Wikipedia talk:Article feedback/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Dealing with non-actionable feedback
There are a great many feedback comments that contain no useful feedback, or even an attempt at useful feedback. For instance, much of the feedback on the Barack Obama page consists of ranting about bias in the article or birther conspiracy theories. Some feedback is gibberish (there's one on Assembler that contains only the letter "f"), and some consists of musing commentary about the article's subject (for instance, one on Chlorpromazine says, "I think that Thorazine is a powerfull medication"). And of course, there's the ones that are clearly trying to communicate a problem with the article, but aren't specific enough to be actionable, like "Include more details please." This is all in addition to the complaint that Mabalu had above about requests for copyrighted materials - I saw a feedback comment attached to an article about a childrens' story that requested the story itself.
There does not seem to be a graceful way to deal with these kinds of comments. I've been downrating them, of course, and I'm flagging the disparaging rants. I've also been marking them as resolved, because I can't make edits based on them. But I'm not sure if the latter is the best thing to do. Is there the possibility of including some sort of "not actionable" mark that removes feedback from the backlog but doesn't mark it as resolved? I also feel that the most important feedback guidelines should be placed directly below the input field, because I'm sure that the link to the guidelines that's currently there is being followed by all of 2% of the commenters. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 03:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Very much agree, as I stated here. Marking feedbacks which raise nothing to be resolved as "RESOLVED" is counter-intuitive, and it does not help us either in evaluating what % of feedback is truly useful in the sense that it lead to an actual improvement. Furthermore, marking feedback as "resolved" actually pushes it up in the "Most relevant" sorting. As it stands, I perceive the feedback tool as a giant spam collector. --ELEKHHT 19:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Quite. There's far too much rubbish being posted that is no use to anyone - in fact there was so much of it I removed the Facebook article from my watchlist due to stuff like how-to unblock oneself, delete a Facebook account and bafflingly a woman using the feedback mechanism to attempt to get a message to a family member. Other issues include fans of sports teams using feedback to show their love/hate of the team. These probably doesn't count as 'abuse' per se (in my mind at least) but even so, it's of little use to us. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 22:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is a tricky one. Do people want another function (this to mark things as "can't be resolved") or would it be easier to just expand the guidelines on what can/should be hidden? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- The hide function is not currently available to most editors. Expanding its use to cover comments that can't be resolved would require either opening the hide function up to everyone (potentially dangerous) or having editors flag stuff that's not really abusive (which is no more intuitive than marking it resolved, and much slower). So I'm not terribly crazy about that idea. Also, one of Elekhh's complaints was that the current setup makes evaluating the feedback tool's performance more difficult. From that perspective, grouping the useless stuff with the abusive stuff is no better than grouping it with the useful stuff. Finally, I don't see why such comments should be hidden from view completely - why not hide resolved useful comments as well? I think any solution should allow any editor with permission to mark things "resolved" also have permission to mark things "can't be resolved." This would provide any editor with an instant way to deal with obviously useless feedback comments. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 08:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- That makes sense. We could maybe just have a yes/no tickbox under "mark as resolved" for "action taken?" or whatever. That would reduce the amount of clutter in the interface on the feedback page; seems like a sensible approach to you? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- That actually seems more cluttered to me than simply having a button underneath "mark as resolved" that just has an "X" (or whatever) icon next to it and the text "Mark as unresolvable." That way, every widget on that sidebar is a button whose function is perfectly clear. There's plenty of empty space underneath the View Activity button, so I'm not all that concerned with visual clutter on a sidebar that contains three buttons (and a proposed fourth). I would prefer this to be completely intuitive. We have plenty enough documentation here; we don't need another three pages about the feedback tool.
- That makes sense. We could maybe just have a yes/no tickbox under "mark as resolved" for "action taken?" or whatever. That would reduce the amount of clutter in the interface on the feedback page; seems like a sensible approach to you? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- The hide function is not currently available to most editors. Expanding its use to cover comments that can't be resolved would require either opening the hide function up to everyone (potentially dangerous) or having editors flag stuff that's not really abusive (which is no more intuitive than marking it resolved, and much slower). So I'm not terribly crazy about that idea. Also, one of Elekhh's complaints was that the current setup makes evaluating the feedback tool's performance more difficult. From that perspective, grouping the useless stuff with the abusive stuff is no better than grouping it with the useful stuff. Finally, I don't see why such comments should be hidden from view completely - why not hide resolved useful comments as well? I think any solution should allow any editor with permission to mark things "resolved" also have permission to mark things "can't be resolved." This would provide any editor with an instant way to deal with obviously useless feedback comments. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 08:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Now, one thing we COULD do that I wouldn't object to terribly much is put the tickbox in the notes popup. That's even better for clutter. But that still has intuitiveness problems. The caption doesn't convey what the tickbox is really for, and you have to click the resolved button first to even know it's there. It might be misused by people who don't know what it's for - for instance, an editor who intends to come back to a feedback issue marks it as resolved and hits the tickbox, but then forgets to make the necessary edits - or it might not be noticed by people who are looking for just such a function. I would prefer the separate button solution, but the tickbox is acceptable to me if other people are concerned about clutter. As long as it's labeled clearly. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 03:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting ideas ;). I'll throw them at the developers; we are teeechnically in "feature freeze" and can't add new features, but if it's small we might be able to scrape it in. If not, it'll go in the wishlist for version 6. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Minor point: it wouldn't occur to me to mark praise/nonsense as "unresolvable". I think something like "no action necessary" would be more intuitive (and make those who left the feedback feel less like they did something wrong). DoctorKubla (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Izno: I feel like this would require a slightly different interface to work well. Something like a button that says "close feedback" (or something like that) which leads to a popup with radio buttons, maybe? Also, do we need that many options, or is that just too confusing for too little benefit? Remember, Bugzilla is normally curated by a small group of developers specifically trained to use it. The feedback tool is meant to be used by a very large group of people, and we're striving to keep training time and effort to a minimum.
You both touch on a very good point, though. The captions on the interface will need to be chosen very carefully for this to work right. And to do that, we may need more editor input than we're gonna get on this talk page. This feature request is turning out to be more complicated than I expected. But it's important for all of us to get it right so the feedback tool can actually be useful. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 01:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Izno: I feel like this would require a slightly different interface to work well. Something like a button that says "close feedback" (or something like that) which leads to a popup with radio buttons, maybe? Also, do we need that many options, or is that just too confusing for too little benefit? Remember, Bugzilla is normally curated by a small group of developers specifically trained to use it. The feedback tool is meant to be used by a very large group of people, and we're striving to keep training time and effort to a minimum.
