IRC office hours/Office hours 2011-11-03
[00:05] <bodnotbod> < shuffles nervously > To be honest I haven't given it any thought at all. I thought I'd just see what was going on. I like to come to office hours whenever I remember to. So, er, no... no thoughts really. [blush]
[00:05] * Theo10011 (~Theo10011@wikimedia/Theo10011) Quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
[00:05] <+Ironholds> Utar, Bensin, YairRand, welcome back :)
[00:06] <Bensin> Thanks.
[00:06] <YairRand> :)
[00:06] <+DarTar> howdy
[00:06] <Utar> HI
[00:06] * Theo10011 (~Theo10011@wikimedia/Theo10011) has joined #wikimedia-office
[00:06] <+Ironholds> bodnotbod: okay! Well, if you want to give http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5 a read, that's what the devs are working on
[00:06] * @StevenW (~swalling@wikimedia/steven-walling) Quit
[00:06] <+Ironholds> so if you have any comments or suggestions for improvement, they are genuinely interested to hear them :)
[00:06] * Vito (~quassel@unaffiliated/vito) Quit (Quit: http://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.)
[00:06] <+Ironholds> and if not, you're welcome to lurk, read away, and drop a note on the talkpage if something comes to mind later.
[00:07] <+Ironholds> anyway; the business at hand - welcome back, everyone :). We've got DarTar, jorm, howief and fabriceflorin with us - is anyone not familiar with them? Should I make introductions?
[00:07] <FT2> hi howie :)
[00:07] <+fabriceflorin> Hi everyone, and particularly Bensin and Utar, whose suggestions last week were particularly useful!
[00:07] <+howief> FT2: !!
[00:08] <+howief> how are ya??
[00:08] <+jorm> hey ft2.
[00:08] <Utar> Is that table in talk page all our ideas the devs saw as good ones and are planning to use them?
[00:08] <FT2> hey jorm, how are things there
[00:08] <+Ironholds> Utar: basically :). I'll cover that in a sec.
[00:08] <+howief> the cream rose to the top
[00:08] <+jorm> i am in and out of afk, answering talk things about Athena. say my name and i'll perk up.
[00:08] <Utar> ok, will wait ofr others
[00:09] <+Ironholds> I'll take that as a "no", FT2 :P. Okay, so a brief recap of where we are so far. We held an office hours session last week to discuss the new article feedback tool, which can be found at WP:AFT5.
[00:09] <+Ironholds> I think everyone on both sides thinks it was really helpful :). The community came up with a load of suggestions the devs like, the devs' new plans were liked by the community - everything went wonderfully.
[00:10] <FT2> First observation on the feedback tool suggestions, one I made a couple of days ago : article errors and omissions are one way readers can easily be encouraged to contribute. can we trial "Was there anything you think this article should cover, that isn't in it" A specific question asking if they can spot omissions (which are hard to catch editorially)
[00:10] <+howief> FT2: yup, that's the direction we're heading
[00:10] <+Ironholds> Since then, we've continued discussions on the talkpage and users have churned out even more great ideas. I've created a little table at the top of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5 to show people what's being done with them
[00:10] <FT2> second, is it technically possible for feedback to be dumped automatiucally to the talk page, which 1/notifies interested editors, and 2/ we can give the talk page link to the reader for follow up, which may help engage them
[00:11] <+Ironholds> (I appreciate it's a wee bit basic at the moment)
[00:11] <+jorm> FT2: Things are good. Working on The Future.
[00:11] <+howief> i think FT2 can prob give this office hours
[00:11] <+Ironholds> FT2: can you hold these questions for a bit? DarTar has to leave quite soon, so we're pressing ahead and will chat later.
[00:11] <FT2> ok
[00:11] <+jorm> I can answer the feedback -> talk page bit, when it's time.
[00:11] <Utar> "churned out" sounds so cool
[00:11] <+Ironholds> (you might want to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5 as well - there's some ideas up there that might overlap with your ones)
[00:11] <+Ironholds> Utar: you and Bensin get honourable mentions :)
[00:12] <Utar> Bbut I haven't found my "really interesting idea" about Central point there :D.
[00:12] <+Ironholds> anyway; this session is just to discuss some new stuff that the devs are considering, and also to show what they've been doing with community ideas.
[00:12] <+Ironholds> and then later on I'll be doing my standard "hang around for an hour and field general suggestions" thing :)
[00:13] <Dragonfly6-7> one thing that might be useful
[00:13] <Dragonfly6-7> is if the AFT is only visible when you're not logged in
[00:13] <+Ironholds> Utar: still waiting for a reply! I'm afraid I was a bit tardy giving it to the devs
[00:13] <+Ironholds> and (perfect segue) over to the devs! fabriceflorin?
[00:13] <+fabriceflorin> Thanks, Ironholds. This week, we have been getting our developers ready on the Wikimedia servers, and the first version of the feedback form is being mocked up.
[00:14] <Utar> Ironholds: And aren't they here too?
[00:14] <+Ironholds> Utar: the devs? yep. Don't worry, your idea is logged now :)
[00:14] <+fabriceflorin> We have also fleshed out some of our feature requirements with the devs on this page:
[00:14] <+fabriceflorin> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Feature_Requirements
[00:15] <Utar> OK, i will ask again in 10 minutes. Just to be sure. :D
[00:15] <+Ironholds> Utar: cool :)
[00:15] <+fabriceflorin> This is where we are refining everyone's suggestions, and we will describe how in a moment.
[00:16] <+fabriceflorin> If you scroll down that page, you can see some of the first color mockups, such as the one called "What do you think?"
[00:17] <+fabriceflorin> The other 3 option wireframes are being specified further, based on your feedback.
[00:17] <+fabriceflorin> Our plan is to keep iterating on these designs while development gets under way ...
[00:18] <+fabriceflorin> ... and we will describe later in this chat our ideas for a workflow to integrate your recommendations
[00:18] <Utar> Ironholds: In part "Expanded Feedback" of "Feature_Requirements": "Needs more links" - does it mean external links, internal ones or both?
[00:18] <+Ironholds> Utar: that's a question for fabriceflorin :)
[00:19] * fschulenburg (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined #wikimedia-office
[00:19] * fschulenburg (~email@example.com) Quit (Changing host)
[00:19] * fschulenburg (~fschulenb@wikimedia/frank-schulenburg) has joined #wikimedia-office
[00:19] <+fabriceflorin> Note that we are primarily focusing on the feedback forms at this point, not so much on Expanded feedback or the Feedback page, which will be designed and tested a bit later (phase 1.5)
[00:20] <+fabriceflorin> Utar, we're still in early stages on the Expanded feedback form, but the intent is to encourage folks to specify what they think is missing.
