User talk:Khazar2/Million

Suggested changes

Thanks for proposing this idea. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of a "per article" award, how about a point system:

1 point for significant participation in getting any article to GA.
1 point for significant participation in getting any GA article to FA.
2 points for significant participation in getting any non-GA, non-A-class article through both the early and late stages to FA, even if the article bypassed GA status.
Double the above for doing the work solo or leading a team (but only if your work is more than half of the overall effort, otherwise you get just the normal points).
For high-traffic articles, multiply the points by 2 for 250K+, 3 for 500K+, 4 for 750K+, and 5 for 1M+ views. The most points for a single article would be 20: 2 for getting a sub-GA article all the way to FA, x 2 for doing it solo or leading a team, x 5 for a 1M+ traffic article.
When you get to 20 points, you give yourself an award. For each additional 20 points you give yourself a decoration to put on your award (pin, oak leaf, etc. to be determined by us later).
I would be open to a different point system, such as 1 point for every 100K of traffic. However, the points for an award should be a team-lead-role or solo effort to get a 1M+ article from sub-GA all the way to FA.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To encourage work on articles that are likely to have increased traffic in the next few months, the points should be based on the highest-traffic "90 day window" starting 3 months before the article was promoted to 3 months after. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Million" is too generic a name. If you create a brand new award, call it "Million visitors," "Vital article improvement," or some such. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some topics, particularly those driven by current events spike in importance for a short time but their long-term importance is not that high. Bots and other things also distort statistics. Therefore I recommend we ignore spikes of less than 2-3 days and spikes explained by bot traffic from the count. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is that this award will typically be self-given or given by the team lead for collaborations. I recommend that the award template include a show-hide feature that will show the links to the article(s), the dates the traffic was measured, URL-link(s) to the traffic statistics web page(s), and a section for additional information/documentation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the feedback--it's really kind of you to take the time. The biggest issue I'd have with the proposed points system is the delayed gratification; somebody who takes an article with a half-million annual readers to GA has in all likelihood done a tremendous amount of work already, and I want to reward that on the spot. Asking them to write 3-4 more to earn the award seems to me an unnecessarily high threshold. Similarly, attempting to evaluate who has worked solo or as a team leader, and who as a collaboration, is in my experience a recipe for drama (even if it's a self-determination). I think it's better to just keep it simple and say "You contributed to bring this article that gets more than 500,000 readers annually through GA--thanks for your work."

For similar reasons, I don't want to worry too much about precision in documentation and measurement. Spikes are a part of any popular article (it may appear in a TV show, on Jeopardy!, etc.). Even if someone manages to bring a topic of widespread momentary interest through GA, that still seems like something worth rewarding. I do really like the idea of including a link to the article and readership stats in the template--it'd be a fun touch. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be retrospective? I'm thinking of articles such as the aforemmentioned Sea.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's my plan. I don't intend to make a comprehensive search for qualifying articles, but I'll hand out a few like Sea that I know have recently earned it. I'll also invite editors to claim them for themselves or award it to others who have earned it in the past. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

When you start up a new award, everyone will try to tell you to tweak it all kinds of ways. Be careful what you commit to doing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't intend to make a big commitment to this besides getting it off the ground; I'll make the page, give some out, post a few places about it, and see what happens from there. That's my intention, anyway. We'll see if I can stick to it.

-- Khazar2 (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you are going to do this, you will want to monitor Wikipedia:Help_desk#Monthly_pageview_stats. If the answer is no, you may want to talk to someone about restoring that capability.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still think a quarter million is pretty low. Everyone is going to figure out what time of year to propose for this award. Many things that barely get 100 or 150K will figure out what quarter they should use. E.G., If I take King & Maxwell to GA, I would propose it during the 10 weeks of the year when it is on television. A quarter that includes those 10 weeks will have much much higher numbers than other quarters. Look at [how much it spikes the day it is on TV and the day after. The rest of the year will not have these spikes and the base number of view may be lower as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 05:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Count views for the whole year

Wouldn't it be better if we'd simply count the views for the whole year? Sure the addition of 12 number shouldn't take long and this would make us avoid many of the situations where the article is only highly viewed during a certain time of the year. This of course wouldn't apply to articles less than 1 year old. Mohamed CJ (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, but I do want to keep it as simple as possible just to increase the likelihood of people awarding it to others. I've added both as possible calculations; if the occasional "undeserving" article sneaks in through the easier method, that's okay with me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic design

I think the graphic design is one of the most important parts about any barnstar. Therefore I kindly ask you to reconsider the current design. It's hard to figure what the box means without looking at File:Visualisation 1 million.svg first, and even after that I've got to say it doesn't look much appealing.

Here are some good examples for a "Million" design:[1] (for this one, a graphical designer can make one similar to it, then just change 1 to 0.5 or 0.25), [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [ [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. You can even make the barnstar look like Hollywood Walk of Fame (since the articles are highly viewed - those article are like celebrities in WP) - examples: [14], [15]. The concept behind this award is fantastic, it definitely deserves a fantastic look to it too! Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I agree--my own efforts were pretty feeble. (These design skills are why Mrs. Khazar is going to pick out all the paint and furniture for the new house.) Luckily, I've got somebody helping me out with a new design now; the userboxes, etc. in the draft now are simply placeholders. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]