- Now, one thing we COULD do that I wouldn't object to terribly much is put the tickbox in the notes popup. That's even better for clutter. But that still has intuitiveness problems. The caption doesn't convey what the tickbox is really for, and you have to click the resolved button first to even know it's there. It might be misused by people who don't know what it's for - for instance, an editor who intends to come back to a feedback issue marks it as resolved and hits the tickbox, but then forgets to make the necessary edits - or it might not be noticed by people who are looking for just such a function. I would prefer the separate button solution, but the tickbox is acceptable to me if other people are concerned about clutter. As long as it's labeled clearly. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 03:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Keep it simple. As near as I can tell what is desperately missing is the equivalent to the "undo" button for routine article vandalism: something that makes it go away with a single click but without the finality of a RevDel (so still retrievable by any user). This is different than a "resolved" button that is there to flag a useful comment as completed. Adding a host of buttons to overcategorize the "noise" that is going to happen with a feedback system is just a waste of time. VQuakr (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- This would be fine with me, except that the button should also remove the comment from the unresolved category. If we ever wanted to analyze the feedback to see how large the backlog is, for instance, and we had a hide button that didn't also mark feedback as resolved, all the hidden comments would show up as unresolved, and the analysis would be useless. Or at least made more complicated on the back end. The other problem is that the hide button is harder to implement than the close button I proposed, which only requires a small amount of new code. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 01:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Also, as noted above, the caption for any hide button needs to be carefully chosen to avoid confusion about what it's for. That's probably my biggest complaint about that idea. I can just see editors using it inappropriately, especially when there's both a flag button and a hide button. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 01:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- The "delete" button could be visible only to autoconfirmed users, while the "remove post" button should be visible only to reviewers/rollbackers/admins and be on a bright red background to make it stand out as special. And yes, a one-sentence explanation of what each button is for (visible after a brief hover) would be useful as well. VQuakr (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- No hover captions. It seems too easy for someone to misinterpret what it's for, even if you're an autoconfirmed editor. I'm not exactly thrilled with the idea of hiding it at all - the only feedback that should disappear from the queue completely is the abusive feedback, IMO. Also, FWIW, our preferred solutions aren't all that different interface-wise — I would prefer one button below the current Mark Resolved button that marks stuff unresolvable. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 11:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- If I see an article change that adds "adfdfasf" to an article, I click undo. It effectively "hides" the test edit but is not classified as Revision Deletion (anyone can still view it with a few extra clicks). This functionality is needed in the feedback system as well. VQuakr (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree completely. Article feedback is not the same as an actual edit to the article, and doesn't need to have the same functionality. I would like to be able to see immediately all feedback that isn't abusive. But if we are going to hide the useless feedback from view, then we should apply the principle evenly and hide the resolved useful feedback from view - after all, when it's resolved, there's nothing more we can do with it. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 11:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- If I see an article change that adds "adfdfasf" to an article, I click undo. It effectively "hides" the test edit but is not classified as Revision Deletion (anyone can still view it with a few extra clicks). This functionality is needed in the feedback system as well. VQuakr (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- No hover captions. It seems too easy for someone to misinterpret what it's for, even if you're an autoconfirmed editor. I'm not exactly thrilled with the idea of hiding it at all - the only feedback that should disappear from the queue completely is the abusive feedback, IMO. Also, FWIW, our preferred solutions aren't all that different interface-wise — I would prefer one button below the current Mark Resolved button that marks stuff unresolvable. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 11:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- The "delete" button could be visible only to autoconfirmed users, while the "remove post" button should be visible only to reviewers/rollbackers/admins and be on a bright red background to make it stand out as special. And yes, a one-sentence explanation of what each button is for (visible after a brief hover) would be useful as well. VQuakr (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Obstructing articles
Many of these article feedback templates obstruct articles. Two examples; Seymour (Metro-North station) and 5th Street (SEPTA Market–Frankford Line station). --DanTD 19:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- What browser are you using? These look fine on Safari. MeegsC (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Normally IE 7(I thought I had IE 8). It really shouldn't make a difference with the browser, as far as I'm concerned. -------[[User:DanTD|DanTD]] ([[User talk:DanTD|talk]]) 16:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, it shouldn't. But sometimes there's a bug with a particular browser. This may help the developers narrow down the problem! 17:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Normally IE 7(I thought I had IE 8). It really shouldn't make a difference with the browser, as far as I'm concerned. -------[[User:DanTD|DanTD]] ([[User talk:DanTD|talk]]) 16:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Feedback?
What is the proper venue to provide feedback on the tool as a whole?Cptnono (talk) 06:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Feedback tool requires independent watchlist
I do like the ability to track feedback for articles on my watchlist, however, I have a problem where 98% of the feedback I see is from one article: Muhammad. As a result, finding other feedback becomes a problem of searching for the needle in the haystack. I don't want to remove the article from my watchlist, but this tools effectiveness is nullified by the flood of "remove his pictures" feedback. It would be useful to modify the tool so that each has its own watchlist. For simplicity, it could be set so that any addition to your article watchlist is also added to your AFT watchlist, but you can go in and remove individual entries as desired.
Additionally, it would be useful to get feedback for a category of articles. Ideally, having the option of seeing all feedback for a specific category only, or for that category and all subcategories. Both of these changes would help potential reviewers target feedback results to areas they are interested in and capable of assisting with. Resolute 17:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- The latter is on our list, sorta - it would be wikiproject-specific. But we can talk about searching by category, or excluding [pagename] from results. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Article Feedback page not enabled for this page.
When on my watch page I click on "Feedback for my watched pages" it comes up with a blank screen and the message "Article Feedback page not enabled for this page" where it used to show me feedback. Richard75 (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- ...Anyone? Richard75 (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure! It's not a problem on my watch page (I'm using a Mac, and Safari) so it may be a browser issue. Which machine and browser are you using (in case it's something the techies need to fix)? Preceding comment by User:MeegsC.
- Machine is called a Compaq Presario, browser is Firefox version 15.0.1 Richard75 (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Have you ticked the "don't show the article feedback widget" box in your preferences? If so, yes - this page will not display for you. We're fixing that issue now. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- That was it, thanks. Richard75 (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Great :). We're looking to dis-entangle those two things; it's silly to assume that just because someone doesn't want a massive box telling them to submit feedback to change things they don't want to triage actual feedback. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- That was it, thanks. Richard75 (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Have you ticked the "don't show the article feedback widget" box in your preferences? If so, yes - this page will not display for you. We're fixing that issue now. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Machine is called a Compaq Presario, browser is Firefox version 15.0.1 Richard75 (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure! It's not a problem on my watch page (I'm using a Mac, and Safari) so it may be a browser issue. Which machine and browser are you using (in case it's something the techies need to fix)? Preceding comment by User:MeegsC.
Suggestions
First of all, I am impressed by how this tool has attracted responses from zillions of users who have never made an edit. I knew that the ratio between readonly users and editors was around 100 to 1, but this tool apparently is encouraging "the 100" to interact in a way that talk pages have not.
In using Feedback from my watched pages, I have some comments.
- The timestamp for each entry uses relative time ("11 minutes ago"). That's fine if I just refreshed the page, but when I leave it and then come back the next day to continue, it is hard to figure out matching the refreshed page to the previous entries. If the top included "as of 19:19:57, 2012-10-02" (like my watchlist), then I could easily figure it out. (Or if each entry included an absolute timestamp.) I would not object to each entry having both formats.
- Should the "buttons" at the right of each detail entry have a working "View activity" function? It seems to have some Javascript linkage, but it doesn't do anything. (Firefox 12.0/Linux Fedora 15)
- When I click on "Hide this post", is that hiding it from me or everyone? Is my sysop bit affecting the operation? Please be more clear here. If it is sysop-driven, then maybe bold the enhanced responsibility operations.
- What does "request oversight" do? An html title="some explanation" hover hint would be great for all of these.
- The "rating" shows either a green happy face or a red sad face–even on the post's details page. But doesn't the UI provide a scale of 1 to 5 for the user?
- Is there a recommended way to react to a feedback suggestion? For example, this entry on William Clark suggest there be more info about the L&C expedition. I think the feedback is useful, but misguided: the article already links to the proper place. But I worry that without a way of responding to the feedback comment that an well intentioned and ambitious editor will expand the article inappropriately.
Overall, nice work on this facility! —EncMstr (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I personally detest relative timestamps. I find them far less useful than just giving me an absolute timestamp, from which I can figure out how old the comment is myself. Why not give an absolute time and then the relative time in parentheses, like "19:19:57, 2012-10-02 (Four days ago)"?
- The view activity button seems to be buggy. If I do something with a brand new feedback comment, I expect that button to become active immediately. However, I need to refresh the page first. This is with Firefox 15.0.1 running on Mac OS 10.7.4.