[00:20] * Pathoschild (~Pathoschi@wikimedia/Shanel) Quit (Changing host)
[00:20] * Pathoschild (~Pathoschi@wikimedia/Pathoschild) has joined #wikimedia-office
[00:20] <+fabriceflorin> Today, we would like to focus more on the metrics and the community workflow for this project.
[00:20] <+howief> i think that's a good idea
[00:20] <+howief> if folks want to comment on the actual mockups
[00:20] <+howief> let's do the at the end
[00:21] <Utar> fabriceflorin: OK, I am just spilling ideas.
[00:21] <+howief> i think it's important for us to spend some time discussing how we use analytics to inform our development process
[00:21] <+fabriceflorin> But we wanted to give you a sense of what's going on the development front.
[00:21] <+howief> we would like to be more "data-informed" in our decisions
[00:21] <+Ironholds> Utar: as always, feel free to throw all suggestions at me later :).
[00:21] <+howief> dario, can you give an update on how we're planning to use analytics in our development?
[00:21] <+DarTar> sure
[00:21] <+fabriceflorin> Dario, would you like to tell us a bit more about your plans for collecting metrics so we can measure how effective the feedback forms are?
[00:21] <+DarTar> hi folks
[00:22] <+DarTar> first of two quick pointers for those of you interested in data analysis
[00:22] <+DarTar> most research done so far with v.4 is documented at: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Research
[00:22] <+DarTar> while some recent data on how much feedback we are getting right now is available here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Research/November_2011
[00:22] <+DarTar> (you don't need to check this out right now, I think this will come up later on in the discussion)
[00:23] <+DarTar> so the plan with v.5 is that will be testing different designs to try and understand how they affect the volume and quality of feedback we collect
[00:23] <+DarTar> fabriceflorin will give you further details on these designs later
[00:23] <+DarTar> for the analysis we really want to focus on two key issues:
[00:23] <+DarTar> (1) is AFT generating valuable input for the editor community
[00:23] <+DarTar> (2) is AFT effective as an engagement tool for readers
[00:24] <+DarTar> so I'll give you a quick overview of the timeline for data analysis and focus mostly on (1)
[00:24] <+DarTar> but I'll be posting further details to mw.org for those of you interested in the nitty-gritty, research questions, metrics etc.
[00:24] <+DarTar> we will deploy the tool on December 7 and we will start collecting data on that date
[00:25] <+DarTar> we will be randomly assigning users to different buckets for the purpose of A/B testing the different designs
[00:25] <+fabriceflorin> Here is a link to the schedule we are planning on for this project:
[00:25] <+fabriceflorin> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#Schedule
[00:25] <+DarTar> thanks fabriceflorin
[00:26] <+DarTar> ...so don't be surprised if the AFT version you see is different from the one your fellow editors are seeing
[00:26] <+DarTar> we will start running a number of quantitative analyses on the data collected right after the launch
[00:26] <+DarTar> we will make the data collected available on the toolserver a few days later (December 9)
[00:27] * Logan_ (~Logan@wikimedia/Logan) has joined #wikimedia-office
[00:27] <+DarTar> and the goal is to have by December 14 a simple feedback page set up to get community input on this data
[00:27] * fschulenburg (~fschulenb@wikimedia/frank-schulenburg) Quit (Quit: Linkinus - http://linkinus.com)
[00:27] <+DarTar> we want this assessment to be as transparent and collaborative as possible
[00:27] <bodnotbod> So when a user is assigned to a bucket, that means they won't keep being presented with different experimental versions through the testing period, therefore not being frightened away from feedback due to confusion?
[00:27] <+howief> correct
[00:27] <bodnotbod> Good.
[00:28] <+howief> the bucket wil be assigned on a per-user basis, so each user, once assigned, only sees one version
[00:28] <+DarTar> and that also applies to anonymous users
[00:28] <+DarTar> details on how we bucket users will be available on mw.org for those of you interested
[00:28] <+fabriceflorin> ... as long as they are logging from the same computer, that is.
[00:28] <+howief> for registered users
[00:28] <+howief> they'll get the same version even if they log in from a different computer
[00:29] <+DarTar> so, the full data collected will be made available immediately both via the toolserver and the feedback page
[00:29] <+DarTar> and we'll ask editors to help us figure out which of these designs generates the most useful/actionable input
[00:29] <+DarTar> we expect to wrap up the first phase of the data analysis by December 30
[00:29] <+howief> so imagine we have 4 versions
[00:30] <+howief> we'll apply these four versions across a sample of articles
[00:30] <+howief> and each of the four different versions will have a stream of comments associate with it
[00:30] <+howief> we hope to then work with editors to figure out which version produced the highest quality stream of comments
[00:30] * pchang (~firstname.lastname@example.org) Quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
[00:30] <Utar> interesting
[00:31] <+DarTar> next to these analyses on feedback we will also measure the effects of different designs on participation, reader engagement
[00:31] <+fabriceflorin> Here are some of the research questions that we are looking to answer through this process:
[00:31] <+fabriceflorin> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5#Metrics
[00:31] <+DarTar> but unfortunately I can't tell you more on this coz I need to leave in 30"
[00:31] <+howief> seconds??
[00:31] <+DarTar> more on mw.org
[00:31] <+DarTar> yep
[00:31] <+Ironholds> inches? :P
[00:32] <+DarTar> I'm running late already
[00:32] <+DarTar> so just to conclude, by mid January we should be able to make final recommendations on the winning design
[00:32] <+DarTar> and work in parallel on improving the design of the feedback page
[00:32] <bodnotbod> How will you select the sample of articles? I'm wondering if the meta list of "articles every Wikipedia should have" might be useful there, although maybe they would tend to be our more developed articles in any case.
[00:32] <+DarTar> that's a big question that I am happy to pass on to howief :p
[00:32] <+DarTar> gotta leave now
[00:33] <bodnotbod> Cheerio :O)
[00:33] <+fabriceflorin> By combining quantitative data with qualitative feedback from editor and from user surveys, we hope to determine which forms are most effective for converting readers into editors.
