$91f@caesar.ultra.net Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-------------------------------18853613933740653661090119511" Content-Length: 4313 Status: RO X-Lines: 96 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------------------18853613933740653661090119511 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii news:47e55c$91f@caesar.ultra.net -- _______________________________________________________________ Roel van der Meulen (vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl) Project Galactic Guide Field Researcher & Recruiter & Librarian Upkeeper of the PGG Home Page at the Research Vessel Leiden: (http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~vdmeulen/RVL.html) "He wonders if he too might have made a similar mistake" _______________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------18853613933740653661090119511 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain From: cleggp@cleggp.ultranet.com (Paul J. Clegg) Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide Subject: Re: Near-Future Idea Date: 3 Nov 1995 22:30:04 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Message-ID: <47e55c$91f@caesar.ultra.net> References: <47bi23$2te@caesar.ultra.net> <47cpab$eam@highway.LeidenUniv.nl> Roel van der Meulen (vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl) wrote: : cleggp@cleggp.ultranet.com (Paul J. Clegg) wrote: : >I really like the idea of having a vote for each article before being : >accepted; and this goes for ALL articles. The point of this is to help : >bring up the quality issue. : > : >I propose we add a poll for every article in such a system: : > : I must say, it's a very confronting method. It does add to quality, but I : don't see any constructional criticism here. I don't think it's a good idea : to just say whether or not you like it (and how much) without telling why : and offering alternatives. Perhaps people should add constructive criticism when they rate the article; then the author will have a list of feedback when/if an article is shot down. Also, if it looks like the article is going to get shot down, or if obvious problem are brought up early, the author can "rescind" the article to make changes. And all authors are invited/encouraged to re-write and re-submit and article. Er, make that "would be" instead of "are". Obviously, this is not an official change. Yet. :) : I also think it would scare of a lot of people to write there first : article, when they would immediately be judged so unmercifully. They : still have to get the hang of it. What's the alternative, though? Accept everyone's first article? (sarcasm) I think we have to start putting in some minimum requirements, and boost quality. I can envision this: Prospective authors, even experienced ones, put their articles (rough drafts) up on the newsgroup for comments, etc, before sending it to an editor. The editor edits it, and puts it up on the newsgroup for an official review poll. As I said, I wouldn't put in any rules about not being able to resubmit an article that was previously shot down (I'd hope some changes/improvements were made, though! :) : Further I think it would slow down the acceptence process a lot. : Not in the least because discussions like the one we had this week : would break loose, where everyone has different opinions, so the : author doesn't know what to make of it. That is one way it could go, : the other is that hardly anyone reacts, because it's a lot of work : for everyone to judge every article he/she sees. Yes, it would slow it down a bit, at least at first. But once articles are in the pipeline, new articles would be added regularly. It would increase the time between when an article is submitted, and when it's approved. But I can't really think of a much better way to do it. We could get a small "review board" set up, with perhaps five people, to review articles on their own. But I think that lends too much to a heirarchy; in as much as has been argued that Researcher Numbers are bad because those with low numbers would be looked at being "above" others, having a review board like that is also a problem, IMHO. 'course, personally, I really have no problem with either, although I think perhaps a review board of five people is too small a polling group, and getting all five people to agree (or even cast a vote) would take almost as long as my proposed polling process. .Paul. ---------------------------------18853613933740653661090119511-- From vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl Sat Nov 4 14:05:29 1995 Date: Sat, 04 Nov 95 14:05:25 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Leiden Observatory X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl Subject: Article format (was: Re:Guide of the Future) X-Url: news:47e109$oi7@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-------------------------------128229830115612364022111917827" Content-Length: 4179 Status: RO X-Lines: 93 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------------------128229830115612364022111917827 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii news:47e109$oi7@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca -- _______________________________________________________________ Roel van der Meulen (vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl) Project Galactic Guide Field Researcher & Recruiter & Librarian Upkeeper of the PGG Home Page at the Research Vessel Leiden: (http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~vdmeulen/RVL.html) "He wonders if he too might have made a similar mistake" _______________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------128229830115612364022111917827 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain From: Greg Wait Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide Subject: Article format (was: Re:Guide of the Future) Date: 3 Nov 1995 21:19:05 GMT Organization: BrainTrust Communications Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <47e109$oi7@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> References: <46rntc$ak4@caesar.ultra.net> <475fes$p4d@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <4767p3$dq7@caesar.ultra.net> <478h4f$nks@crchh327.rich.= bnr.ca> <47ba1f$rsv@hermes.cair.du.edu> <47bhl9$2te@caesar.ultra.net> <47de5p$cfg@pace1.cts> jharmon@mtu.edu (Jon) wrote: >Paul J. Clegg (cleggp@cleggp.ultranet.com) wrote: >| There are lots of places to find humor and entertaining fiction -- check out >| your local bookstore. :) Likewise, there are lots of places to find dull >| information. Check your library. :) Personally, I'd like to see PGG be >| something special by being one of the very FEW places to find humorously >| written information. The big trick to making it big is to be original and >| unique. IMHO, if we continue simply accepting works of fiction, we're nothing >| more than another collection of net.fiction, and would be taken about as >| seriously as alt.shared-reality.startrek.cardassian would be. I'd like to >| see PGG evolve to something better, bigger than that. I want PGG to shine >| on the net as an original. >I agree with this point completely. Purely fictional articles within the >Guide, which do not even attempt to inform, do NOT belong. I know there >are a few articles which are simply stories. This isn't right. The >articles should be written vaguely in the format of an encylcopedia entry, >but funny. THIS is what DNA's Guide was, and this is what will make us >stand out. A bunch of stories, sorted by title, is nothing new to the >world... >Maybe Paul and I are the minority. I hope not. There's nowhere else for >us to go; someone wishing to write a bunch of fiction can go to any of a >couple hundred thousand www sites.... >Jon Harmon I *THINK* we agree here Jon. In my opinion, ALL articles should be written as Guide entries - We agree 100% on that. I'm a little confused as to your position on which articles meeting that criteria should stay - all, strictly real, strictly and semi-real? You also state that articles, "which do not even attempt to inform, do NOT belong" in the guide. 