- The hide and oversight buttons are only visible with certain elevated privilege sets; I cannot see them myself. If their functions are not immediately obvious to administrators, I consider that a Very Big Problem. ("Hide this post", I believe, is the equivalent of flagging a comment five times - it disappears for everyone.)
- The 1-5 scale was used in the previous version of the feedback tool, but not in this version. Version 5 asks the question "Did you find what you were looking for?" and marks a smiley face or a sad face based on the answer.
- This last comment dovetails nicely into my comments above regarding what to do with feedback that isn't actionable. From what I can tell, the fact that there's no way to deal with the large amounts of spam/junk/misguided feedback is the number one complaint with the tool as it stands. As an additional frustration, there seems to be a limit to the length of the resolution comment, and if you go over this, the tool will simply cut off the rest of your comment without warning or error. I've seen a few resolution comments cut off at weird places with an ellipsis at the end that the software obviously inserted, but I can't figure out how to access the rest of the comment (if it's even possible).
- --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 18:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback :). I'm doing my best, but quite frankly, we don't have much dev time :S. I'll have an announcement of those fixes/improvements we have made tonight or tomorrow. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Feedback page less helpful than talk page suggestions
I think this issue was discussed above in "Fragmentation" along with several other threads. However, having been following feedback on articles I'm watching, I keep noticing that posts that would have been formerly have been placed on the talk page where they could be discussed or clarified with anon IP addresses are now very much of the "write and run" variety that don't allow us to find out exactly what areas need expanding/correcting. For example, a significant number of feedback entries seem to be questions, as if they're expecting an answer back, which as they are normally IP addresses mean that replying on an IP talk page is a waste of time. There appears to be no way to leave feedback in reply to other feedback, as it were. Ultimately, it probably makes us look like we're ignoring feedback, whereas if there was a specific problem before it could be discussed on the talk page before implementing, etc. Bob talk 23:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. I think it is very helpful to have feedback, but it could be more open, flexible, inviting, easy to find and use than either the talkpage or the article feedback currently are alone. There are two ways to invite readers to provide feedback. The "talk" link at the top of the page, and the random "Did you find what you were looking for?" template at the bottom of some pages. The "talk" link probably doesn't appear to be a feedback link. And the "Did you find what you were looking for?" template doesn't take the reader to the talk page, but keeps the reader in isolation until after they have commented and asked to see other comments, when they are taken only to the feedback page rather than the talkpage. I don't see the value for anyone in having comments in two different places.
- It might be interesting to explore with the community the notion of making the "talk" link read "feedback" for unlogged in users.
- It might be worth exploring the notion of having the "Did you find what you were looking for?" template lead the reader directly to the talkpage where they can leave their comment, and where they can see comments left by other users. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, no. I was surprised by how many article feedbacks I got. I think it's far less scary for the readers compared to the talk page. I did see one IP bitch about it interfering with his reading though. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
SIA pages
I think that unlike dabs {{sia}} pages should not be black listed. They are more like usual articles, sometimes on difficult and vague topics. Feedback on those would be quite useful actually. E.g. biopolitics or philosophical logic. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Another feature request
It would be useful if there were a link from the feedback to the version of the article that feedback was given for. It can be a bit of work otherwise to figure what "last paragraph was POV" referred to, for example. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- There is already a link. The multipage watchlist says something like Thisuser posted feedback to ThisArticle, for example "216.38.130.167 posted feedback to Golden-crowned Sparrow". Just click on the article name. And if you're on the feedback page for a particular article (like this, for example), just click on the "View article" link in the upper right hand corner. MeegsC (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Specific filters
It would be ... well, a blessing... if we could filter the feedback list to temporarily remove an article without playing with our watchlist. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- That'd be nice :). That's sort of a niche feature compared to some of the problems we're developing solutions for at the moment, I'm afraid, but hopefully we can take another pass through when we've got some breathing space. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I guess that's understandable. Reason I ask is that I had shortly watchlisted Mitt Romney which... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- ...is 30 percent "WE WOULD'VE WON IF WE'D RUN A REAL MURKIN!" 30 percent "SUCK IT, RIGHT-WING LOSER", 30 percent "YOU LOSING MADE ME CRY" and 10 percent " if you wear aluminum trousers MKULTRA can't hear you think....*looks around warily*"? :P. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Like — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Complaint at Talk:Main Page about IP addresses showing up in Feedback without prior warning
T:MP#Please don't continue to abuse my personal data. I don't know whether it's a valid complaint but figured that people here might have a better clue than me. BencherliteTalk 22:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
YES. This is a very valid complaint and not unique. I grouched about it previously but never received a satisfactory reply. On Wikipedia, it is regarded as "normal" among editors that an attempt to edit "anonymously" actually leaves your IP address published evermore for anybody and their dog to look at. On the web in general, this is unusual - a reasonably well-informed netizen will be aware that interacting with a website will give their personal data to the owner of that site, and that it may be shared with other people, but not expect it to be made publicly available. Fortunately in Wikipedia's edit window, a very clear warning is put up for users who are not logged in that their IP address will be made publicly available. On the article feedback tool this is not so prominent (is it there at all?) and I was very angry when I discovered that my IP address had been published publicly. This is twice as bad since article feedback is intended to engage with Wikipedia's wider readership who are not editors, or members of the "Wikipedian community", and therefore are not used to community norms re privacy. You guys really need to sort this out, even if it's just to put up a warning notice when somebody attempts to send article feedback. I find the current situation completely unacceptable at an ethical level, am surprised it's acceptable at a legal level, and it's definiteliy not good on a "customer relations" level. ManyQuestionsFewAnswers (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm kind of inclined to agree. If it's not feasible to include a popup, maybe we could just hide the IP addresses? I'm not sure how useful displaying the IP numbers really is on the feedback page (in the article space, it helps with vandalism, I think is the intent, but are spam comments as troublesome as vandalism?). AgnosticAphid talk 23:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know if a popup is necessary. A simpler solution would be for something like is done for general editing, a clearer warning. At the current time, the feedback bar notes 'you agree to transparency under these terms', and the link to terms does mention your IP will be publicly recorded and displayed but it's likely be better to expliclity mention this on the feedback bar. Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- We really do need to clarify it. I'm going to kick legal and my boss again. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know if a popup is necessary. A simpler solution would be for something like is done for general editing, a clearer warning. At the current time, the feedback bar notes 'you agree to transparency under these terms', and the link to terms does mention your IP will be publicly recorded and displayed but it's likely be better to expliclity mention this on the feedback bar. Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
more users being able to hide feedback?
I think that all (autoconfirmed?) users should be able to hide feedback.
There's a lot of drivel in my list of feedback on the articles I'm watching. Will someone really come along to remove the dozens of inappropriate comments on the SF article? I kind of doubt it. Much of the comments are from IPs, and presumably admins could themselves see lists of hidden feedback.
I realize this was probably discussed and a consensus reached against this, but man, I think it's weird that I can unilaterally mark feedback as resolved but not hide it. AgnosticAphid talk 23:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, there was an RfC :S. We're actually looking at some ways to cut the volume down, which will (hopefully) also cut down the amount of that volume is junk. I'll let everyone know as soon as I find out what we're doing :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm sorry I missed it. AgnosticAphid talk 19:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd just like to comment that after I said all the silly comments were unhelpful and marked them all as spam, they did disappear, at least for me, from my list of most relevant feedback. So, it seems like things are working okay, unless I overreacted by flagging the bad comments even if they weren't technically abusive. If I wasn't supposed to mark them as spam, maybe that should be slightly more clear. AgnosticAphid talk 11:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that flagging was for abusive feedback comments (advertising, partisan BS, etc.), and that simply unhelpful comments ("I love Vegemite!!!!", etc.) should just get a thumbs down. We need better software to deal with this problem, and/or more clear guidelines. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 17:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I asked for clarification here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback/Feedback_response_guidelines AgnosticAphid talk 19:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Can new tool be requested?