[00:33] <+howief> bye DarTar
[00:33] <+DarTar> feel free to ping me if you have specific questions on data
[00:33] <+DarTar> ciao
[00:33] <+howief> so regarding the sample
[00:33] <+howief> i think there are two inputs
[00:33] <+howief> first
[00:33] <+howief> i'm hoping we can work together to define a set of articles that represent the breadth of topic areas
[00:33] <+howief> for exmple
[00:34] <+howief> justing bieber is going to get very different types of comment than barack obama
[00:34] * +DarTar (~DarTar@wikimedia/DarTar) Quit (Quit: DarTar)
[00:34] <+fabriceflorin> Thanks, DarTar! We also plan to conduct both a short user survey in December and a full user survey in January, after readers have had a chance to use these tools for a month
[00:34] <+howief> as will an article like "aristotle" or one on the olympics
[00:34] <Utar> too late
[00:35] * Jan_eissfeldt (~Jan_eissf@p54B924AE.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #wikimedia-office
[00:35] <+howief> so i think part of what we need to do is select a sample with an appropriate amount of breadth
[00:35] <+howief> we also need to make sure that the sample we select is statistically valid, in some loose sense of the term
[00:35] <Utar> +fabriceflorin: So it will be some sort of pre-Christmas present?
[00:36] <+Ironholds> Utar: it's a survey leading to a new wizzy feature
[00:36] <+Ironholds> the gift that keeps on giving :P
[00:36] <+howief> so dario may provide some basic parameters
[00:36] <+fabriceflorin> Yes, Utar, it will be a mini-Xmas gift. But for some of us, there won't be much of a holiday :(
[00:36] <+fabriceflorin> We have lots of work to do, and we are trying to be very methodical about it ...
[00:37] <bodnotbod> Maybe this page would be useful for getting an idea of breadth: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have/Expanded
[00:37] <+fabriceflorin> ... to include lots of different data points from all our stakeholders.
[00:37] <+howief> nice
[00:37] <+fabriceflorin> Thanks, bodnodbod!
[00:37] <+howief> do people think that list would be a good starting point?
[00:37] <bodnotbod> :O)
[00:37] <Utar> +Ironholds: "wizzy" is not in the dictionary :D . But I know its taste.
[00:37] <bodnotbod> Well, you won't find Justin Biebr on there, but I think Michael Jackson is.
[00:37] <+Ironholds> Utar: hehe ;p
[00:38] <+howief> Michael Jackson will do :)
[00:38] <+Ironholds> Michael Jackson is an FA ;p
[00:38] <+howief> i'm also thinking that the stream of comments we get from the A/B test will be helpful in sanity-checking our Feedback Page design
[00:38] * Gfoley4 (~Gfoley4@wikipedia/Gfoley4) has left #wikimedia-office
[00:39] <+fabriceflorin> One of the issues we face is getting enough data on the low-traffic pages to make a valid interpretation. We will address this later today, when we discuss placement of the feedback button and/or feedback form. Let's discuss that in a moment, but I wanted to flag that issue.
[00:39] <+howief> yup
[00:39] <Utar> Yyes, try that list and look how much of rating those pages have now. Then try to divide it in several parts (for each version) containing nearly the samely ratinged.
[00:39] <+howief> let's actually talk about that now
[00:40] <+howief> since it seems like folks have had enough of analytics stuff
[00:40] <+howief> so the issue is that most of our pages get very few ratings
[00:40] <Utar> +fabriceflorin: What? Even later today???
[00:40] <+howief> take for example Born this way
[00:40] <+Ironholds> Utar: as in "in 5 minutes" ;)
[00:40] <+howief> http://toolserver.org/~dartar/aft2/?p=Born_This_Way
[00:40] <+howief> this is one of the top 20 most rated articles
[00:40] <+jorm> i dislike that album.
[00:40] <Utar> +Ironholds: Oh, that sounds better.
[00:41] <+howief> yet with the tool in the current position, it gets only a handful of ratings per day
[00:41] <+howief> same with Call of Duty: Black Ops
[00:41] <+howief> http://toolserver.org/~dartar/aft2/?p=Call_of_Duty:_Black_Ops
[00:41] <+fabriceflorin> And if you look at DarTar's recent AFT findings from November 2011, you can see that we are experiencing low response rates when the forms are at the bottom of the page:
[00:41] <+howief> these are the volumes for people who simply had to click on a bunch of stars
[00:42] <+fabriceflorin> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Research/November_2011
[00:42] <+jorm> it's the tool at the bottom of the page.
[00:42] <+howief> my expectation is that once we move to actual text comments, the number of ratings will be much lower
[00:42] <+fabriceflorin> Yes, jorm, that's our observation too.
[00:42] <+howief> so our comment streams for popular articles may have only one comment every few days
[00:42] <+jorm> the positioning is an artifact of the early testing. we didn't feel we could make it more prominant.
[00:43] <+howief> so the question is whether folks would be willing to test a more prominent placement
[00:43] <+howief> just to see what would happen
[00:43] <+Ironholds> I think Bensin, you said you were okay with a temporary one just to see what the signal:noise ratio was?
[00:43] * +jorm wanted to test a link "rate this page" at the top of the page to see what would happen but that never gelled.
[00:43] <+fabriceflorin> One possibility would be to place a vertically oriented "Feedback" button in the right margin of the browser window, as many popular sites do nowadays ...
[00:43] <Logan_> ew ew ew
[00:43] <Logan_> no
[00:44] <+fabriceflorin> ... and that would link you to the bottom of the page.
[00:44] <Utar> Damn, 137,824 bytes large article. And ours have only 3 663 bytes. Sad.
[00:44] <Bensin> Ironholds: I said it was OK if we measure how many user/readers choose to close it...
[00:44] <+Ironholds> Bensin: ahh, gotcha
[00:44] <+howief> so a collapsible tool?
[00:44] <Logan_> fabriceflorin: subtle is better - none of those floating feedback buttons on the side
[00:44] <+Ironholds> howief: that's the idea. Or a "hit x and get rid of it" tool
[00:44] <bodnotbod> The trouble with prominent placement, as I see it, as it risks a) being annoying and b) enticing people to rate before they've even read the article... ie, if it's not at *the* *end* then will people have ... for want of a better word... have *earned* their right to give feedback?
[00:44] <+fabriceflorin> This would only be for experimental purposes for a couple weeks on a subset of pages, to test whether we get better feedback with this approach.
[00:45] <+howief> i personally think feedback buttons on the side are for general site feedback whereas we're asking for feedback on a partiular article
[00:45] <Utar> Ha, finally my [feedback] idea.
[00:45] <+Ironholds> and Bensin's point was that we could use the data on how many people hit "x" to see how much the placement...well, pisses people off :P
[00:45] <+howief> yeah that makes sense -- that's something we can definitely measure
[00:45] <+fabriceflorin> Utar, can you elaborate on your feecback idea?
[00:45] <+Ironholds> fabriceflorin: this was the "adding [feedback] buttons at each section" one. I loved it :)
[00:45] <Utar> Writing....
[00:45] <YairRand> lets see, sidebar on the left, tabs on top, giant staring jimbo below the tabs, local sitenotice below that, "rate this page" on the right, infobox to the left of that, hmm... where is this "content" you speak of"?