'Inform' could be taken to mean a couple of different things. When I first read this line, I thought, "Yes, we agree!" But then I realized that by 'inform' you may mean 'to impart USEFUL, FACTUAL information.' Several of my favorite articles are largely fictional, but are written as if they are a legitimate article that informs the reader about a legitimate topic. That is the essence of the fiction. Does this type of article meet your requirement? I'm not trying to belabor the point - I'm genuinely curious. >Maybe Paul and I are the minority. I hope not. There's nowhere else for >us to go; someone wishing to write a bunch of fiction can go to any of a >couple hundred thousand www sites.... Where does someone who wants to write humorous, fictional articles in the Hitchhiker's Guide style go other than Project Galactic Guide? Think about it. -- Greg Wait (z0oey@ix.netcom.com) -=May Joy and Innocence Prevail=- --+-- ---------------------------------128229830115612364022111917827-- From vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Sat Nov 4 15:02:36 1995 Date: Sat, 04 Nov 95 15:01:08 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Project Galactic Guide X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4c) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Subject: Re: The Guide of the Future X-Url: news:47bgjb$2te@caesar.ultra.net Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-------------------------------83776138820784443411709022154" Content-Length: 9556 Status: RO X-Lines: 192 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------------------83776138820784443411709022154 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii news:47bgjb$2te@caesar.ultra.net ---------------------------------83776138820784443411709022154 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain From: cleggp@cleggp.ultranet.com (Paul J. Clegg) Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide Subject: Re: The Guide of the Future Date: 2 Nov 1995 22:26:51 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Message-ID: <47bgjb$2te@caesar.ultra.net> References: <46rntc$ak4@caesar.ultra.net> <46to6m$al9@pace1.cts> <472qe2$d26@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <473ka8$83i@caesar.ultra.net> <47= 5fes$p4d@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <4767p3$dq7@caesar.ultra.net> <478h4f$nks@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <479f5p$p34@caesar.ultra.net> <47b0ib= $1ud@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> Greg Wait (Z0OEY@ix.netcom.com) wrote: : cleggp@cleggp.ultranet.com (Paul J. Clegg) wrote: : >Greg Wait (Z0OEY@ix.netcom.com) wrote: : I have my share of bad days. I don't use that to off-handedly excuse : everything I do. I call that being an adult. I believe that it was not your : intention to come across the way _I_ think you did, and I'm trying to take : that into account. I don't view this as a flame war, and I don't want it to : become one. It is your tendency to cast aspersions on the opposing viewpoint : with which I take exception. Hey, I refuse to grow up. Sue me. :) No, I don't view this as a flame war, either. Just a "heated debate". :) : >: But Waterskiing does have a foothold in reality, which is the discussion _I_ : >: thought we were having. : >The substance of the article does not, though. See, the connection between : >waterskiing (real) and Frajoom (unreal) is fictitious (unreal). Hmm, how to : >explain better... : No need. I believe my article, and others like it add a lot to The Guide. I : think this thread is wasting time, because we simply want The Guide to be : different things. You pointed out that you haven't been contributing anything : concrete to The Guide of late. Well I have, and it irks me to have you : suddenly : pop up out of nowhere and say, in effect - "First thing we do is get rid of all : those stupid fictional articles" - effectively removing me from the Guide. I : understand that it's just your opinion, but it might sit a little better if : you'd been doing something lately other than simply offering opinions. First, I don't think this thread is "wasting time". I think any thread we have where we can sit down and look at what we are, and discuss what we all want to do with what we have, is constructive. Sure, we might go back and forth, but it's better than stagnating. As for me being irksome, I'm sorry. I put a lot into organizing this four years ago, so I still have quite a connection to it. Besides, without opinions, we wouldn't be able to discuss anything. : >I can understand that. Please understand the origins of the guide, though, : >which is where I'm coming from (and, I think, several other "old timers"). : >The original concept was for vaguely useful articles written humorously; : >fiction was added only because we needed it to spurn interest. : I do understand the origins of The Guide, and I understand that you were voted : down by proponents of fictional articles. Not entirely. The proponents of the "real-only" guide basically broke down and went for fiction to help boost interest in the Project. The boost has put us into a relatively stable orbit now, so I (personally) think we can drop the extra weight, streamline ourselves, and prepare for interplanetary travel. : >IMHO (please tell me you know what IMHO means) I think we gained the interest : >because people saw the Guide as being an easy way of "publishing" their : >amateur fiction. This was not at all supposed to be, in my eyes, a place : >for people to simply churn out fiction and have their names distributed : >about the planet. : Amateur means, "One who does something simply for the love of it." I make my : living as a writer, I write for The Guide for the love of doing it - and for : what little exposure it affords. And if we gained people's interest by : allowing : fictional articles, as you say, won't we lose their interest by disallowing the : same? So far we don't seem to be in danger of losing field researchers and : authors by including fictional articles - we will by excluding them. Does that mean that 'professional' means "One who does something only because they get paid"? Geez, I hope not. The definition I'm going for here is in regards to professionalism, as in "lacking experience". Will we lose some interest? Most likely. You've made your intentions to leave quite clear. :) What I'm wondering, though, is that I think it might just be that interest would INCREASE over all, even if we lost a few in the process. : >Apparently, we both want PGG to be more "Guide-ish", ie. more like our : >origin -- DNA's Hitchhiker's Guide. : >I want it to be more Guide-ish in the sense that it's an "indispensable : >reference for the galactic hitchhiker", you want it to be more Guide-ish : >in the sense that it's entertaining fiction? (please, correct me if I'm : >wrong here) : You're wrong here. I want it to be more like the original guide in the : following ways: : ALL articles should read like Guide entries - there's too much variation : in style. : The original Guide had at least one entry (I forget the exact reference) : that was completely UNTRUE (read UNREAL), but the