Is it possible to request that the new feedback tool replace the old one on a particular article? The comments from the new tool provide actionable information, whereas the old ratings are often perplexing and useless: more than once, I've seen an article with hundreds of footnotes from impeccable RS score barely above a 3 out of 5 on "trustworthiness." Or an article that's among the hundred longest on Wikipedia can be judged as a 3.6 for "Completeness." Cynwolfe (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not directly, I'm afraid :(. We're hopefully going to be going out to 100 percent as soon as possible - realistically that'll probably be January (fundraising plus initial visual editor beta release equals little time for deployments). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Implementation on other wikis
Can it be implemented on other wikis? Sorry for possible bad English. PedR (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Article Feedback is still under testing. Once it is more stable and more problems have been fixed, it is likely to be available for more wikis. --Malyacko (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Feedback seems like it could be useful, but may be counterproductive as implemented
I came here because I'm concerned about the new feedback mechanism. I do see a real potential benefit to the new feedback system: based on the feedback I see for articles I watch, the new mechanism is clearly pulling in readers who would not have been likely to post anything on the talk page, and is encouraging them to let us know what they think about the article and to suggest improvements and additions. This could be a great thing for Wikipedia, but as currently implemented it is not.
As far as I can see, in fact, the new mechanism utterly fails to be useful. First, it encourages readers to leave their comments in a place where almost nobody will ever see them. Perhaps more editors will start monitoring feedback in the future, but right now I suspect that only a small fraction do. The way the feedback system is implemented doesn't encourage it. This problem could be fixed by making feedback results for watched articles appear inline on an editor's watchlist, the same way that changes to the article's talk page do.
The second problem is that I'm finding that many of the feedback responses are unclear or incoherent to the point of being useless. Some, of course, are just nonsense. What bothers me is that for a much larger fraction (on the pages I watch) it is clear that the reader had a specific idea in mind for what information was missing, but failed to express it clearly enough for me to identify what he or she means. Since there is no way to reply, I can't ask for further information. In other cases, the reader is looking for information that is in another article but again there is no way to help point him or her in the right direction. We need an easy mechanism for transferring a feedback post into a talk page posting, and giving the person who posted the feedback a link to it. This would allow replies to and discussion of feedback postings.
This mechanism has a lot of potential, but as currently implemented it is not very useful. In some cases it may be counterproductive, as it may cause a reader who would have posted on the talk page to instead post feedback, and then be disappointed when their posting gets no response or action.--Srleffler (talk) 03:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'll put my experience with AFT this way; through it, I've learned more Indian and Pakistani phone numbers than I have problems with Wikipedia articles. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
"Post your feedback" button nearly invisible
Just for kicks, I tried to post some feedback on the American Civil Liberties Union article. Whether I press Yes or No, I can enter text okay, but the final step is to click a button "Post Feedback". That button is nearly invisible to me ... it is a nearly-white button on a nearly-white background. My WP preferences are set to use the "Modern" skin ... but that is a rather ordinary skin with whites & blues. In any case, the button should be plainly visible regardless of the users skin. Not only is the button's main color nearly the same as the article's background color (both are off white), but the font color of the "Post your feedback" is nearly identical (white) as the button's background color (off white).
I can post a screen dump if you need one. Bottom line: many users with my configuration won't be able to see the button. The simplest solution would be to make the font color contrast more with the button background color. --Noleander (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Here is a screenShot of the problem I'm seeing:
- I guess that IS agreeing to transparency after a fashion... (sorry, had to be said). Mabalu (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- rimshots*. You guys on monobook, vector...? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- As mentioned in the topmost post, the problem is appearning in the Modern skin I'm using. I also tried Classic, and it happens there also. As for the humor: I'm not getting the joke. Am I the only WP user experiencing this problem? If I've got my preferences set incorrectly, please let me know what to do to fix them. --Noleander (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- The joke is the "transparency" line in the text - the form is extra transparent ;p. Yeah, it's going to render strangely in Modern and Classic; we've not built to support those skins :(. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I tried all the other skins, and the invisibility problem happens in all skins. Also, there is a note at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#Feedback_button_nearly_invisible which shows the problem in German WP, using Monobook skin. --Noleander (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Even in Vector? :/. What browser? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- I tried all the other skins, and the invisibility problem happens in all skins. Also, there is a note at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#Feedback_button_nearly_invisible which shows the problem in German WP, using Monobook skin. --Noleander (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- The joke is the "transparency" line in the text - the form is extra transparent ;p. Yeah, it's going to render strangely in Modern and Classic; we've not built to support those skins :(. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Please put on more pages!
I already complimented this new feedback tool (input a "suggestion" vs merely scoring points) about a month ago ... but I just saw it again on another article, and it again impressed me. Please put it on ALL WP articles!! --Noleander (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I just read above " ... going to be going out to 100 percent ...". I hope that means what I think it means. --Noleander (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- It does :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Could it be rolled out for portals? Portals are intended for readers so their feedback would be useful, and that is where we really lack feedback. For testing could be done with the eight portals linked from the main page only, than rolled out to all featured portals. --ELEKHHT 21:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- That totally makes sense :). I'll see what I can do! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Any plans? --ELEKHHT 01:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hey; no news yet :). We just found out the way we were hoping to structure the database is kaput, which has thrown rather a spanner in the works :(. I'll let you know as soon as I've got something. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- News! I've added it to "future things under consideration"; nothing concrete I can promise, but hopefully it'll get in :D. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hey; no news yet :). We just found out the way we were hoping to structure the database is kaput, which has thrown rather a spanner in the works :(. I'll let you know as soon as I've got something. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Any plans? --ELEKHHT 01:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- That totally makes sense :). I'll see what I can do! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Could it be rolled out for portals? Portals are intended for readers so their feedback would be useful, and that is where we really lack feedback. For testing could be done with the eight portals linked from the main page only, than rolled out to all featured portals. --ELEKHHT 21:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- It does :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Am I misunderstanding this?
There's no way to see the feedback for a specific page? WTF is the point of the system then? Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi John. You're misunderstanding. To see the feedback for a specific page, go to the talk page of the article you're interested in and click on "View reader feedback" (up near the talk page's title bar). They've only rolled the new feedback out to about 10% of the articles, apparently, so this function isn't available for every page. See Talk:Golden-crowned Sparrow for an example. MeegsC (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- You can also add the following (shown in italics below) to your JavaScript file (on your preferences page), which adds an option to your toolbox. The tool will say "View Feedback" for any page that has some.