[00:46] <+howief> brutal
[00:46] <+Ironholds> YairRand: you forgot the giant staring jorm ;)
[00:46] <+fabriceflorin> YairRand, your point is well taken, but we're only talking about a small button that's to the side ...
[00:46] <+jorm> giant staring me.
[00:46] <+fabriceflorin> ... and this would only be for a short experiment.
[00:46] <YairRand> at the moment, i see a giant jimbo. no giant staring jorm.
[00:46] <Utar> 1) As you have "Enable section editing via  links" option in preferences what about "Enable section feedbacking via [feedback] links." option?
[00:47] <+jorm> you will.
[00:47] <+howief> Utar: very interesting idea
[00:47] <Logan_> Utar: ...nobody is going to enable that, though
[00:47] <+jorm> one of the problems with that is we have no context of a "section".
[00:47] <+jorm> there are no identifiers. so it's not something that we can easily do.
[00:47] <+howief> that would enable users to provide feedback on more specific pieces of content (vs. the whole article)
[00:47] <Utar> 2) So if you are an registered user you can use this to have direct link to feedback area even from long articles.
[00:47] <+jorm> (otherwise, you'd have seen "watch this section" long ago)
[00:47] <+fabriceflorin> My biggest concern with having the form at the bottom is that we may be collecting skewed data from a small sample of readers, because casual readers do not scroll down to the bottom of a page.
[00:48] <YairRand> (oh and I forgot giant L1 header, cleanup notices, "this redirects here" and other hatnotes, etc.)
[00:48] <+Ironholds> fabriceflorin: particularly since it doesn't even involve articles, at the bottom
[00:48] <+Ironholds> it's references, and external links, and categories
[00:48] <Logan_> YairRand: http://www.readability.com/
[00:48] <+Ironholds> even most people who read all the actual article don't need to get all the way to the bottom to do so.
[00:48] <+fabriceflorin> Thanks, Utar, I find your idea really interesting, for a number of reasons ...
[00:49] <+fabriceflorin> first, it is more closely associated with the content ... and second, it helps us find out which section the user is giving feedback on.
[00:49] <Logan_> what about just a lightbulb tab, akin to the WikiLove tab
[00:49] <Utar> 3) As RJHall proposed Version linking, feedback with links to diff, this can use link to part of article which you are feedbacking.
[00:49] <YairRand> ah, an "I've got an idea" icon
[00:49] <+jorm> we have gotten a lot of pushback about introducing tabs.
[00:49] <Utar> 4) probably THE END
[00:49] <Utar> Reading....
[00:50] <bodnotbod> Fabrice, I agree that a lot of peope won't reach the bottom *but!* I think that once users get used to the idea that that's where the feedback stuff always is, then they will know to scroll to it if they want to. A bit like you always know the "comments" section is at the bottom of a blog post. So, a user might not see one for a while and may meet it the first time only by accident, but once they do they will know where t
[00:50] <+fabriceflorin> Interesting idea, Logan. A lightbulb icon could take up less space. But some folks may not know what it means, so a text label may be more helpful.
[00:50] <FT2> a lot of forums have a "quick quote" option. If the user has highlighted text can that be noted as the subject of their comment
[00:50] <+howief> google has something like that
[00:50] <Bensin> +1 on bodnotbod
[00:51] <+howief> let's go back to this section idea
[00:51] <Utar> Logan_: I will.
[00:51] <+howief> i think it's interesting
[00:51] <+howief> but the identifier problem
[00:51] <+fabriceflorin> Yes, we are considering ways to highlight or quote the phrase you are commenting on ... but that could be more involved on the development side, and could take up more room in the form, depending on how we implement it.
[00:52] <+howief> what if in the Feedback Page we simply included the section that the comment came from
[00:52] <+howief> without worrying about whether this section gets changed/deleted/moved
[00:52] <YairRand> have people seen User:EpochFail/Wikignome?
[00:53] <+howief> yup
[00:53] <Logan_> there are way too many associated issues with including feedback links for each section - blacklisting "External links," etc., maybe only doing Level 2 headers...
[00:53] <+fabriceflorin> If we were to adopt Utar's idea, we could easily identify where the comment came from, without requiring more user interface widget. Very practical ...
[00:53] <+Ironholds> Logan_: sorry?
[00:53] <Logan_> it's better to just have one centralized feedback link, wherever it is located
[00:53] <+Ironholds> why would the blacklisting be a problem?
[00:54] <Logan_> if implemented on all languages
[00:54] <Logan_> well, I guess we're only talking about enwiki here
[00:54] <Utar> NOT at all
[00:55] <Utar> And why not to feedback Extranal links section?
[00:55] <+fabriceflorin> Good point, bodnotbod, though it doesn't solve the current problem of too few comments to be able to measure the effectiveness of the tool on low-traffic articles. So we need at least a temporary solution ...
[00:56] <Logan_> Utar: I think those kinds of comments belong on the talk page, no?
[00:56] <Utar> Logan, I can make dozens of those cries: "Too few", "Doesn't work", "It wants me to pay for that text"......
[00:57] <Utar> Logan, as I see it, all those comments we get from AFT could also be written to talk pages. This is just the way to make it easy for readers.
[00:57] <Logan_> but why not integrate the feedback function with the talk page so that it is all centralized?
[00:58] <+Ironholds> Logan_: can we discuss this after the meeting? We have a wee bit more to get through, and howief, jorm and fabriceflorin are all (kindly) staying late at work to chat
[00:58] <+jorm> spammy spam spam.
[00:58] <Utar> Thats is one way the dev are going to, isn't it, Ironholds?
[00:58] <+Ironholds> so I don't want to nab more of their time than I have to
[00:58] <+jorm> that's why.
[00:58] <+fabriceflorin> We would definitely like to integrate the feedback output on the talk page, Logan, and will discuss this in future calls, once designs for the feedback page are a bit more mature.
[00:58] <+Ironholds> Utar: complete integration? That's one of the open issues - how things are integrated.
[00:58] <Logan_> Ironholds: yes master ;P
[00:59] <+Ironholds> Logan_: good boy ;p
[00:59] <Utar> at last
[00:59] <+Ironholds> okay, so! Next up - community feedback opportunities
[00:59] <+Ironholds> so, like I mentioned earlier, we had office hours, we're talking things through on the talkpage
[00:59] <+fabriceflorin> We could use an entire session for feedback page and talk page integration issues, and definitely want to do this later this month.
[00:59] <+Ironholds> we're hopefully going to hold more office hours sessions, although hopefully at an earlier time :P
[01:00] <Utar> Could possibly another IRC conferation be held in different time?