editors felt that it : was a much better story than the truth. It may not be true that one can : ski without a boat, or that waterskiing was invented by the Frajoom, but : I think it makes a good article. : The Guide should comprise BOTH informational and entertainment articles. : (The two are not mutually exclusive concepts.) As for your first point, I'd agree; I love Adams' style. However, I think we're in the minority here. Perhaps not. But it's something we agree on, no need to bring it up here. As for your second point, you strengthen my argument -- the entry in Adams' guide was completely untrue, but it was not based on fiction. I believe the connotation the book gives is that the article was wrong about the topic; but nothing in that implies that the topic was unreal. When I say topic here, I don't mean the "simple topic" (in your article, waterskiing is the "simple topic"), but I mean the meat of the article (in your article, the connection between waterskiing and the Frajoom). This is very debatable. Also note, however, that, given that reference, our basis, Adams' book, gives the feeling that very FEW articles were COMPLETELY unreal. But as things stand now, there is a quite large fraction of the current guide that is unreal. I can comprise, and I can very easily allow unreal articles in the Guide. My requirements, though, would be that the topic ("simple topic") has to be real (as your article would qualify), but first and foremost that the article has to be exquisite. I believe it has been a long standing practice by editors to accept just about any article offered up; this was because we wanted to start to bulk out the guide fast and furiously. I believe it's time we buckled down and went for quality. As for your third point, I might be able to compromise (I think this is actually the same point as the second point). But I would want the "entertainment" articles to be done in an "informative" style. In other words, the article should present fictitious information in an "informative" style, and not simply fictional prose. There's always the possibility we can set up a voting process; post an article here, and have people mail a poll collector their rating of the post, say, from 1-10. Collect the ratings over the course of, say, two weeks or something, and if the article has an average rating of over, say, 7, it goes in, otherwise it gets rejected as "not hoopy enough"? : >: An informational article might be so poorly written as to : >: detract from the guide, and a fictional, entertainment article might be so well : >: written that it adds value. By removing all fictional/entertainment articles, : >: you would not only throw the baby out with the bath-water, but you'd throw the : >: bathtub out as well. : > : >I would much rather separate the two. : I, and what I believe is a healthy majority on the project, would rather not. : I think it's time to put forward a vote on this issue. : Okay - field researchers, editors, librarians, telephone sanitizers, and pizza : mathematicians - I'm calling for a vote. : I'll post this in a separate thread, "Voting Booth." Please append your votes : to the 'Voting Booth' thread (in the format: votes ), so it will be : easy to see how we all stand. I haven't seen the Voting Booth thread yet, but I'm hoping you have some sort of time frame to end this in? : I think this is the simplest way to end this thread and get the PGG moving : forward in some form or another. I'll wait to make any personal decisions : until I see how this shakes out. Thanks for all the supportive e-mail. I personally don't think it's time for a vote yet. Or, if we take a vote, I don't think it should be necessarily "binding". I'm all for going for a "show of hands", though. .Paul. ---------------------------------83776138820784443411709022154-- From vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Sat Nov 4 15:12:58 1995 Date: Sat, 04 Nov 95 15:11:30 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Project Galactic Guide X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4c) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Subject: Re: The Guide of the Future X-Url: news:SLARTI.95Nov2094054@lektroid.WPI.EDU Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-------------------------------890232601748691749408524026" Content-Length: 4477 Status: RO X-Lines: 86 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------------------890232601748691749408524026 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii news:SLARTI.95Nov2094054@lektroid.WPI.EDU ---------------------------------890232601748691749408524026 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain From: slarti@lektroid.WPI.EDU (Chris Pinard) Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide Subject: Re: The Guide of the Future Date: 02 Nov 1995 14:40:50 GMT Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280 Message-ID: References: <46rntc$ak4@caesar.ultra.net> <46to6m$al9@pace1.cts> <472qe2$d26@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <473ka8$83i@caesar.ultra.net> <47= 5fes$p4d@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <4767p3$dq7@caesar.ultra.net> <478h4f$nks@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <479f5p$p34@caesar.ultra.net> In article <479f5p$p34@caesar.ultra.net> cleggp@cleggp.ultranet.com (Paul J. Clegg) writes: >Apparently, we both want PGG to be more "Guide-ish", ie. more like our >origin -- DNA's Hitchhiker's Guide. >I want it to be more Guide-ish in the sense that it's an "indispensable >reference for the galactic hitchhiker", you want it to be more Guide-ish >in the sense that it's entertaining fiction? (please, correct me if I'm >wrong here) >You think articles should have a galactic "feel"; that's exactly what I >don't want -- I would much rather have galactic _coverage_. I wish I could >explain my view more clearly. Perhaps if I may try? I've been reading this batch of threads rather carefully, holding back on commenting because I realize that in reality, my own personal opinions aren't worth a load of dingo's kidneys, and really won't change anything. However, I think I have a feel for Paul's opinion on the matter, and agree with it, and so I think I'll take a stab at explaining. I think that the concept that Paul's thinking of is not one of writing articles about what would be real things, were it not for the fact that they would be real in some other universe. The idea is that the Guide should have articles which explain either real things in our real universe (or at least galaxy), or articles in which researchers come up with ways to explain (with dubious accuracy) the ways in which our universe/galaxy/whatever plot and scheme against the smooth working of our lives (in much the same fashion as syllogisms of Medieval days). Hence articles on Pizza Deliveries and Sock Disappearances have about the same acceptability as articles on concrete objects, such as one's hometown/college. I agree that the PGG should be a bit more DNA-Guidish, much as Paul has said. The Guide in the books did not have purely fictional articles. It had entertaining articles that were usually apocryphally informative. It had articles about things that were real in its own universe. The closest thing it got to fiction was when the articles were found to be less accurate than originally thought. In those cases, the Guide could count on its massive gaggle of lawyers to get it out of trouble. But where it was inaccurate, it was definitively inaccurate. This is what DNA's Guide was, what I think Paul wanted (originally and currently) PGG to be, and what I also personally think PGG should be. I hope this has clarified things a bit. Please note that this post has mostly been my analysis of what Paul was trying to say, with my own personal opinions thrown in on occasion. No flames are intended, and I could always have totally misread what Paul was saying. Chris Pinard Who has finally finished his article on the game of Cosmic Wimpout, and shal e-mail it post-haste to an editor as soon as I figure out which editor it would be best to send it too. Greg: you still with us, or should I send it to Alex? -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Chris Pinard | Don't Panic! 