- mw.util.addPortletLink ('p-tb', wgServer+wgArticlePath.replace("$1", "Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/"+wgPageName), 'Feedback');
- I find this easier than having to go to the article's talk page. MeegsC (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- We're actually building this into the site soon :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks, but this information seems hard to find, & I doubt it is well known. Having looked at some, I don't seem to have been missing much. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Feedback on the feedback tool
For plant articles, which covers the majority of my watchlist, the feedback tool is proving to be unhelpful to the point where I just don't go and look for feedback any more. The reason is that the majority of the feedbacks are requests for how-to instructions on planting, caring, feeding, dividing, etc. the individual plants. Sometimes people even ask for specifics on how to care for a plant in a particular USDA zone. These how-to instructions are not something that we do, in general, on Wikipedia—in fact WP:NOTHOWTO strongly discourages it. It may be helpful to mention that in the edit box when readers give feedback, only because it must be discouraging for so many people to request such information and not see it ever showing up, and with no explanation of why. Thanks for trying out a new idea, though, because I can see that for some areas it would be helpful. First Light (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah; I'm not sure how to do that without making the box massive, if we consider how many possible things people shouldn't ask for :/. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- I know, and without overwhelming new readers with what they aren't supposed to do.... Understood. First Light (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Just throwing this out there.... Could there be a "warning" popup if someone enters feedback containing the words "how to"? AgnosticAphid talk 16:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Or can't we provide some general guidance along the lines of "We can't add phone/fax numbers, opening hours, individual email addresses or how-to directions to this article, so please don't request such information." I'm seeing a lot of requests for that kind of stuff too. MeegsC (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- What we could do: someone adds those things to the feedback guidelines, and then writes an edit filter that pings on the use of certain words and issues a warning (your post may break [link|the guidelines]. Make sure it's kosher). Sound reasonable? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- That sounds like it'd be inaccurate and (relatively) difficult to code. I'm feeling MeegsC's suggestion more. It's simple, direct, easy to interpret, and covers the most common issues. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 01:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- It would be especially difficult to have an effective filter with plant articles, as there would just be too many false positives and/or uncaught problematic ones because of the language involved in those requests. First Light (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- That sounds like it'd be inaccurate and (relatively) difficult to code. I'm feeling MeegsC's suggestion more. It's simple, direct, easy to interpret, and covers the most common issues. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 01:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- What we could do: someone adds those things to the feedback guidelines, and then writes an edit filter that pings on the use of certain words and issues a warning (your post may break [link|the guidelines]. Make sure it's kosher). Sound reasonable? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Or can't we provide some general guidance along the lines of "We can't add phone/fax numbers, opening hours, individual email addresses or how-to directions to this article, so please don't request such information." I'm seeing a lot of requests for that kind of stuff too. MeegsC (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Just throwing this out there.... Could there be a "warning" popup if someone enters feedback containing the words "how to"? AgnosticAphid talk 16:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- I know, and without overwhelming new readers with what they aren't supposed to do.... Understood. First Light (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- The issue is normal with most feedback on turtle articles also. Jimmy Wales has hinted at extending the scope of Wikipedia to include more of what content viewers want i.e reducing WP:NOT and I'm guessing that means looking again as WP:NOTHOWTO. WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK has already been amended because of Wikipedia:Teahouse. A serious discussion on the relevance of WP:NOTHOWTO in it's current form is in order. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 19:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Jimmy can't amend or change policy, and the teahouse isn't a social network except in the sense that Wikipedia isn't a social network ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Changing WP:NOTHOWTO, at least in relation to plant articles, would create more problems than it would solve. And I also don't see Jimbo trying to use his power of divine fiat to change such things. First Light (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to have that discussion, I'm sure there's a place for it, and I'm sure somebody here knows where that place is - but this ain't it. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 01:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not an expert on this sort of thing but I think changing WP:NOT is the sort of thing that would be discussed at WP:VPP. But yes, not here.AgnosticAphid talk 06:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Jimmy can't amend or change policy, and the teahouse isn't a social network except in the sense that Wikipedia isn't a social network ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the fundamental problem is not that we need a way to tell readers in advance what kind of feedback not to leave, but rather that we need a way to allow replies to and perhaps discussion of feedback postings, implemented in such a way that the person who left the feedback will see it if they care to. The lack of such a capability means that the current feedback mechanism probably does more harm than good overall. (See above.)--Srleffler (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you about the lack of follow-up with feedbackers. But even if we had that, should editors have to waste their time reading and responding to requests for how-tos, copyrighted material, and phone numbers? I think not. While turning feedback into a discussion system would be a wonderful thing, it will require a lot of developer time. Even writing a notification system similar to the new message notifications for user talk pages will be fairly complicated. Putting a new message in the feedback box is very likely to be a trivial task. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 16:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, we're actually writing a notifications system now for a different project that is designed to plug into AFT5 :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Changing the instructions on the feedback box as you suggest would address some of the problems, but not all of them. If fixing all of the problems properly is too hard, scrapping the feedback system altogether would be a viable option. It has the advantage of being both easy, and addressing all problems with the current implementation of feedback. We could replace the current feedback box with a link that simply opens a new section on the talk page for editing. We could even have some custom instructions to help readers who aren't familiar with editing Wikipedia. The result would be easy to implement, and better than the current system, which channels reader feedback into a venue where it is unlikely to do any good. --Srleffler (talk) 04:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- That would have the great advantage of getting someone who is just a Wikipedia reader engaged in a conversation with Wikipedia editors, which has a much better chance of leading to the reader becoming an editor. The feedback tool is almost a back channel that doesn't bring the reader on board in a way that might lead to editing. First Light (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- And if the system you propose were implemented, how do you intend to prevent people from using it to request how-tos, copyrighted material, and phone numbers? Talk pages already have loads of comments from IPs that never see any responses or action from anyone because - gasp - editors don't pay attention to them. I can't even count the number of times I've seen four-year-old comments on talk pages pointing out major content issues that still exist. I'm not seeing how your solution is any better than AFT5. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 15:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's better because people could respond, and often would (though I think that was already said....). And editors often do. Not always, but nobody said it was perfect, but it is "better than AFT5" as was pointed out. First Light (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- I find that when an article has active editors watching it, comments and questions on the talk page usually get a response. Comments that sit for a long time with no response usually result from the article having no active editors, but in that case feedback is not going to be of any use either.
- I don't really see any need to "prevent" people from requesting how-tos, etc. on the talk page. We deal with those kinds of requests by replying to them and telling the person why we can't do that. I did suggest above, though, that the talk page link that replaces the feedback tool could be set up to provide instructions aimed at newcomers. That could include information on what kind of questions and requests are appropriate. --Srleffler (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've seen plenty of pages that were actively being edited but still had lots of talk page comments that hadn't been responded to. I've also seen edits reverted as unexplained removal of content when the editor who removed the content, being unfamiliar with standard Wiki practices, explained why he made his edits on the talk page. Wiki editors do not pay nearly as much attention to talk pages as they should. Unless you have a suggestion for fixing that cultural issue, we need to try something else. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 18:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- That seems like a question for another venue. While there might be arguments to be made for the feedback system, I don't think one can sensibly argue that it addresses the concern you are raising. Rather, feedback posts are much less likely to get the attention of editors, and editors cannot reply to them. --Srleffler (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have any data to say that fewer feedback posts are handled than talkpage comments? And, as said, we're building that feature in. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- No data, but common sense. At present, editors are notified through their watchlists about any changes to talk pages of articles they watch. They are not notified about feedback on those articles, unless they click the little "Feedback from my watched pages" link at the top of the watchlist. This guarantees that a smaller proportion of feedback posts will even be seen by editors. The feedback mechanism does not provide any useful way to reply to feedback, which limits editors' ability to respond. For some posts, the editor may be able to respond by simply making a change in the article. If any further information or discussion is needed, though, the feedback mechanism discourages editors from doing anything. This pretty much ensures that, of the posts seen by editors, a smaller fraction will get a useful response than for talk page comments. --Srleffler (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- You touch it with a needle. The entire reason the AFT exists in the first place is because we want to collect data. It's impossible to collect the kind of data we're looking for via talk pages, both because they force selection bias and because it would require a whole lot of hand coding that nobody has time for. With AFT, I can go to the feedback list and see at a glance how satisfied readers are with an article. Further, while EDITORS can be notified of changes to talk pages, unregistered users do not have watchlists AFAIK. There's no possible way for the system to automatically notify an unregistered user if his article space talk page comment gets a response, and the workaround (inserting a notification template on the user's talk page) doesn't work too well for IPs. If a discussion system is built into AFT, that problem could be neatly solved. (Also, I regard the talk page system as a 10+ year old hack that was showing its numerous shortcomings and needed replacement back in 2006.) --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 19:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- The mechanism and the goals (collecting data) seem well-matched for a multiple-choice survey. The current iteration, in which the user is encouraged to make a suggestion for improving the article, is poorly matched both to the stated goal and to the mechanism. If we want reader suggestions for improving the article, we should route them to the talk page, or to some other discussion forum where they can be properly dealt with. If you want to replace the talk page system with some better discussion forum, that's fine. The feedback system, though, is not a good substitute.