[01:00] <Utar> oh, yes
[01:00] <+Ironholds> Utar: definitely :).
[01:00] <+fabriceflorin> What time would be better for you, Utar?
[01:00] <Utar> Writing so slowly....
[01:00] <+Ironholds> so if you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#Schedule, you'll see the various points at which the community can jump in, test stuff and provide feedback. The soonest after this is early December, when there'll be lots of whizzy prototypes to hopefully play around with :)
[01:01] <+Ironholds> in the meantime we'll continue the discussions on talkpages and elsewhere, churning out ideas for the devs to fool around with, amending existing ones, so on and so forth
[01:01] <+Ironholds> so even during periods not specifically marked as "editors, jump in here!" we can all still jump in :)
[01:02] <Utar> I am from Central Europe so here its midnight now. Ending at 23:00 UTC would be a great win.
[01:02] <+Ironholds> Utar: amen. Western Europe, here ;P
[01:02] <+fabriceflorin> Thanks, Utar.
[01:02] <+fabriceflorin> W
[01:02] <+Ironholds> we also want to put together a little workgroup of maybe 8 people? This'd be people who can give a couple of hours a week, max, to chat to the developers about their opinions or ideas or feelings about the designs in a bit more detail than we can do just via text
[01:03] <bodnotbod> Just like to say that I'm impressed by what I am hearing so far. Also: be prepared... whenever changes are made to the interface there is an uproar along the lines of "there was no community consensus for this!" so be warned that you are doing an utterly thankless task ;O)
[01:03] <+Ironholds> I've got a couple of names identified as must-haves (you know who you are!) but if anyone wants to sign up for that and can spare the time, give me a shout.
[01:03] <Utar> At least that summer time finally ended - we were UTC+2 hours.
[01:03] <+fabriceflorin> We're thinking of alternating times so both europeans and americans can have an ideal time. So next time, let's make it work for europeans!
[01:03] <+Ironholds> bodnotbod: not entirely thankless! Wait, do you mean editors or devs? :P
[01:03] <Utar> we know
[01:03] <+howief> asians too!
[01:03] <Logan_> bodnotbod: Well, that's inevitable. ;P
[01:04] <Utar> What about Antarctic?
[01:04] <Utar> And ISS?
[01:04] <Utar> ISS somebody here from ISS?
[01:04] <Logan_> international space station?
[01:04] <Logan_> oh
[01:05] <bodnotbod> Ironholds... My remark was addressed to anyone who will have their fingerprints on the feedback tool. So the devs and anyone who supports their changes, I guess. But don't worry, nobody ever died from instigating a hostile thread on the Foundation mailing list.
[01:05] <+jorm> oh, we're well aware of the whole "no consensus = no change" mindset.
[01:05] <+Ironholds> bodnotbod: it's a long-standing thing. At least nobody can complain the devs never told anyone about the change now ;)
[01:05] <+Ironholds> Utar: Puget Sound, also
[01:05] <+fabriceflorin> FYI, here is a quick diagram of how we hope to incorporate community feedback into the development process:
[01:06] <+fabriceflorin> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/AFT-V5-Communication-Funnel-11-03.png
[01:06] <+Ironholds> we have some hardcore contributors there
[01:06] * Retrieving #wikimedia-office modes...
[01:06] * PhancyPhysicist (~email@example.com) Quit (Remote host closed the connection)
[01:06] <+howief> the basic idea here is that the talk page is the main point of discussion
[01:06] <Theo10011> heya bodnotbod
[01:06] <Logan_> Ironholds: what, the seals?
[01:06] <Theo10011> long time no see.
[01:06] <Utar> Ok, on the other side, man must sometimes do something for progress of mankind.
[01:06] * PhancyPhysicist (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined #wikimedia-office
[01:06] <+Ironholds> Logan_: the ensealclopedia anyone can edit.
[01:06] <+howief> if folks are interested in peaking into the sausage factory
[01:06] <+fabriceflorin> Yes, the goal is to create a "communication funnel" that starts with community feedback from the AFT V5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5, where actionable items would be summarized at the top of the page, then prioritized into phases on this http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Ideas_log, and finally turned into features on our
[01:06] <+fabriceflorin> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Feature_Requirements, which our developers will implement in phases 1.0 and 1.5.
[01:07] <Logan_> Ironholds: I support that rebranding.
[01:07] <+howief> they can check out the links fabriceflorin just posted
[01:07] <bodnotbod> Hi Theo :O) Yes, I had been indisposed for a while and absent from Wiki-things. Trying to get back into regular contributions now.
[01:07] <+Ironholds> and if you haven't already seen it - the cliff's notes version is now at the top of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5
[01:07] <Theo10011> cool, wb :)
[01:07] <+Ironholds> there's a little box listing all the community suggestions, where they were discussed, who by and what the foundation is doing with them
[01:08] <+fabriceflorin> This is just an idea for workflow, and we're happy to tweak it based on your feedback.
[01:08] <+Ironholds> so that's going to be a good place to look and see what happened to your idea without having to go through the various links :)
[01:08] <Logan_> fabriceflorin: shouldn't some of this be happening on Meta if it's (eventually) for all of the WMF wikis?
[01:08] <+howief> well, yes
[01:08] <+howief> kind of
[01:09] <+Ironholds> Logan_: I know the answer!
[01:09] <Utar> +Ironholds: "there's a little box listing all the community suggestions" - Oh really, all of them?
[01:09] <+Ironholds> Utar: except the ones I forgot to submit until yesterday :P
[01:09] <Logan_> Ironholds: what's the answer? :P
[01:10] <+Ironholds> Logan_: so, eventually it'll hopefully go to all the wikis, and if and when that happens, any cultural issues can be resolved then. But at the moment it's going to be rolled out primarily on enwiki, so we're focusing the discussion there
[01:10] <Logan_> ah, okay, makes sense
[01:10] <+Ironholds> because editors are more comfortable discussing things on their "home" project than jumping between lots of different projects
[01:10] <+Ironholds> same reason we're not discussing it on say, mediawiki :)
[01:10] <Utar> +Ironholds: But otherwise well done.
[01:10] <+fabriceflorin> If you guys like this process, we will flesh out that little table on the Talk page to include a lot more of community ideas over time.
[01:10] <+Ironholds> Utar: I have now let him know ;p
[01:11] <+Ironholds> Bensin: you've gone all quiet!
[01:12] <Utar> Logan_: But parts of the system, as you can see here, are outsourced with user from another language versions, not only English one.
[01:12] <+howief> hey all -- i have to jet
[01:12] <Utar> ...with users...