42 is | Slarti at the | | (slarti@wpi.edu) |the Answer to Everything!| #ircbar | | also |-------------------------|------------------| |(zaphod@river.biddeford.com)| Home Page: http://www.wpi.edu/~slarti | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Standard Disclaimer and PGP Public Key available through finger | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------890232601748691749408524026-- From vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Sat Nov 4 15:14:08 1995 Date: Sat, 04 Nov 95 15:12:37 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Project Galactic Guide X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4c) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Subject: Regarding: **Voting Booth** X-Url: news:lthumper-0211951535280001@jake-4a.ip.realtime.net Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-------------------------------10696474851578010994977105347" Content-Length: 1766 Status: RO X-Lines: 46 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------------------10696474851578010994977105347 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii news:lthumper-0211951535280001@jake-4a.ip.realtime.net ---------------------------------10696474851578010994977105347 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain From: lthumper@bga.com (Jeff Kramer) Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide Subject: Regarding: **Voting Booth** Date: 2 Nov 1995 21:28:55 GMT Organization: BrainSpace Unlimited Message-ID: References: <47b0ls$1ud@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> In article <47b0ls$1ud@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca>, Greg Wait wrote: > > 1 - Should The Guide be stripped of all unreal references, all fictional/ > non-informative articles, and continue as a reference tool only? > > --------======== OR ========-------- > > 2 - Should The Guide comprise BOTH fictional and informative articles? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > (Please vote by number, so we don't have to wonder what 'YES' means.) First of all, there's also a few people who want to strip out the semi-real designation, and a few that want no designation at all... It would also be easier to tabulate if they sent them all to somebody and that person counted them all. (Don't ask me, I deleted all of the previous PGG Report Poll results by accident.) BrainSpace Unlimited lthumper@bga.com http://www.realtime.net/~lthumper/me.html Jeff Kramer - A processor cycle is a terrible thing to waste. - ---------------------------------10696474851578010994977105347-- From vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Sat Nov 4 15:26:18 1995 Date: Sat, 04 Nov 95 15:24:50 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Project Galactic Guide X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4c) Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide To: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Subject: Roel's modified voting points (was **Voting Booth**) X-Url: news:47b0ls$1ud@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1946 Status: RO X-Lines: 43 Greg Wait wrote: >*****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++ > >Okay - field researchers, editors, librarians, telephone sanitizers, and pizza >mathematicians - I'm calling for a vote. > >1 - Should The Guide be stripped of all unreal references, all fictional/ > non-informative articles, and continue as a reference tool only? > > --------======== OR ========-------- > >2 - Should The Guide comprise BOTH fictional and informative articles? > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > (Please vote by number, so we don't have to wonder what 'YES' means.) > >*****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++ >Please append your votes in the format: votes , so it will be >easy to see how we all stand. Please cut your .sig if possible, to keep the >thread easy to read. -GW >*****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++++*****+++ > Taking what Greg said about having this point resolved first before going deeper into account, and disregarding my previous post about changing the reality tags, and after some thought, I think the best summary for the whole discussion lies in the modified voting points I present here below: 1 - Should The Guide be like the Hitchhiker's Guide *in* DNA's Hitchhiker Trilogy (i.e. as seen from an observer in the DNA universe)? --------======== OR ========-------- 2 - Should The Guide be like the Hitchhiker's Guide in DNA's Hitchhiker Trilogy, as seen from a reader of the Trilogy in our reality? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Roel (who will be away this week again, to Dwingeloo (you know, from the article...) and who will miss a great deal of the discussion because the flaming newsreader only stores mails for TWO days! Damn!) From vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl Sat Nov 4 16:18:33 1995 Date: Sat, 04 Nov 95 16:18:33 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Leiden Observatory X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vdmeulen@strw.LeidenUniv.nl Subject: More to think about X-Url: news:47fu2s$7u8@highway.LeidenUniv.nl Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-------------------------------6226066372054057941330551795" Content-Length: 2816 Status: RO X-Lines: 70 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------------------6226066372054057941330551795 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii news:47fu2s$7u8@highway.LeidenUniv.nl -- _______________________________________________________________ Roel van der Meulen (vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl) Project Galactic Guide Field Researcher & Recruiter & Librarian Upkeeper of the PGG Home Page at the Research Vessel Leiden: (http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~vdmeulen/RVL.html) "He wonders if he too might have made a similar mistake" _______________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------6226066372054057941330551795 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain From: Roel van der Meulen Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide Subject: More to think about Date: 4 Nov 1995 14:41:32 GMT Organization: Leiden Observatory Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <47fu2s$7u8@highway.LeidenUniv.nl> Hi all again, Another little thought that won't make any waves, but might add another, no, one hundredth of another dimension to the future of the guide thread. Again an attempt at clarifying opinions: Should we accept that we are indeed mostly confined to this little planet, and that the rest we can learn about the universe only comes from telescopes and probes? So we don't know about life elsewhere? Or shall we assume that the universe is so humongously huge that the chance that any life we can think of has a reasonable chance of really existing? (We have to broaden our minds from a galactic scale to a universal scale then). That reminds me, we *can* find out a lot of