--Srleffler (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- My idea was for a discussion system built around AFT5. I guess it would look something like the bug reports on Google Code, where people can comment, change various status flags, etc. I feel like that would be a much better solution than routing feedback to talk pages, which don't offer any good way to gather data on completion of requests, quality of requests, or reader satisfaction, have a tendency to scare would-be commenters, and cannot be easily tracked by unregistered users. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 05:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- The mechanism and the goals (collecting data) seem well-matched for a multiple-choice survey. The current iteration, in which the user is encouraged to make a suggestion for improving the article, is poorly matched both to the stated goal and to the mechanism. If we want reader suggestions for improving the article, we should route them to the talk page, or to some other discussion forum where they can be properly dealt with. If you want to replace the talk page system with some better discussion forum, that's fine. The feedback system, though, is not a good substitute.--Srleffler (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- You touch it with a needle. The entire reason the AFT exists in the first place is because we want to collect data. It's impossible to collect the kind of data we're looking for via talk pages, both because they force selection bias and because it would require a whole lot of hand coding that nobody has time for. With AFT, I can go to the feedback list and see at a glance how satisfied readers are with an article. Further, while EDITORS can be notified of changes to talk pages, unregistered users do not have watchlists AFAIK. There's no possible way for the system to automatically notify an unregistered user if his article space talk page comment gets a response, and the workaround (inserting a notification template on the user's talk page) doesn't work too well for IPs. If a discussion system is built into AFT, that problem could be neatly solved. (Also, I regard the talk page system as a 10+ year old hack that was showing its numerous shortcomings and needed replacement back in 2006.) --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 19:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- No data, but common sense. At present, editors are notified through their watchlists about any changes to talk pages of articles they watch. They are not notified about feedback on those articles, unless they click the little "Feedback from my watched pages" link at the top of the watchlist. This guarantees that a smaller proportion of feedback posts will even be seen by editors. The feedback mechanism does not provide any useful way to reply to feedback, which limits editors' ability to respond. For some posts, the editor may be able to respond by simply making a change in the article. If any further information or discussion is needed, though, the feedback mechanism discourages editors from doing anything. This pretty much ensures that, of the posts seen by editors, a smaller fraction will get a useful response than for talk page comments. --Srleffler (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have any data to say that fewer feedback posts are handled than talkpage comments? And, as said, we're building that feature in. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- That seems like a question for another venue. While there might be arguments to be made for the feedback system, I don't think one can sensibly argue that it addresses the concern you are raising. Rather, feedback posts are much less likely to get the attention of editors, and editors cannot reply to them. --Srleffler (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've seen plenty of pages that were actively being edited but still had lots of talk page comments that hadn't been responded to. I've also seen edits reverted as unexplained removal of content when the editor who removed the content, being unfamiliar with standard Wiki practices, explained why he made his edits on the talk page. Wiki editors do not pay nearly as much attention to talk pages as they should. Unless you have a suggestion for fixing that cultural issue, we need to try something else. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 18:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- And if the system you propose were implemented, how do you intend to prevent people from using it to request how-tos, copyrighted material, and phone numbers? Talk pages already have loads of comments from IPs that never see any responses or action from anyone because - gasp - editors don't pay attention to them. I can't even count the number of times I've seen four-year-old comments on talk pages pointing out major content issues that still exist. I'm not seeing how your solution is any better than AFT5. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 15:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- That would have the great advantage of getting someone who is just a Wikipedia reader engaged in a conversation with Wikipedia editors, which has a much better chance of leading to the reader becoming an editor. The feedback tool is almost a back channel that doesn't bring the reader on board in a way that might lead to editing. First Light (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Getting back to the original discussion... I did not mean to imply that adding a discussion feature to AFT5 is "too hard". What I was trying to say is that it will take time, and while we're waiting, we should have some way of letting readers know that certain types of requests can't be filled. Unless the developers have done something really weird, adding a text string to the feedback box can be done in less than a day, and I don't see how the layout problem will be very difficult to solve. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 17:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree; my concern is not that it would be difficult for developers, but that it would open up a pandora's box. There are a thousand and one different things people should not ask that they may do. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- That concern I understand. If nothing else, I would like to see something along the lines of, "Please make your feedback as specific as possible. For instance, if you are requesting images, tell us what they should illustrate." That is NOT something that's covered under content policy, and it IS a big problem with feedback posts. We can't act on feedback like this. Otherwise, the feedback guidelines (and the software) need to be updated to help us deal with feedback requests that can't be filled because they violate content policy. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 04:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. Yeah, there are a thousand and one things people might ask. But looking at the available data (i.e. current feedback forms) a crazy amount of the "junk" is asking for the same few things: phone/fax numbers, personal email addresses, "how to" directions, and directions to specific branch locations. Putting something about these would eliminate a lot of the garbage! MeegsC (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- That concern I understand. If nothing else, I would like to see something along the lines of, "Please make your feedback as specific as possible. For instance, if you are requesting images, tell us what they should illustrate." That is NOT something that's covered under content policy, and it IS a big problem with feedback posts. We can't act on feedback like this. Otherwise, the feedback guidelines (and the software) need to be updated to help us deal with feedback requests that can't be filled because they violate content policy. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 04:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree; my concern is not that it would be difficult for developers, but that it would open up a pandora's box. There are a thousand and one different things people should not ask that they may do. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you about the lack of follow-up with feedbackers. But even if we had that, should editors have to waste their time reading and responding to requests for how-tos, copyrighted material, and phone numbers? I think not. While turning feedback into a discussion system would be a wonderful thing, it will require a lot of developer time. Even writing a notification system similar to the new message notifications for user talk pages will be fairly complicated. Putting a new message in the feedback box is very likely to be a trivial task. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 16:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
First picture with man/woman
I think the woman on the right should also be wearing a hat, like the man. Greets--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- A link would be helpful where exactly to see that picture. --Malyacko (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I believe the editor is talking about this picture. I'm not sure what the point would be. MeegsC (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sure that the the woman on the right isn't wearing a hard hat because Fabrice Florin didn't have a handy stock graphic of a stick figure woman wearing a hard hat. Yes, we could probably make the editors' stick figures better, but is that really a good use of time? --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 04:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hoi, and the should holding their hands like the pair on the left side ! Greets--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
(Edit?) filter for blank feedback
It's great to know the users' feelings on a subject via the happy/sad face, but it would be beneficial to pop a warning when the user enters no feedback. --Izno (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Are you seeing that on current feedback, or only on older comments? This had been fixed several months ago, unless something has gone wrong again! MeegsC (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've been seeing tons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- New feedback. Something has apparently broken then. :) --Izno (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah. Gotta say, it's pretty frustrating how often this particular problem keeps raising its head! :P MeegsC (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Wait: can you link me to an example? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Special:ArticleFeedbackv5#772790, Special:ArticleFeedbackv5#772805, Special:ArticleFeedbackv5#772789, Special:ArticleFeedbackv5#772797. More at Special:Log/Izno. --Izno (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Both pieces of feedback here — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Special:ArticleFeedbackv5#772790, Special:ArticleFeedbackv5#772805, Special:ArticleFeedbackv5#772789, Special:ArticleFeedbackv5#772797. More at Special:Log/Izno. --Izno (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wait: can you link me to an example? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah. Gotta say, it's pretty frustrating how often this particular problem keeps raising its head! :P MeegsC (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
A One Year Snapshot
I just looked at the feedback for Hypertext Transfer Protocol for the last 12 months.