[01:12] <+fabriceflorin> But please be patient, because right now all our time is taken up building the first versions of the feedback form, and many of your ideas are more related to the feedback page, which we're going to take on in earnest later this month.
[01:12] <+howief> but i think Ironholds is going to stay on for a bit
[01:12] <+howief> talk to everyone at the next office hours
[01:12] <+Ironholds> I am! Because I have no lif- I mean, uhh, sleep schedule.
[01:12] <+Ironholds> thanks, howie! :)
[01:12] <bodnotbod> Bye Howie.
[01:12] <Logan_> see you howie
[01:12] * +howief (~email@example.com) Quit (Quit: howief)
[01:13] <+fabriceflorin> But I have to say I'm really impressed with the quality of the thinking and everyone's contributions. It's intellectually stimulating and I look forward to doing great work together!
[01:13] * +jorm confused; looks up "sleep" on wikipedia; still confused.
[01:13] <+jorm> that seems like a delicious fiction.
[01:13] <+Ironholds> jorm: it's that thing you do when you're not rockin' the UX world
[01:13] <Utar> "because editors...." - some of them not
[01:13] <+Ironholds> Utar: this is true
[01:14] <+Ironholds> but the problem is, if we limit it to "users who are interested *and are okay with switching wikis*" instead of "users who are interested", we might not be getting representative feedback
[01:14] <Logan_> jorm: there are some great photos on commons to augment your knowledge of sleep
[01:14] <+jorm> i'm scared to search for *anything* on commons.
[01:14] <bodnotbod> I suppose I'm trying to think of my own encounters with feedback requests from other sites. I confess I do usually close them without giving any. Generally I may only be on a site for about a minute to gather up the one fact I wanted. It means I'm far from inclined to give feedback, not least because I don't feel I know the site well enough to comment meaningfully on it. It would be different if it were a site I used ever
[01:14] <Utar> jorm: Huh, you don't have article "Sleep" here? Oh, really?
[01:14] <Bensin> Ironholds: I'm still trying to figure out if it is the talk that's making me queasy, or if it's the juice I'm drinking ;-)
[01:14] <Logan_> jorm: 84 pictures in the "Sleeping men" category
[01:14] <Bensin> Ironholds: My computer is acting up so I'll return later with some comments.
[01:14] <Logan_> :P
[01:14] <+Ironholds> Bensin: ooh dear :(. Hopefully the talk!
[01:15] <+Ironholds> okay, cool :). I think fabriceflorin has to go now, so it'll just be me
[01:15] <+Ironholds> Logan_: sure, but it's commons. 84 pictures of men sleeping. 3 involve bedclothes.
[01:15] <Logan_> hah
[01:15] <Utar> +Ironholds: "but the problem is, if...." ~Thats ok with me.
[01:15] <+fabriceflorin> Hi Bensin, sorry to hear about your computer, would love to hear more from you.
[01:15] <Utar> and 81 are without it?
[01:16] <+Ironholds> Utar: that's fair enough. Unfortunately when trying to design a tool that editors who care will be happy with, we have to focus on getting editors who care
[01:16] <+Ironholds> Utar: exactly :P
[01:16] <Bensin> fabriceflorin: Nothing a restart won't fix :-)999999
[01:16] <+Ironholds> (not just a particular subset of editors who care)
[01:16] <+fabriceflorin> Unfortunately, I need to head out now, but I have a question for the group: would you like to participate in these chats once a week? or every two weeks?
[01:17] <Utar> +Ironholds: As I said, that's ok with me. Just jamming Logan_ again.
[01:17] <+Ironholds> Utar: ahhh ;p
[01:17] <bodnotbod> I have no strong views on frequency of these chats, Fabrice. I suspect I'll feel pretty happy using the wiki-pages.
[01:18] <+Ironholds> can I suggest once a week, but alternating timezones?
[01:18] <+Ironholds> so next week, earlier to benefit european editors. Week after, later so americans can participate
[01:18] <+Ironholds> is that okay with people?
[01:18] * J-Ponyo (~chatzilla@wikipedia/Ponyo) Quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.87 [Firefox 7.0.1/20110928134238])
[01:18] <Bensin> Sounds OK.
[01:18] <Utar> and then ISS and Puget Sound
[01:18] <Logan_> Support ~~~~
[01:19] <+fabriceflorin> Cool. That plan works for me too, Ironholds.
[01:19] <+Ironholds> Utar: that'll be every 5th sunday under the light of the full moon :P
[01:19] <Utar> We can make that time on that talk page
[01:19] <+Ironholds> okay, so I think we're all good with that. fabriceflorin, don't let us keep you from sleep :P
[01:20] <+jorm> i gotta drop out but i'll continue to lurk.
[01:20] <+jorm> laters.
[01:20] <+Ironholds> jorm: take care!
[01:20] <Logan_> adios jorm
[01:20] <Utar> OH, an article. Somebobody has to be really faaast. Maybe jorm?
[01:20] <Utar> bye
[01:20] <bodnotbod> I'm heading off now too as it is 1.20am here in London. :o/ Nice to meet the team. I come away with positive feelings about the project :O)
[01:20] <+fabriceflorin> Sounds great. Thanks again, everyone, for your thoughtful recommendations. It really makes our job a lot easier to have all this brain power to help us figure out some of these complex issues.�!
[01:20] <+Ironholds> bodnotbod: I'm a Londoner too :D
[01:21] <+Ironholds> bodnotbod: take care! poke your head in on the talkpage whenever you want - your comments have been very insightful so far :)
[01:21] <Utar> bodnotbod, don't smile - 2:20, Czech Republic
[01:21] <+fabriceflorin> Thanks, bodnotbod, Logan, Utar, Bensin, and everyone else. Speak to you all again next week!
[01:21] * +Ironholds waves fabriceflorin off
[01:21] <Logan_> bye fabriceflorin :)
[01:21] <Utar> BYe , see you soon.
[01:21] <Utar> Who first?
[01:21] <bodnotbod> Ah! A fellow Londoner! Thanks Ironholds... glad to be of service :O) Cheerio. G'night.
[01:21] <+Ironholds> (I will, of course, be staying around. and yawning.)
[01:21] * bodnotbod (4f4e91f6@gateway/web/freenode/ip.184.108.40.206) Quit
[01:22] <Utar> so bye
[01:22] <Utar> finally
[01:22] <+Ironholds> heheh
[01:22] * Utar (50fa01ee@gateway/web/freenode/ip.220.127.116.11) Quit (Quit: Page closed)
[01:22] * ChanServ sets mode: +o Theo10011
[01:22] <@Theo10011> Done guys?
[01:22] <Bensin> Ironholds: I have thought... DarTar said "for the analysis we really want to focus on two key issues". I think it would be good if they also took reader experience into consideration...