things about life around us by the means we have. I know that there exists somewhere a scientific (astronomical) article that links exhaustpipe fumes to interstellar gas. I've been meaning to write an article about this for a long time, but I simply can't find the article! It would be about that connection, and then on the basis of galactic interstellar gas charts, and assuming the gas *is* exhaust fume from alien vessels, I would be able to point out the more popular places to go out in our Milky Way. but I still have to find the article. Ciao, Roel _______________________________________________________________ Roel van der Meulen (vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl) Project Galactic Guide Field Researcher & Recruiter & Librarian Upkeeper of the PGG Home Page at the Research Vessel Leiden: (http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~vdmeulen/RVL.html) "He wonders if he too might have made a similar mistake" _______________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------6226066372054057941330551795-- From vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Sat Nov 4 20:08:59 1995 Date: Sat, 04 Nov 95 20:07:28 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Project Galactic Guide X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4c) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Subject: Re: Near-Future Idea X-Url: news:47g4dq$jma@caesar.ultra.net Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-------------------------------584002812953360261727523802" Content-Length: 1995 Status: RO X-Lines: 54 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------------------584002812953360261727523802 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii news:47g4dq$jma@caesar.ultra.net ---------------------------------584002812953360261727523802 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain From: cleggp@cleggp.ultranet.com (Paul J. Clegg) Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide Subject: Re: Near-Future Idea Date: 4 Nov 1995 16:29:46 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Message-ID: <47g4dq$jma@caesar.ultra.net> References: <47bi23$2te@caesar.ultra.net> <47cpab$eam@highway.LeidenUniv.nl> <47e55c$91f@caesar.ultra.net> <47e8en$o2f@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> Gregory C. Wait (z0oey@ix.netcom.com) wrote: : Paul J. Clegg writes: : >I can envision this: Prospective authors, even experienced ones, put : their : >articles (rough drafts) up on the newsgroup for comments, etc, before : sending : >it to an editor. The editor edits it, and puts it up on the newsgroup : for : >an official review poll. : The main problem I see with this is that when I see an article posted : to alt.g-g, I equate it with the quality of the guide itself. I like : the way only finsihed articles are posted to the group now. I'd hate : to have people's first experience of us be based on reading an articles : that we subsequently rejected with a resounding raspberry. Dunno. I think if we did something like this, our bandwidth would go up with discussion and all, and it might help get people interested & involved. Moreso than a dead newsgroup does, at least (and we've had some times where there's been nothing posted here for weeks...) Obviously, articles up for review would be marked as such, so I'd hope it'd be hard for people to "mistake" a crappy article for an accepted one... And, hopefully, even those going up for debate would have some quality to them to begin with... .Paul. ---------------------------------584002812953360261727523802-- From vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Sat Nov 4 20:10:55 1995 Date: Sat, 04 Nov 95 20:09:28 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Project Galactic Guide X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4c) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Subject: Re: The Guide of the Future X-Url: news:47g428$jma@caesar.ultra.net Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-------------------------------189023600017868449531683399646" Content-Length: 3317 Status: RO X-Lines: 78 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------------------189023600017868449531683399646 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii news:47g428$jma@caesar.ultra.net ---------------------------------189023600017868449531683399646 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain From: cleggp@cleggp.ultranet.com (Paul J. Clegg) Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide Subject: Re: The Guide of the Future Date: 4 Nov 1995 16:23:36 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Message-ID: <47g428$jma@caesar.ultra.net> References: <46rntc$ak4@caesar.ultra.net> <478h4f$nks@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <47ba1f$rsv@hermes.cair.du.edu> <47bhl9$2te@caesar.ultra= .net> <47du8s$io6@hermes.cair.du.edu> Robert A. Uhl (ruhl@phoebe.cair.du.edu) wrote: : Paul J. Clegg spake thusly: : But isn't it the function of the editor to ensure that the article : reads nicely? I would guess that perhaps the editors have not been : quite strict enough. I know that my Monarchy article, a Real work, : was really not all that good. I had expected it to come back with : some helpful criticism. Instead, it was accpeted! So now I must : rewrite it (which I'd planned on doing anyway) without editorial help. : Oh well. As I pointed out in a article yesterday, or the day before, or at some time before now, it's been the longstanding practice of accepting everything so we could "bulk out" the Guide. That's what we hope to change now. : 1. Have sections (not classifications) of the Guide. You'd have : Earth, Solar System (perhaps individual planets) and Extra-solar. : Earth would be just about completely real. Solar System would be : mostly real, while nearly all of the Extra-solar articles would be : completely and utterly false. Although I can foresee short entries on : various stars. This wouldn't work very well; the Grand Unified Pizza Theory would be Earthly, but doesn't conform to the Earthly = Completely Real idea. And I think the hope is to remove classifications, or at least to make them less a consideration. : 2. Disallow Unreal articles but allow Unreal references and : theoretically real material. I could easily live with this. To each his own, I suppose. I find unreal references almost worst than completely unreal articles. c'est la vie. : 3. Disallow Unreal articels and references _and_ theoretically real : material. I would not like this, although I suppose that there are : those who would. Definitely not. What I'd personally like to see are the Unreal articles and references gone (except perhaps one or two really, really good ones), but keep the "theoretically real" : To tell you the truth, getting rid of outright fiction wouldn't : bother me all that much. But getting rid of the theoretically real : would really bother me. I _like_ reading about the Murphic Field, : computrons, bogons, the Grand Unified Pizza Tehory &c. Those articles : mean PGG to me. Actually, they mean HHGttG to me. And PGG is a : realistic HHGttG in my mind. But it has room for the theoretically : real. It's sometimees inaccurate. And it gives up reality when the : outdated is more interesting. Exactly. :) .Paul. ---------------------------------189023600017868449531683399646-- From vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Sun Nov 5 09:05:21 1995 Date: Sun, 05 Nov 95 09:03:53 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Project Galactic Guide X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4c) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Subject: