Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback Tool

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.212.226.91 (talk) at 19:33, 24 June 2012 (→Feedback (not) for stubs?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

what is the status of this tool?

Is a new version of this tool still being deployed? (Seems like I noticed it a couple of days ago but haven't seen it today.) What is the "blue pop-up box" mentioned above? MathewTownsend (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the design here, and should be switched off fairly soon :). Status - we're waiting on some tweaks to the abuse filter, and then we'll be looking at a wider deployment. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to see input fields!

I'm a bit confused. I've gone to a couple of the articles which have V5 on them, and I have yet to see the text fields for editing suggestions. I only see "Did you know that you can edit this page?" under "Help improve this article". When I log off and clear my cache, I see "This website is created by people like you. Can you give us a hand?" Care to explain why I can't see the text fields? I've signed up for the news and whatnot, but I must have missed the memo on this change if indeed things aren't wrong on my end. Jesse V. (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not replying for so long! Yes, we're testing direct editing requests just to see what impact they have; apologies for its absence in the newsletter. I've been working 7 days a week since October 2011 (my timesheet even says I logged work on Christmas day!) and so I took a week and a half off from the 9th to the 18th, hence the absence. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFT should be linked to a Special page

We should create a Special page (Special:Ratings/article name) that shows:

  1. the average ratings for the article;
  2. how many people actually found the article helpful;
  3. the top comments for that article, voted on by autoconfirmed users

The following features would be available (on the same page) for registered users:

  1. (autoconfirmed only) a gadget for picking the most helpful comments and posting them to the talk page for that article, so they're more accessible to other users;
  2. (sysop only) a gadget for removing "spam" comments

Discuss. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support Great idea! Jesse V. (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible use of border-radius in box

I would recommend adding a border-radius style rule to the AFT5 box; this would look nice in browsers that support it but it doesn't matter aesthetically that not all of them do. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; I think it's a non-urgent thing at the moment :). We're encountering a lot of bugs and risk falling behind on development, so I'm going to stick this on the back-burner while we fix more crucial things. Still, thank you for the suggestion, and I'm happy to push people into looking at it in more detail if we get some breathing room :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User survey?

According to the Schedule section there's an ongoing user survey. Where is this survey anyway? I'd like to help out, but despite subscribing to the newsletter I haven't heard much. :( Jesse V. (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not been linked to the special page? Gah! I'll make sure to make it prominent in the update I'm about to send out. Sorry about that :(. The survey is linked from that page in the top-right (apologies for the lack of prominence). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I checked out the page and completed the survey. I really like the page, but there are improvements and optimization that can still be made. I voted and whatnot on several dozen responses, and resolved a couple of featured ones. I'm REALLY looking forward to seeing widespread deployment. One major suggestion is that I think it should be more obvious how to get feedback from just one page. I discovered by accident that all feedback to Evolution is on this page. I also think you should be able to mark responses as "resolved" without having to feature them first. Sometimes the response isn't professional enough to show off, but is helpful enough to do something about. Hopefully we can also have a way to move the response to Talk for further discussion. And when you feature a response, I have no idea where the "notes" text goes. Sorry for all these suggestions, I didn't think of them when I completed the survey... :) Jesse V. (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is praise "helpful"? Jesse V. (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd consider it helpful :). We're currently looking into many of those features - I agree we need to make it more obvious how to identify the feedback page. Perhaps a new tab, next to "talk"? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Making a new tab would be a good idea. IMO, it should be labeled "Feedback". There's plenty of space remaining to the left of the "Talk" tab. Jesse V. (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a new tab. Question: Should everyone be able to view such feedback tab? Only registered editors? Auto-confirmed? I wouldn't want to encourage passing-by vandals in leaving their feedback when they don't even read and scroll down within an article. Nageh (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think autoconfirmed up would make sense; readers who have submitted feedback already have an avenue in. Note we're talking about a tab to the feedback page where an article's feedback is listed, not a tab that opens up the feedback form. Anyway; I'll talk to the team tomorrow :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, we are talking about the same. :) Nageh (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool; just me misunderstanding, then :). I'll see what the guys say! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rating talk pages?

Why is the tool displayed on the following talk page?

Helder 12:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I...can't see it there :S. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, got it. Oh dear! Alright, it's been reported; hopefully it'll get fixed soon :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the tool also appears on Template:Age in days if I'm not logged in... Helder 18:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a cacheing error. The plan is (I think) to just let it clear, and incorporate a manual jump-start if the problem gets more severe. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should work with watchlist

I think the AFT5 should work with a watchlist. I have a variety of articles that interest me, and when I watchlist the article the talkpage is also watchlisted. I think it would be very helpful to editors if they could see feedback on those pages as well. I'm not sure how well feedback notifications would work on the watchlist page, you may have to make a new format or a new section.