[01:22] <+Ironholds> Theo10011: nope!
[01:22] <+Ironholds> I'll be around for another hour
[01:23] <+fabriceflorin> And kudos to Ironholds for his masterful orchestration of this community chat! Makes it all soo much more pleasant to be working with you in this process!
[01:23] <+Ironholds> Bensin: can you explain further?
[01:23] <+fabriceflorin> OK, bye for now!
[01:23] <@Theo10011> bye
[01:23] <Bensin> Ironholds: The placing of the tool. The obtrusiveness we talked about on the talk page.
[01:23] * Theo10011 sets mode: -v fabriceflorin
[01:23] <+Ironholds> Bensin: that's definitely going to be a consideration, don't worry :)
[01:23] * fabriceflorin (~firstname.lastname@example.org) Quit (Quit: fabriceflorin)
[01:23] <+Ironholds> so, the two factors he was talking about were
[01:24] <+Ironholds> "how many bits of useful commentary do we get"
[01:24] * ChanServ sets mode: -o Theo10011
[01:24] <+Ironholds> and "how many people follow through and try to edit"
[01:24] <Bensin> Right
[01:24] <+Ironholds> obviously if readers hate the placement, BOTH numbers will come up crappy
[01:24] <+Ironholds> (for want of a better word)
[01:24] <Bensin> Not necessarily.
[01:24] <+Ironholds> or we'll get lots of comments along the lines of "WHAT THE HELL IS THIS BOX?" which is a hint
[01:24] <+Ironholds> Bensin: they're fairly pro- your "close button" idea. I'll follow up with them tomorrow and see how they plan on weaving it in :) Would that help?
[01:25] <+Ironholds> (okay, I'll be back in 30 seconds. I need caffeine and a massive bar of chocolate)
[01:25] <Bensin> Very much :-) Thank you.
[01:26] <Bensin> ... Or maybe you just need sleep. :-)
[01:26] <+Ironholds> dammit, where is my cocoa
[01:26] <+Ironholds> (back in a tick)
[01:27] <Bensin> (... and I need to stop drinking that juice.)
[01:28] * PhancyPhysicist (~email@example.com) Quit (Remote host closed the connection)
[01:29] <+Ironholds> okay, back, with caffeine!
[01:29] <+Ironholds> and no chocolate. I'll hunt down that bar and bite its head off.
[01:29] <+Ironholds> so, does anyone have general questions or ideas? I have one thing I think it's really important to talk about, but I'm happy to hold off until people have cleared their minds of everything :)
[01:30] * PhancyPhysicist (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined #wikimedia-office
[01:30] <Bensin> I have a thought for the comments page.
[01:30] <+Ironholds> okay?
[01:30] <Bensin> We talked about users being able to +1 others' comments.
[01:31] * +Ironholds nods
[01:31] <Dragonfly6-7> it's still very easily gamed
[01:31] <+Ironholds> (or -1, of course)
[01:31] <+Ironholds> Dragonfly6-7: not as easily. there are content controls in to make it easy to scrap obviously unproductive-but-gamed posts.
[01:31] <Bensin> It would be good if editors who later review the comments are able to "merge" suggestions so that a suggestion is marked as "done" and that the comment it is merged to is +1:ed.
[01:32] <+Ironholds> Bensin: can you explain further?
[01:32] <+Ironholds> (sorry to sound dense)
[01:32] <Bensin> If comment 1 is "Article needs copyediting" and comment 2 is "I think someone should check spelling."
[01:33] <+Ironholds> ahh
[01:33] <+Ironholds> then they should be mergable, and such an action should boost the priority of the concern?
[01:33] <Bensin> ... and comment 2 is "merged" to comment 1. Then comment 2 is marked as "done" and comment 1 gets a +1.
[01:33] <Bensin> Exactly!
[01:34] <Bensin> Well put!
[01:34] <+Ironholds> I like :). Personally I'd advocate just merging the tickets and that adding a +1 - having "it needs copyediting" marked as "done" may convince editors that the +1d post is an old one that doesn't need to be dealt with
[01:35] <+Ironholds> Bensin: oh, something that may amuse you
[01:35] <+Ironholds> I'm not sure if it's deliberate and just a typo, but take a look at the second post on http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Article-Feedback-Page-Wireframe-Moderation-V5-11-01.png and who added it :P
[01:35] <+Ironholds> *who last edited it
[01:35] <Bensin> hehe
[01:36] <+Ironholds> but I love the idea! I'll pass it on :)
[01:36] <+Ironholds> can I segue to what I wanted to discuss? If you have other ideas, I'd love to hear them first
[01:36] <+Ironholds> but I don't want to keep you or Logan_ up too late. I'm meant to be helping the community and all, not making them die from sleep deprivation ;p
[01:36] <Logan_> it's only 9:36 PM here
[01:37] <Bensin> No, you go ahead. I think I'm done.
[01:37] <Logan_> you should be the one worried about staying up too late :P
[01:37] <+Ironholds> pfft. I enjoy these sessions.
[01:37] <+Ironholds> I have a job I love. What would I complain? "oh, I get to do an activity I enjoy...but at odd hours" ;p
[01:37] <+Ironholds> okay, so one of the unresolved issues for the devs is "comment access"
[01:38] <+Ironholds> which as I understand it is technical speak for "who gets to up- and down-vote and see the comments page as a whole?"
[01:38] <+Ironholds> now, the concerns about letting everyone see it are that (1) it makes it easier to game and (2) there might be a bit of risk if anonymous people are commenting on controverisal topics
[01:38] <+Ironholds> (same with everyone voting)
[01:39] <+Ironholds> personally, my opinion is that these aren't major issues. The system can be designed to mitigate gaming, and IP addresses are visible *editing*, let alone just expressing a comment about copyediting or the like.
[01:39] <Logan_> I would say let everyone vote and everyone see the comments
[01:39] <+Ironholds> I think the comments page should be open to all
[01:39] * brion (~brion@wikipedia/pdpc.professional.brion) Quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
[01:39] <+Ironholds> Logan_: that's my next question ("what are your opinions") dealt with :P
[01:39] <+Ironholds> Bensin, your thoughts?
[01:39] <Logan_> if you only let registered users vote, you're going to get the people who would just be posting on the talk page anyway
[01:39] <Logan_> oh :P
[01:39] <+Ironholds> Logan_: agreed, totally
[01:40] <+Ironholds> plus, I can't see the pickup for the voting feature being too high. I mean, most registered users are editors, so if they see a comment they're likely to either fix the problem or just ignore it
[01:40] <+Ironholds> if there are posts that are clearly gamed and clearly illegitimate, they can just be marked "nope, not a real concern" and hidden.