Re: More to think about X-Url: news:47g4sr$jma@caesar.ultra.net Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-------------------------------13781253132591910202745575" Content-Length: 2712 Status: RO X-Lines: 64 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------------------13781253132591910202745575 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii news:47g4sr$jma@caesar.ultra.net ---------------------------------13781253132591910202745575 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain From: cleggp@cleggp.ultranet.com (Paul J. Clegg) Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide Subject: Re: More to think about Date: 4 Nov 1995 16:37:47 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Message-ID: <47g4sr$jma@caesar.ultra.net> References: <47fu2s$7u8@highway.LeidenUniv.nl> Roel van der Meulen (vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl) wrote: : Hi all again, : Another little thought that won't make any waves, but might add : another, no, one hundredth of another dimension to the future of : the guide thread. Again an attempt at clarifying opinions: : Should we accept that we are indeed mostly confined to this little : planet, and that the rest we can learn about the universe only : comes from telescopes and probes? So we don't know about life elsewhere? : Or shall we assume that the universe is so humongously huge that : the chance that any life we can think of has a reasonable chance : of really existing? (We have to broaden our minds from a galactic : scale to a universal scale then). I prefer the former. Speculation is fine and well, but when you start calling purple men from Gastublon IV the Garglesnits, you're going straight into fiction, which, IMHO, doesn't belong. In the Guide, when they talk about how fire was the first thing invented by every race except for the (forget their name), who, having 1000 arms each, developed the underarm deodorant aerosol first, I believe they do this because the DID exist. They didn't make it up because it was funny (although it is), but because it's an actual exception. : That reminds me, we *can* find out a lot of things about life around : us by the means we have. I know that there exists somewhere a scientific : (astronomical) article that links exhaustpipe fumes to interstellar gas. : I've been meaning to write an article about this for a long time, but : I simply can't find the article! It would be about that connection, : and then on the basis of galactic interstellar gas charts, and assuming : the gas *is* exhaust fume from alien vessels, I would be able to point : out the more popular places to go out in our Milky Way. Do it! That sounds like a great article. Not sure what aspect you'd write on though; maybe "Exhaust and its effect on the universe", or something. Maybe "How To Detect Cars From 93,000,000 Miles"? :) .Paul. ---------------------------------13781253132591910202745575-- From vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Sun Nov 5 09:06:37 1995 Date: Sun, 05 Nov 95 09:05:02 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Project Galactic Guide X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4c) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Subject: Re: Roel's point (was-Re: **Voting Booth**) X-Url: news:47dtpa$2bb@pace1.cts Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-------------------------------1314781135949863772779567205" Content-Length: 4044 Status: RO X-Lines: 80 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------------------1314781135949863772779567205 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii news:47dtpa$2bb@pace1.cts ---------------------------------1314781135949863772779567205 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain From: jharmon@mtu.edu (Jon) Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide Subject: Re: Roel's point (was-Re: **Voting Booth**) Date: 3 Nov 1995 15:24:10 -0500 Organization: Michigan Technological University Message-ID: <47dtpa$2bb@pace1.cts> References: <47b0ls$1ud@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <47bgt3$2te@caesar.ultra.net> <47cock$eam@highway.LeidenUniv.nl> <47dcrv$7hl@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> Greg Wait (Z0OEY@ix.netcom.com) wrote: | Roel, this is a good list. Maybe the best way to proceed is to have people | review this list and add any potions they don't see represented, then take a | vote on all the options. The only problem I see with doing it this way is that | we have such a small voting pool, that if we end up voting on one of 5 or 5 | options, we will probably not have a clear majority on any one. That is why I | thought we should start with two options. If there were 2 clearly defined options that were a good first division, I'd agree, but I don't think there are. I agree that Roel's idea is a good one, if we can get a good enough response... | Modifying the tags is probably a good option, but maybe we need to simplify | them, not expand them. What about INFORMATIVE and ENTERTAINMENT (I and E) as | article categories? Or F for factual articles and f for fictional? Also, are | we really going to demarcate reality vs. nonreality based on wether the | fictional reference is earthbound? If the real problem is fictional reference, | why are some fictional references better than others simply because they are | earth-based? It seems as though one camp would throw out a reference to a | small green man from mars, but keep a reference to a small green man from Kent. On I and E: NO NO NO NO NO! All of my articles would need both, as would ALL articles in any Guide which I want to take part in. Why are we doing this if we want some entries to be informative, and others to be entertaining? What makes us special then? We just become a collection of writing. Nothing special there. On F and f (and little green men): I think everyone needs to read some Dave Barry (as someone mentioned). I think HIS fictitious references are ok, as you can't tell for certain reading them whether they're fictitious or not, and it doesn't matter if they aren't. I don't know how to say this right. Dave's articles explain reality, even if their methods of doing so are by making up a few people and humorous points. I personally would love to see a Guide that didn't need ANY tags anymore -- where every article was, to some degree, real, or at least explained things in ways that very well could be real. I'll have to read the Waterskiing thing before I properly disect it, but, from what I've heard form Greg and Paul, it says that waterskiing was invented by aliens. I can go probably disprove this by going to a library. If it said that you were told by a Frajoomian (or whatever) on a recent interstellar travel that waterskiing was extremely hoopy, and used as a courtship ritual on his planet, perhaps it would be ok. Do you see what I'm saying??? Again, I'm just putting forward my opinions here -- DON'T GET UPSET AND THINK I HATE YOU AND LEAVE AND SEND BACK MY ARTICLES UNEDITED (or something like that). I'm just trying to get the Guide to move towards something which I THINK would be very original, and probably get acclaim worldwide, and make everyone wonder where, exactly, Frajoom really is. -- /------------\/-----------------------------\/-----------------\ | Jon Harmon || Editor in Chief, Daily Bull || jharmon@mtu.edu | \------------/\-----------------------------/\-----------------/ ---------------------------------1314781135949863772779567205-- From vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Sun Nov 5 09:07:22 1995 Date: Sun, 05 Nov 