Also, are there any plans on doing a wiki-wide notification thing about AFT5, so that everyone isn't startled by the big change when it's completely deployed? Jesse V. (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we're going to have a massive wacking notice at the top of the wiki if you're logged in :). On the watchlisting front, I agree, that'd be awesome! At the moment, though, we're facing the pinch of having fallen behind on designing and building this thing. I'll propose it to the devs and bosses, but I can't promise it'll happen :(. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I just wanted the watchlist thing to be on the to-do list for whenever the devs get around to it. Jesse V. (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying people about feedback is about the most important feature of the tool; without it it's basically an echo chamber (and one which is going to lack scrutiny). --Errant (chat!) 09:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a new format or section should be necessary; the watchlist should just display the feedback page, just as it displays the content and talk pages. However, this raises two questions:
  • Should updates in the watchlist include solely feedback, or also the tagging for abuse, etc. functions?
  • If I already have a page on my watchlist and suddenly a feedback page gets added to the mix, then what are the odds that bugs will appear?
--Toccata quarta (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distinctive icons

The Star icon for featured posts should be different to that of unfeatured posts. This is already done for posts with/without activity, but in this case the difference is too subtle (dark blue vs black icon).

The contour and thickness of both icons should change between states - for example, make a filled star icon for the featured posts, and two different bar graphs for activity states (few short bars for no activity, many tall bars for some activity). Diego (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea :). I'm not sure about the activity bar graphs, but the featured posts/unfeatured posts distinction seems fairly simple to do - I'll see if we can fit it in. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I didn't mean to put actual activity bar graphs, just two different icons for "no activity" and "activity". Diego (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's not the reason for my guardedness; I'm not a tech, but it means that every post that is loaded in the page would have to involve a more detailed or second query to the database to check if there has been any activity - could slow things down. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Several months ago I asked about when the feedback tool will get implemented on all of Wikipedia, and although the answer I obtained indicated that it should be here by now, it is not. Did something get in the way of it?

I looked at the list of feedback on one page, and saw a post that had been flagged for abuse but did not strike me as abusive. Is it possible to "unflag" posts?

Lastly, when feedback gets sent, does that bit of information appears in editors' watchlists? Thanks in advance. --Toccata quarta (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Sorry for the delay in replying; things have been hectic over here :). In order:
  1. We had some issues with things like the Abuse Filter that have delayed the project, yeah :(. To be honest, delays are going to happen in any big projects - we're just trying to minimise them :). The current plan calls for a ramp up to 10 percent at the beginning of July, and then 100 percent some time after Wikimania.
  2. There's no way to unflag them, unfortunately. When it hits five flags it gets hidden, and any rollbacker, reviewer or admin can un-hide it, which voids all the flags.
  3. As it's set up at the moment I don't think it does, but I have been pushing to have it included. One worry would be volume; we're estimating around 2 million pieces of feedback a month - imagine every article on your watchlist showing changes simultaneously :S. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oliver, thanks for working on this. Good to know someone from the UK is involved! I have a quick question - you say that the AFT will ramp up to 10%, then 100% - will there be any intermediate stages, or will it go up from 10% to 100% in one go? The Cavalry (Message me) 16:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There'll probably be intermediate stages; at the moment, we're focused on 10 percent. If that goes off without cogwheels and explosions emanating from the server rooms, we'll do some more detailed planning on later releases. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The release is coming up - help us design a banner!

Help us design a banner!

Hey all. First-off, a big thanks to everyone who has helped, be it by hand-coding, providing suggestions on tweaks to the tool, or bugtesting. I'm incredibly grateful the community has been this responsive in my first tool development :). We're coming up to a wider release, planning to go from 0.6% to 10% of articles by 3 July. This is going to be a big shift, and as part of it, we're planning a CentralNotice banner to logged-in users so we can advertise as widely as possible. We want everyone to be playing around with this tool.

The question is - what should the banner say? The plan is for whatever text is there to link through to a landing page directing people around the tool - we've got that bit covered - but the actual banner text is (so far) unknown. That's where you guys come in :). We're looking for something in-jokey; something that'll pique people's interest and (hopefully) make them giggle and follow up. The person who designs the winning entry will get some form of reward, as-yet-undetermined, but probably a t-shirt or similar goodie. Simply copy the draft section below, place it in a new section, fill in your suggestion, and wait for feedback :). Hopefully we can get some really great designs! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your banner goes here

your text goes here

  1. Username

Jesse V.