[01:41] <Logan_> although, well, we'd have to make sure that BLP vios don't stay on there too much
[01:41] <+Ironholds> yeah
[01:41] <Logan_> if somebody comments negatively on the subject of the article
[01:41] <+Ironholds> I need to remember to poke fabrice about that, actually - as well as hiding stuff (which is built in) whatamIdoing suggested we NOINDEX all comments pages
[01:41] <+Ironholds> which I think is a great idea
[01:41] <Logan_> yes, yes, definitely
[01:41] <Logan_> don't want these showing up in Google
[01:41] <+Ironholds> amen
[01:42] <+Ironholds> Bensin, what are your thoughts? Still warring with orange juice? :P
[01:42] <Bensin> Ironholds: I think the concern is legit, but that transparency is preferable when possible. We work like this on all our projects. Also, there'll be no +1:ing without readers seeing each other's comments.
[01:42] <+Ironholds> Bensin: agreed
[01:43] <+Ironholds> like I said, I think most registered people are going to be editors. the up- and down-voting won't be very useful if targeted at a group who can mostly fix the problem themselves :)
[01:43] <Bensin> True.
[01:44] <+Ironholds> okay, awesome! that was less contentious than I expected :P
[01:44] <+Ironholds> so, does anyone have any other random ideas or suggestions? I'm all ears
[01:45] * Jan_eissfeldt (~Jan_eissf@p54B924AE.dip.t-dialin.net) Quit (Quit: Leaving.)
[01:45] <Bensin> I think we should structure the talk page better... So to better filter suggestions.
[01:45] * +Ironholds nods
[01:46] <+Ironholds> actually, what do people think about that? Should comments be found on the talkpage, or on a subpage, or transcluded into the talkpage, or...?
[01:46] <Logan_> Wait, which comments are we talking about? The ones for the actual project?
[01:46] <Bensin> I was talking about our talk page for the AFT v5 :-)
[01:47] <Bensin> Sorry for my ambiguity...
[01:47] <+Ironholds> Bensin: ahhhh
[01:47] <+Ironholds> Logan_: no, the ones submitted through the AFT
[01:47] <+Ironholds> Bensin: I think the plan is the following
[01:47] <+Ironholds> tomorrow morning, I'm going to post a section mentioning all the things that are as-yet unresolved (who can view feedback, for example)
[01:48] <+Ironholds> and see if that prompts more focused, structured discussion
[01:48] <+Ironholds> I also need to start archiving the talkpage at some point. The little status box at the top makes keeping general discussions around an unnecessary clog, although I need to tweak that
[01:48] <+Ironholds> but the focus is definitely going to be moving to something with more structure
[01:48] <Logan_> Where is this talk page located, again?
[01:49] <+Ironholds> Logan_: WP:AFT5's talkpage :)
[01:49] <Logan_> ah :
[01:50] <+Ironholds> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5
[01:50] <+Ironholds> good lord, it's at 70kb
[01:50] <+Ironholds> yes, archiving is a to-do
[01:50] * Logan_ watchlists
[01:50] <Logan_> I can put ClueBot III on there, if that's necessary
[01:51] <Logan_> (the archiving ClueBot)
[01:51] <+Ironholds> Logan_: 95 percent of housewives rate him as better than the nearest non-branded competitor! :D
[01:51] <Logan_> haha :D
[01:52] <Logan_> I guess manual labor is sometimes a virtue. :P
[01:52] <+Ironholds> okay, one final point then - where should the comments page go? We could put it in the talkpage, but that might cause unnecessary bulking and slow loading times (and make things highly complex). Or, we could have it as a subpage, but with a clear and obvious link from the talkpage?
[01:52] <Logan_> Comments for each article, you mean?
[01:53] * preilly (~WMF27@wikipedia/preilly) Quit (Quit: preilly)
[01:53] <+Ironholds> Logan_: yeah. So, say, Justin Bieber. Should the comments be at Talk:Justin Bieber or Talk:JustinBieber/Feedback?
[01:53] <Logan_> ah
[01:53] <Logan_> well, hmm...
[01:54] <Logan_> it could be one of those lazy load kind of things, where it only loads if you click the "Show comments" link on the talk page
[01:54] <Logan_> which would be a bit more centralized than having a separate page for comments
[01:54] <+Ironholds> Logan_: that'd be a great middle ground! :)
[01:54] <+Ironholds> Bensin, your thoughts?
[01:54] <Bensin> I think I like that too.
[01:55] <+Ironholds> neat! The two biggest open issues, and both (tentatively) resolved
[01:55] <Bensin> They'd still be stored on a sub page, though.
[01:55] <+Ironholds> yeah :)
[01:55] <+Ironholds> and then loaded if and only if someone wants them. I'll need to find out if that's a technically possible and/or desireable idea, but I love the concept
[01:56] <Logan_> thanks :)
[01:56] <Bensin> Me too!
[01:56] <Logan_> it can be done with Ajax
[01:56] <+Ironholds> Logan_: then it probably is :P. Me no codemonkey, though, so I need to cross the Ts
[01:56] <Logan_> heh, of course
[01:57] <+Ironholds> okay, so I'm going to take these ideas, write them up tomorrow (I'm too tired to hold a pen at the moment) and then find out what the devs think. Thank you both for your contributions - these sessions are really impressing me with the quality of the ideas that come out of them
[01:57] <+Ironholds> (and I say that as an editor who has been sitting in the community for six years)
[01:57] <Bensin> Perhaps the top 2 voted comments are always visible...
[01:58] <Logan_> like on YouTube
[01:58] * Dragonfly6-7 (~email@example.com) has left #wikimedia-office
[01:58] <Bensin> Right.
[01:58] <YairRand> with an admin tool to hide them
[01:58] <Logan_> Ironholds: no problem, I have enjoyed this as well
[01:59] <+Ironholds> Logan_: awesome!
[01:59] <+Ironholds> Bensin: that'd be good! That way we don't risk hiding the more-recent-and-therefore-less-supported-but-still-good ideas
[01:59] <+Ironholds> and then if they're hidden or marked "done", they drop off
[01:59] <Bensin> Sweet!
[01:59] <+Ironholds> see, this is what I meant by "quality of the ideas"
[01:59] <+Ironholds> I'll throw that at the devs too. Okay, thanks all for your work :)
[02:00] <+Ironholds> YairRand, Logan_, I'll see you at the talkpage! Bensin, you're already there ;)
[02:00] <+Ironholds> night everyone
[02:00] <Logan_> yep, night :)
Session Close: Fri Nov 04 02:00:15 2011