Here are all 742 comments:
Extended content
|
|---|
|
"stop" |
I am having trouble understanding how this benefits Wikipedia.
In particular I am concerned with the months-old spam URLs and email addresses -- things that would be instantly reverted elsewhere. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- The spam should have been hidden, and the email addresses probably should be oversighted. However, it's worth asking whether anyone has considered adding a captcha to the feedback tool. I believe we already have one for article edits, so it's not unprecedented. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 18:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- That would certainly help. Also, some filtering that doesn't allow URLs, email addresses, HTML tags or overly-long entries would be nice.
- My concern is this; if someone puts a spam URL or personal info into an article, it typically gets reverted withing a minute or so. We have bots and a bunch of patrollers watching for that. Clearly from my snapshot above, that isn't true of article feedback.
- This gets back to one of the basic aspects of Wikipedia; we manage to let anyone edit without being buried in spam and trolling or having moderators act as a gateway for every edit. Lots of other websites have found that to be impossible to pull off. Then we set up a new set of pages with thousands and thousands of new places to troll and spam with the result you see above.
- I completely agree. In about 80% of the feedback comments I have reviewed, it is clear that the users do not understand the context of what we would like. A bunch of checkboxes would go a long way to helping them understand what they should do. Maybe a text box could be present and enabled if "other" is checked. I expect that would eliminate most of the crud. —EncMstr (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- We had that with AFT4 and below. The problem was that the rating system didn't provide enough information to actually improve articles. That's a problem that any list of checkboxes would have to solve before it could claim to be a useful alternative to an essay question. I would rather not have the list of checkboxes be too long, as that would discourage people from using the tool, but that condition makes it even harder to make a list of checkboxes useful.
- I fail to see why our current anti-spam and anti-vandalism tools couldn't be adapted to work with feedback. That they haven't been yet isn't a reason to scrap the system. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 20:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Point well taken. Certainly we can get some bots going - there is zero reason why a URL should be allowed in article feedback. So, where would one go to propose Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol also patrolling article feedback? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Presumably their talkpage. I'd not we have abuse filters for most or all of the things noted above, they just don't apply backwards in time (which is true for all abuse filters). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Point well taken. Certainly we can get some bots going - there is zero reason why a URL should be allowed in article feedback. So, where would one go to propose Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol also patrolling article feedback? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I completely agree. In about 80% of the feedback comments I have reviewed, it is clear that the users do not understand the context of what we would like. A bunch of checkboxes would go a long way to helping them understand what they should do. Maybe a text box could be present and enabled if "other" is checked. I expect that would eliminate most of the crud. —EncMstr (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for putting this list together. I had a similar thought of putting together such a list and sending it to a few mailing lists. It seems that people are still unaware of the trash that this tool is collecting.
- The feedback you're seeing at Hypertext Transfer Protocol is typical of the feedback being received by this tool. You're having trouble understanding how this benefits Wikipedia because it does not. It harms Wikipedia by allowing spam and libel and other nastiness to sit around in endless backlogs. Neither the person leaving feedback nor the people who are supposed to be moderating and responding to the feedback see any benefit from this tool. It is Wikipedia's YouTube comments section. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have actually made several changes to articles based on feedback collected through AFT5, so I'm going to have to disagree with you on the lack of benefit argument. That the large amounts of spam aren't hidden is not the fault of the tool per se, but the editors who aren't flagging it. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 22:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- As I've mentioned (I think?) we're building a spam-identifier. We're also looking at the possibility of yanking a semi-automated tool over from de.wiki, although that's only in discussion stages at the moment. I wouldn't blame people for the problem, however: we can totally make their lives easier (and are looking at ways of doing it). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I think it's safe to blame people for the problem. :-)
- Your approach is to find faster ways to drain the tub. My approach is to turn off the faucet. You're smart enough to be able to look at the feedback being received by this tool and see that it's garbage. Yes, occasionally there are valuable bits in the heap, but by and large, it's garbage. I'm not sure what could more clearly demonstrate that than the opening post of this section.
- But I suppose it would be unfair for me to blame you for just following orders and sticking to your script. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- All of the qualitative research we've done disagrees with you, I'm afraid. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I love how everyone is suggesting that we shut the tool down because it's collected a lot of garbage. If we'd followed that advice ten years ago, we'd have shut down the entire Wikipedia project. I remind you that article space still collects a lot of spam links, vandalism, and garbage edits, and those edits persist in the system even after they're reverted. We have built a reactive, semi-automated system to deal with the crap in article space after it appears, and that's what we should have for AFT5. Should we have a captcha to ensure that only humans are submitting feedback? Yes. Should we get anti-spam bots and patrollers checking the feedback? Yes. Should we just abandon the idea of having a feedback tool because the beta test collected a lot of spam? Absolutely not. This is what a beta test is for, people. You find problems with the system and you deal with them. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 23:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- The justification for your "absolutely not" is not clear to me. I think we should consider whether this experiment has been a failure. Sometimes you have to know when to quit; not every experiment leads to anything of value. At the least, I think the time has come for a community-wide discussion of whether we wish to proceed with this.--Srleffler (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Okeyes has already told us that there are spam filters in place. I have not personally seen a spammy feedback comment on my watchlist in two months. You are complaining partly about problems that have already been solved, and partly about problems that could solved readily with some engineering time. Like I said, you complain about the very same problems we already deal with in article space, and we've applied quite a lot of energy and skill to overcoming them in the past 13 years. It's not like we're going to have to reinvent the wheel to solve them for AFT5. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 04:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- The justification for your "absolutely not" is not clear to me. I think we should consider whether this experiment has been a failure. Sometimes you have to know when to quit; not every experiment leads to anything of value. At the least, I think the time has come for a community-wide discussion of whether we wish to proceed with this.--Srleffler (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- At least one item should certainly be oversighted, and removed here (see "please..."). This article was clearly rather untypical, as unhelpful help pages from God knows where are linking to it, driving all sorts of people who don't want to be reading WP to it. All the same, the tool currently doesn't seem much use. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- We just ran a hand-coding study on feedback; 60 percent of it was useful in terms of "I can make an improvement to content with this" according to at least one editor. I would suggest that working on "what it currently looks like" as a way of making judgment calls is likely to lead to a gross misrepresentation of the tool's actual value: a lot of feedback was left before we developed things like reliable abuse filters. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have to agree that the idea of shutting down the feedback tool because it can be misused is puzzling, given the constant amount of vandalism we deal with in articles. It's just the nature of the beast. Comments are much more useful than the numerical ratings, which are utterly opaque: I've seen articles with hundreds of footnotes from impeccable scholarly sources score a 3-something on "Trustworthiness", and the two longest articles I watch (among the 50 longest articles on Wikipedia) each score 4.3 for "Completeness." What do users find missing? I don't know, because both articles have the old feedback tool. I don't like the idea of confining feedback to checkboxes or numerical ratings. I like unfiltered comments in the voice of actual users. Reading comments has given me insight into the level of intellectual sophistication and literacy of users who come to top- and high-importance articles in my area of interest: in short, it's pretty low. Many users seem to be fairly young students. When I see what I consider a "dumb" comment repeated several times from multiple users, it's a wake-up call on how the article is read by someone who knows nothing about the topic—and those are the kinds of readers most likely to consult Wikipedia. One of the most frequent comments is "more images," so I've been trying to make better use of Commons, and to help with categorization there. In general, the comments tool gives me a better understanding of our readers, even though my impression of the percentage of actionable comments is much lower than 40%. The tool can be improved, but it's a step forward. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- We just ran a hand-coding study on feedback; 60 percent of it was useful in terms of "I can make an improvement to content with this" according to at least one editor. I would suggest that working on "what it currently looks like" as a way of making judgment calls is likely to lead to a gross misrepresentation of the tool's actual value: a lot of feedback was left before we developed things like reliable abuse filters. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- As I've mentioned (I think?) we're building a spam-identifier. We're also looking at the possibility of yanking a semi-automated tool over from de.wiki, although that's only in discussion stages at the moment. I wouldn't blame people for the problem, however: we can totally make their lives easier (and are looking at ways of doing it). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have actually made several changes to articles based on feedback collected through AFT5, so I'm going to have to disagree with you on the lack of benefit argument. That the large amounts of spam aren't hidden is not the fault of the tool per se, but the editors who aren't flagging it. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 22:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Re: "a lot of feedback was left before we developed things like reliable abuse filters", I wasn't aware of that. Given that situation, this sounds like a good target for a community cleanup. I am already a lot more motivated to clean up articles now that I know that.