You don't actually have new messages, (last change) but the WMF does have a shiny new feedback tool for you to play with! Check it out!
  1. Jesse V. (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Now this I love. We can't use it (fake message banners would see everyone associated with the project murdered, hideously) but this is precisely the sort of thing I'm talking about - an in-joke that makes whoever reads it doubletake. Keep em coming! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. What you asking for is difficult: Wikipedia doesn't have a whole lot of memes... Jesse V. (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it should only be text right? We can't modify the code you provided to add pictures or anything? Just wondering. Jesse V. (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    On the first point; yeah, I know :(. On the second, you can tweak it, but we're trying to keep it small and dinky. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thumbs up icon Support (he he… :) benzband (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse V.

Wikipedia is bolding going where no wiki has gone before; the Wikimedia Foundation is introducing a text-based article feedback tool! Now the readers of your articles can easily provide reviews and improvement suggestions: key information you need to help improve Wikipedia further. Check it out!

  1. Jesse V. (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse V.

  1. Jesse V. (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Love the idea; could we try something more compact? One sentence tops, as few words as possible :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. I find it impossible to do this in one sentence, but two sentences is more feasible. So changed. Jesse V. (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What about While we try not to screw up the screwing again... --20:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC), Utar (talk)
    Good point, but I got inspired in another direction. Thanks! Jesse V. (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You are welcome, nice. Btw, why is this suggestion not under Jesse V. (third)? --21:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC), Utar (talk)
    I wasn't sure of the format. I'm assuming that the "(first)" and "(second)" labels are the rankings, and that Okeyes is the one to decide where this goes. Jesse V. (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Naw, they're just the order in which things were posted; feel free to move this one :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     Done and removed misleading numerical labels. Jesse V. (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Utar

Did you know… that there is a new centralised feedback tool just waiting for you to test it?

At least I have tried :D . --20:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC), Utar (talk)

I like it! A couple of suggestions though: I checked the main page and saw that DYKs begin with "that". Example: "... that Soviet spy satellite Yantar-2K had two film return capsules which could land on the ground or on water?" I'm not entirely sure, but I think the "just" should go before "waiting". Your call, but I think this was a pretty good submission. But good luck getting the T-shirt! Hahahaha! :D Jesse V. (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Love it! A bit of rewording, maybe, but the general idea is fantastic. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, tweaked. Added that, changed dots to ellipsis (An appearing of a new line between dots would be brutal), just moved.
Though IMO the move of "just" changes meaning of the sentence - the old design could have also been read as "waiting only for you" and now it is just a sparkle word. I wonder if there is some better way to say "new centralised feedback tool".
Any other ideas? --07:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC), Utar (talk)
How about "Did you know...that we've developed [[link|a new Feedback Tool]]? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but that's a version of less giggleness. --15:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC), Utar (talk)
See, for extra lulz I want to go with "Did You Know...that editcountitis now has a new outlet?" but I think we'd get in trouble ;). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that :D benzband (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can't imagine your reaction is the one we'd get most of the time :P. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewrbowker

Stop the presses!
Wikipedia has a shiny new article feedback tool, ready for testing!

  1. Here's my try. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 23:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice! Certainly more upbeat than is the norm :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please enable Wiki

Would you please enable Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Wiki? It is one of our most popular articles. 75.166.206.120 (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we're switching to a "lottery" system; we can't specifically enable any individual articles :(. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'll be happy to wait, but who still wants v4? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, pretty much nobody. It's more of a scaling thing, on two fronts - technically and socially.
  • On the technical front, we need to make sure that the system can actually cope with the number of comments that'll be coming in when we deploy to all articles; it's predicted to be almost as many pieces of feedback as we currently have edits. That's a lot of data.
  • On the social front, we need to acclimatise people to using the tool, monitoring feedback and playing around with it, ideally before we ramp up. Otherwise we're asking a lot of people to leave comments that may or may not actually be processed. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2 Questions

Hi, according to User_talk:Okeyes_(WMF)#10% of the articles there is currently no way to add AFT5 to some specific article. --13:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC), Utar (talk)[reply]
What Utar said :). On the Signpost, it's been covered fragmentarily a lot of times - I'd be happy to see a larger, dedicated article :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been bold and suggested it here. benzband (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback (not) for stubs?

I've been visiting a lot of stubs lately and it strikes me that article feedback might not be appropriate for stubs, since stubs are, by definition, not complete. So, it doesn' t make sense to "rate" the page as not complete or well-written. Is there a way to turn off "Rate this page" for article stubs? RudolfRed (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the reasons AFT4 is not perfect. I doubt there is a way to apply AFT5 to stubs, since so far AFT5 is applied randomly. Full deployment is upcoming though! Jesse V. (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is another reason v5>v4. 71.212.226.91 (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5&oldid=499176892"