95 09:05:54 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Project Galactic Guide X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4c) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Subject: Re: The Guide of the Future X-Url: news:47dg4b$7hl@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-------------------------------169993694020424508051183342346" Content-Length: 9393 Status: RO X-Lines: 194 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------------------169993694020424508051183342346 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii news:47dg4b$7hl@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca ---------------------------------169993694020424508051183342346 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain From: Greg Wait Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide Subject: Re: The Guide of the Future Date: 3 Nov 1995 16:31:07 GMT Organization: BrainTrust Communications Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <47dg4b$7hl@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> References: <46rntc$ak4@caesar.ultra.net> <46to6m$al9@pace1.cts> <472qe2$d26@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <473ka8$83i@caesar.ultra.net> <47= 5fes$p4d@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <4767p3$dq7@caesar.ultra.net> <478h4f$nks@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <479f5p$p34@caesar.ultra.net> <47b0ib= $1ud@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <47bgjb$2te@caesar.ultra.net> cleggp@cleggp.ultranet.com (Paul J. Clegg) wrote: >First, I don't think this thread is "wasting time". I think any thread we >have where we can sit down and look at what we are, and discuss what we all >want to do with what we have, is constructive. Sure, we might go back and >forth, but it's better than stagnating. Perhaps you're right, but I feel that the Guide IS stagnating while we dicker over its fate. I'd just like to make some decisions and move on. >As for me being irksome, I'm sorry. I put a lot into organizing this four >years ago, so I still have quite a connection to it. Besides, without >opinions, we wouldn't be able to discuss anything. I'm just talking about HOW we express them. BUT I have bad days too, and I just got reminded last night that I can be a bit sarcastic in my posts too (different newsgroup). Perhaps it's partly a matter of getting used to the way someone expresses himself. >: >I can understand that. Please understand the origins of the guide, though, >: >which is where I'm coming from (and, I think, several other "old timers"). >: >The original concept was for vaguely useful articles written humorously; >: >fiction was added only because we needed it to spurn interest. I realize that, but I think the fiction adds to the guide in quality, as well as quantity. If any article doesn't pass a QUALITY check, let's get rid of it. But there are GOOD articles of both flavour (to use Roel's term). >: I do understand the origins of The Guide, and I understand that you were voted >: down by proponents of fictional articles. > >Not entirely. The proponents of the "real-only" guide basically broke down >and went for fiction to help boost interest in the Project. The boost has put >us into a relatively stable orbit now, so I (personally) think we can drop >the extra weight, streamline ourselves, and prepare for interplanetary travel. Again, let's get rid of the BAD stuff and keep the GOOD stuff. OF course deciding which is which could get pretty sticky... :) >: >IMHO (please tell me you know what IMHO means) I think we gained the interest >: >because people saw the Guide as being an easy way of "publishing" their >: >amateur fiction. This was not at all supposed to be, in my eyes, a place >: >for people to simply churn out fiction and have their names distributed >: >about the planet. I churn butter. I craft fiction. (again -> a joke!) :) >: Amateur means, "One who does something simply for the love of it." I make my >: living as a writer, I write for The Guide for the love of doing it - and for >Does that mean that 'professional' means "One who does something only because >they get paid"? Geez, I hope not. The definition I'm going for here is in >regards to professionalism, as in "lacking experience". I assure you that I don't lack experience. >Will we lose some interest? Most likely. You've made your intentions to >leave quite clear. :) What I'm wondering, though, is that I think it might >just be that interest would INCREASE over all, even if we lost a few in the >process. I think we need to make our decision based upon what the current project members would do, not on what possible future members might. That's why a vote of some kind is inevitable. BTW - your comment on my 'Voting Booth' thread was right, the 2 options were too narrowly defined. I tried to word them as best I could, but I see that neither option accurately reflected your viewpoint. >: >Apparently, we both want PGG to be more "Guide-ish", ie. more like our >: >origin -- DNA's Hitchhiker's Guide. >: >I want it to be more Guide-ish in the sense that it's an "indispensable >: >reference for the galactic hitchhiker", you want it to be more Guide-ish >: >in the sense that it's entertaining fiction? (please, correct me if I'm >: >wrong here) >: You're wrong here. I want it to be more like the original guide in the >: following ways: >: ALL articles should read like Guide entries - there's too much variation >: in style. >: The original Guide had at least one entry (I forget the exact reference) >: that was completely UNTRUE (read UNREAL), but the editors felt that it >: was a much better story than the truth. It may not be true that one can >: ski without a boat, or that waterskiing was invented by the Frajoom, but >: I think it makes a good article. >: The Guide should comprise BOTH informational and entertainment articles. >: (The two are not mutually exclusive concepts.) >As for your first point, I'd agree; I love Adams' style. However, I think >we're in the minority here. Perhaps not. But it's something we agree on, >no need to bring it up here. Well, I'm glad to have brought up SOMETHING we agree upon. :) >As for your second point, you strengthen my argument -- the entry in Adams' >guide was completely untrue, but it was not based on fiction. I believe the >connotation the book gives is that the article was wrong about the topic; but >nothing in that implies that the topic was unreal. When I say topic here, I >don't mean the "simple topic" (in your article, waterskiing is the "simple >topic"), but I mean the meat of the article (in your article, the connection >between waterskiing and the Frajoom). This is very debatable. This is just the point on which we disagree. I recognize that you are as convinced of your point of view as I am of mine. I do see your side, I just want the guide to be one thing, and you want another. That's okay, as long as we (the collective) can come to a conclusion as to what it IS going to be. >Also note, however, that, given that reference, our basis, Adams' book, gives >the feeling that very FEW articles were COMPLETELY unreal. But as things >stand now, there is a quite large fraction of the current guide that is >unreal. >I can comprise, and I can very easily allow unreal articles in the Guide. My >requirements, though, would be that the topic ("simple topic") has to be >real (as your article would qualify), but first and foremost that the article >has to be exquisite. I can compromise and agree to exclude totally unreal articles. As to requiring articles to be, 'exquisite,' there aren't an awful lot that would pass a criterium like that. 