Re: "This article was clearly rather untypical", that's interesting. Usually when I see something untypical it was designed to be so. Those articles that give search terms for use on Wikimedia commons images that turn up adult content, for example; pick any search term at random and you don't see that - clearly someone crafted the "examples" with an axe to grind. In this case, I just looked at the feedback for everything on my watchlist (mostly engineering and technical articles) and saw page after page of garbage, thus my original comment.
Re: "I love how everyone is suggesting that we shut the tool down", that's a bit of a broad brush. I certainly never suggested that. I am not criticizing or praising the tool. I am just reporting a problem I ran into. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't talking about you. I actually find you to be a very reasonable person. I'm frustrated with a couple users here who seem dead set on the idea of scrapping AFT5 because of past performance, even though that doesn't represent future results (especially with a beta product). --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 03:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's the present structure that is the problem, rather than the past or the future. This thing started out as a simple multiple choice survey to collect statistics on article quality, and morphed into a tool that channels readers to leave comments in a forum where they are unlikely to be read and cannot be responded to. It essentially guides readers to comment on articles there instead of using the talk page, where they would be much more likely to get a useful response. This is a fundamental change in how Wikipedia works, that was implemented without sufficient community discussion.--Srleffler (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please see the comments from multiple users above about the usefulness of multiple choice surveys in improving articles, and see my comments about talk pages. I regard the response to AFT5 as a signal that talk pages suck from the readers' point of view, and that, combined with the fact that they're the digital equivalent of passing a note around in Alegbra class, leads me to believe that talk pages have survived long past their expiration date. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 05:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's the present structure that is the problem, rather than the past or the future. This thing started out as a simple multiple choice survey to collect statistics on article quality, and morphed into a tool that channels readers to leave comments in a forum where they are unlikely to be read and cannot be responded to. It essentially guides readers to comment on articles there instead of using the talk page, where they would be much more likely to get a useful response. This is a fundamental change in how Wikipedia works, that was implemented without sufficient community discussion.--Srleffler (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't talking about you. I actually find you to be a very reasonable person. I'm frustrated with a couple users here who seem dead set on the idea of scrapping AFT5 because of past performance, even though that doesn't represent future results (especially with a beta product). --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 03:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, what's with all the Indonesian/Malay stuff? I counted at least seven on a quick browse. Seems like a lot more spam from the region. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Aurochs: you're missing the point. It's bad enough to add a comments section to an article (particularly given that articles have had talk pages since forever), but the approach that Oliver and his team are taking here is to try to force a comments section on every article. He and his team are doing so without any consensus or indication from the community that the community is interested in receiving, moderating, or responding to this feedback. Wikipedia has no shortage of backlogs. I don't believe adding yet another backlog of comments to every article, particularly when the feedback is almost all bad, is a good idea.
Even what's considered by Oliver and his team to be "useful" or "good" feedback is almost always useless. For example, many articles include feedback along the lines of "needs an image." This will be counted as useful when Oliver and his team evaluate the feedback, but is it actually useful? Of course not. It's just basic stats manipulation to try to justify the resources wasted on this project.
Cynwolfe: I'm curious how many tens of thousands of dollars have been spent by the Wikimedia Foundation on this feedback project for us to reach the self-evident conclusion that articles are in need of more images. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- If that's all you took away from my comment, then it doesn't surprise me that you don't find the comments feedback tool useful. Even "dumb" comments can be informative, if you interpret them in a social context. Filters that address obvious abuse, responding to the same kinds of cues as bots reverting vandalism, seem sufficient to me. Editors who don't want to deal with comments don't have to. About images, I saw the "needs more images" comment repeatedly on one article I thought was sufficiently illustrated, and on another I thought didn't really need any. So yes, it was useful input. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- You understand it's not us evaluating what feedback is useful, right? It's a pool of 20-30 editors. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- McBride, you're assuming a lot here. You're assuming that "needs an image" is being coded as useful. You're assuming that Okeyes is defending this project based on some sort of script. You're assuming that this project is costing WMF a lot of money. Worst of all, you're calling a WMF employee a liar. While I appreciate your concern about the lack of community engagement, the conspiracy theories don't help your argument, and your own unilateral actions are offputting. Where was the community discussion about removing AFT5 from a bunch of articles? Finally, it is far from self-evident that some articles need more images. That's a strong benefit of the feedback tool - to get us to move outside of our intellectual shell.
- At any rate, I'm sick of having existential arguments on this page. Those of you who are in the "shut down AFT5" camp, please take your concerns to the Village Pump. You will get the benefit a wider audience and the potential for actual community action, and we will get the benefit of being able to use this page to discuss improvements to AFT5. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 19:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- The above comments hit the nail on the head. May I request that we get back to what I wanted to talk about when I started this thread, which is a discussion about what abuse filters we have/need and about organizing a cleanup effort to get rid of the spam that made it in before the filters were put in place? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- It misses most of the nails. I'll stop contributing to this discussion now (the talk page of the tool itself is circle-jerk of its supporters; film at 11).
- Aurochs: There's a tendency for people to say "but nobody complained at 'Wikipedia talk:Article feedback'!" when objections are later raised. I was doing my best to point out the numerous problems with this tool and its "feedback." --MZMcBride (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. Do you have a link to the community discussion about adding AFT5 to a bunch of articles?
- According to my reading of the WMF docs, the abuse filters for AFT5 are managed through the current edit filter interface, so whatever's been set up should be visible there (unless Okeyes has other information). A quick look tells me that there are filters for common vandalism, email addresses, libel, and various other types of spam, which have collectively gotten over 25,000 hits. Organizing patrollers for feedback is a great idea, and it should be done. But we also need to make editors in general more aware of the tool's existence so that they'll work on feedback through their watchlists. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 19:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- That's accurate, yep :). I'm not sure if the abusefilter extension actually has the capability to go backwards in time, as it were - that may not be necessary, however. One of our upcoming features is an auto-archiving system to avoid an inevitable, constant backlog, and this should hit all of the posts submitted before the abuse filters were introduced. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- There are two situations where archiving is not good enough; URLs and email addresses. Those need to be removed, not just archived. If either of those is in article feedback, it means someone is spamming or publishing personal information. There is never a legitimate reason for a URL or an email address in article feedback. We really do need to have a bot clear all of those out. Is article feedback enabled on any other wiki? If so, they should also be cleaned out. Who do I go to at WMF to request this? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- That's accurate, yep :). I'm not sure if the abusefilter extension actually has the capability to go backwards in time, as it were - that may not be necessary, however. One of our upcoming features is an auto-archiving system to avoid an inevitable, constant backlog, and this should hit all of the posts submitted before the abuse filters were introduced. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- The above comments hit the nail on the head. May I request that we get back to what I wanted to talk about when I started this thread, which is a discussion about what abuse filters we have/need and about organizing a cleanup effort to get rid of the spam that made it in before the filters were put in place? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)