'Good' or 'well crafted' would be a more realistic standard. >I believe it has been a long standing practice by editors to accept just about >any article offered up; this was because we wanted to start to bulk out the >guide fast and furiously. I believe it's time we buckled down and went for >quality. I couldn't agree more. I made some comments to the 'Near-Future Idea' thread as to how this might be accomplished. (We've agreed at least twice now.) >As for your third point, I might be able to compromise (I think this is >actually the same point as the second point). But I would want the >"entertainment" articles to be done in an "informative" style. In other >words, the article should present fictitious information in an "informative" >style, and not simply fictional prose. I agree. The article should read as an entry in the guide, not a story or stand-alone work. (That's three now!) >There's always the possibility we can set up a voting process; post an >article here, and have people mail a poll collector their rating of the >post, say, from 1-10. Collect the ratings over the course of, say, two weeks >or something, and if the article has an average rating of over, say, 7, it >goes in, otherwise it gets rejected as "not hoopy enough"? See comments to the 'Near-Future Idea' thread. >I personally don't think it's time for a vote yet. Or, if we take a vote, I >don't think it should be necessarily "binding". I'm all for going for a >"show of hands", though. >..Paul. Perhaps what is needed right now (as has been suggested by several people) is a process of identifying our options - then we will be ready for a vote. I guess I was rushing things, but where I come from the cart is pushed. (Thanks in advance to those who get that one.) :) Paul, maybe it's just me, but I feel like we're communicating here, and that's all I ask. Well, that and maybe roses on our anniversary. (smiley thing withheld on request) -- Greg Wait (z0oey@ix.netcom.com) -=May Joy and Innocence Prevail=- --+-- ---------------------------------169993694020424508051183342346-- From vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Sun Nov 5 09:08:50 1995 Date: Sun, 05 Nov 95 09:07:22 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Project Galactic Guide X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4c) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Subject: Re: Near-Future Idea X-Url: news:47ddko$7hl@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-------------------------------8457753417264548791924970156" Content-Length: 2363 Status: RO X-Lines: 58 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------------------8457753417264548791924970156 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii news:47ddko$7hl@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca ---------------------------------8457753417264548791924970156 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain From: Greg Wait Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide Subject: Re: Near-Future Idea Date: 3 Nov 1995 15:48:40 GMT Organization: BrainTrust Communications Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <47ddko$7hl@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> References: <47bi23$2te@caesar.ultra.net> <47cpab$eam@highway.LeidenUniv.nl> Roel van der Meulen wrote: >All in all I like the idea of feedback, but not in this way. >For the acceptence process to work smoothly, a smaller group should >read the article and give suggestions. After the suggestions have >been processed into the article (obligatory 'suggestions' and >non-obligatory), the article goes into the archives. Then the whole >community can comment on it and express their feelings, and >the author can do with it what he/she wants, although taking those >comments into account is highly reccommended. Sometimes this will >result in an update. I like Paul's idea of having more than one set of eyes decide about an article's fate, but I like Roel's application a little better. My way of implementing Paul's/Roel's review process would be to have the article go to an editor, he decides it's worth editing, or not. If not he sends it to another editor for confirmation (so no 1 person gives any article the axe). If the second agrees, the author is notified, and encouraged to resubmit. If the 1st editor accepted the article, he edits it and sends edit copies to both the author and a 2nd editor for approval. Once approved by author and editor 2, the article would be added to the archives. Of course, if two editors wasn't enough of a review, three could be used. Or specific reviewers could be assigned, to avoid overloading the editors. I think this process would be simlper, quicker, and (as per Roel) more humane. :) -- Greg Wait (z0oey@ix.netcom.com) -=May Joy and Innocence Prevail=- --+-- ---------------------------------8457753417264548791924970156-- From vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Sun Nov 5 09:09:54 1995 Date: Sun, 05 Nov 95 09:08:26 0100 Sender: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl From: Roel van der Meulen Organization: Project Galactic Guide X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4c) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl Subject: Re: Near-Future Idea X-Url: news:47dstf$1jf@pace1.cts Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-------------------------------1990076478260978335304866284" Content-Length: 2538 Status: RO X-Lines: 59 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------------------1990076478260978335304866284 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii news:47dstf$1jf@pace1.cts ---------------------------------1990076478260978335304866284 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain From: jharmon@mtu.edu (Jon) Newsgroups: alt.galactic-guide Subject: Re: Near-Future Idea Date: 3 Nov 1995 15:09:19 -0500 Organization: Michigan Technological University Message-ID: <47dstf$1jf@pace1.cts> References: <47bi23$2te@caesar.ultra.net> <47cpab$eam@highway.LeidenUniv.nl> <47ddko$7hl@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> Greg Wait (Z0OEY@ix.netcom.com) wrote: | I like Paul's idea of having more than one set of eyes decide about an | article's fate, but I like Roel's application a little better. My way of | implementing Paul's/Roel's review process would be to have the article go to an | editor, he decides it's worth editing, or not. If not he sends it to another | editor for confirmation (so no 1 person gives any article the axe). If the | second agrees, the author is notified, and encouraged to resubmit. | If the 1st editor accepted the article, he edits it and sends edit copies to | both the author and a 2nd editor for approval. Once approved by author and | editor 2, the article would be added to the archives. Wow! I agree with Greg! Neat! | Of course, if two editors wasn't enough of a review, three could be used. Or | specific reviewers could be assigned, to avoid overloading the editors. I | think this process would be simlper, quicker, and (as per Roel) more humane. If we implement this, I think I could volunteer to be a reviewer. Less time involved in that, I think, than actually editing -- just giving feedback on the article, and not worrying about grammar stuff. I'd like to say we should just have the writers post it to the newsgroup, but 1) more people know how to import into email than into a newsgroup, and 2) it would take forever.... Good idea, Jeff. (I liked your idea a lot, Paul, but, as Roel said, it would be a little too harsh, I think -- until we become huge, at which point in should be considerably more difficul