IRC office hours/Office hours 2012-11-29
IRC chat log with Oliver Keyes and Fabrice Florin, to talk about improvements to the moderation tools for Article Feedback v5.
[1:29pm] Ironholds: hey, fabriceflorin!
[1:29pm] YairRand joined the chat room.
[1:30pm] Ironholds: okay, office hours starting. Who do we have?
[1:30pm] Callanecc: me
[1:30pm] DarTar: hey AFTers
[1:30pm] JohnLewis: Me
[1:30pm] fabriceflorin_: Hello Callanecc , nice to meet you! Thanks for your good work on the feedback guidelines …
[1:30pm] GorillaWarfare: Me!
[1:30pm] ToAruShiroiNeko: so aft is the feedback tool right?
[1:31pm] TBloemink: Oh, AFT5
[1:31pm] Callanecc: fabriceflorin_: no worries - hopefully the RFC will be coming soon
[1:31pm] • TBloemink listens
[1:31pm] fabriceflorin_: Hi GorillaWarfare, good to meet you again!
[1:31pm] TBloemink: I knew this was a good channel to idle in
[1:31pm] Ironholds: ToAruShiroiNeko: it is
[1:31pm] GorillaWarfare: Hi Fabrice
[1:31pm] fabriceflorin_: Yes, TBloemink, this chat is about the Article Feedback Tool.
[1:31pm] ToAruShiroiNeko: I have a quesiton on that, a few weeks ago someone posted personal info in an article as feedback which was oversight material
[1:31pm] fabriceflorin left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
[1:31pm] You are now known as fabriceflorin.
[1:32pm] ToAruShiroiNeko: it had taken some effort to remove it I believe
[1:32pm] ToAruShiroiNeko: what is being done in regards to the abuse of the feedback tool?
[1:32pm] Ironholds: ToAruShiroiNeko: a pile of stuff - including some things we're about to explain
[1:32pm] Ironholds: and it shouldn't be some effort - there's a "request oversight" button
[1:32pm] qgil_ joined the chat room.
[1:33pm] Callanecc: And I only have to click two buttons
[1:33pm] JohnLewis: Nice Oliver. Cant wait to hear the in development stuff
[1:33pm] AlexJFox joined the chat room.
[1:33pm] fabriceflorin: So, for the past couple months, we have been testing Article Feedback on 10% of English Wikipedia and asking editors how we can improve this tool.
[1:33pm] ToAruShiroiNeko: are there plans to have restrictions on how the tool can be used? like semi protecting it and etc when needed?
[1:33pm] Utar joined the chat room.
[1:33pm] Callanecc: ToAruShiroiNeko: already are
[1:33pm] ToAruShiroiNeko: ah good
[1:34pm] • Utar docking...
[1:34pm] fabriceflorin: One thing we have heard from editors is that moderating feedback takes up a lot of time. So we have been working on a number of features to make it easier to moderate this feedback.
[1:34pm] ToAruShiroiNeko: The Utar has docked on dockbay 73
[1:35pm] Ironholds: ToAruShiroiNeko: that already exists
[1:35pm] TBloemink left the chat room. (Quit: So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Operator from a pure heart.)
[1:35pm] Ironholds: Utar!
[1:35pm] fabriceflorin: In today's chat, we'd like to ask your advice on 6 features which we think could make it easier to moderate feedback -- and which could potentially reduce the editor workload.
[1:35pm] ReaperEternal: Can you make it so we can disable posting feedback on pages that constantly get flooded with garbage?
[1:35pm] Callanecc: ReaperEternal: the protection interface has the option
[1:35pm] Callanecc: ReaperEternal: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FRG#Feedback_disabling
[1:35pm] • Utar says hello to Dock Officer, ToAruShiroiNeko
[1:35pm] fabriceflorin: These proposed new features aim to reduce the editor workload through a variety of ways (e.g.: by hiding bad feedback, surfacing good feedback, making the moderation tools easier to use, and/or reminding editors they are not required to moderate).
[1:35pm] ReaperEternal: It requires protecting the article too.
[1:35pm] • ToAruShiroiNeko has been promoted!
[1:36pm] ToAruShiroiNeko: I thought I was an NCO
[1:36pm] Callanecc: Add it to the blacklist, but yeah it'd be good if they are seperate
[1:36pm] fabriceflorin: The features we would like to discuss are described on this page: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Feature_Requirements#Features_under_consideration (for this chat, we will only focus on the first 6 features)
[1:36pm] Ironholds: ReaperEternal: Yeah, deliberately
[1:37pm] Ironholds: we want the positions where it's used to be "there is an overwhelming flood of abuse" - this is normally on high-profile pages and replicated in edits
[1:37pm] Bensin joined the chat room.
[1:37pm] MelBee left the chat room. (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
[1:37pm] Logan_ joined the chat room.
[1:37pm] Logan_ left the chat room. (Remote host closed the connection)
[1:37pm] fabriceflorin: ReaperEternal: We have added a way to limit feedback on controversial articles, as an extension of the 'Protect' tool, as described here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Feature_Requirements#Protect_articles_to_limit_feedback
[1:38pm] ReaperEternal: Yes, but sometimes there's just feedback vandalism without article edit vandalism.
[1:38pm] Ironholds: ReaperEternal: excessive amounts of it that can't be dealt with manually without a whole world of pain
[1:38pm] Ironholds: ?
[1:39pm] fabriceflorin: Hello Utar , glad you could join us today!
[1:39pm] Ironholds: so, one of the tools we're considering is hiding the reader functions for editors, basically :). As described at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Feature_Requirements#Hide_reader_tools_for_editors
[1:39pm] AlexJFox: I think any article subject to an ArbCom resolution or with a large history of protection should automatically be exempted from the AFT as people will assume it's an appropriate venue for airing grievances. It'll split up discussion and make it hard to have any form of centralised discussion/reach consensus
[1:39pm] Utar: fabriceflorin: hi, fabrice
[1:39pm] PPena joined the chat room.
[1:39pm] ReaperEternal: Ironholds: Yes.
[1:39pm] Callanecc: Ironholds: Yeah there are I can't think of an eg, but I've seen it
[1:39pm] Ironholds: ReaperEternal: can you give me a couple of examples?
[1:39pm] Ironholds: the short version is: at the moment, as well as a load of editor-specific tools (feature, hide, etc) there are also reader tools
[1:39pm] Ironholds: the little up/down symbols of "mark as helpful" or "mark as unhelpful"
[1:40pm] MelBee joined the chat room.
[1:40pm] ReaperEternal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Barack_Obama
[1:40pm] Callanecc: Ironholds: I'd perfer for editors to have them, and monitors have the ability to reset them
[1:40pm] mlitn joined the chat room.
[1:40pm] Ironholds: ReaperEternal: that's currently a protected article
[1:40pm] Ironholds: so I'm not seeing the problem
[1:40pm] Ironholds: Callanecc: indeedy! Sorry, typing
[1:41pm] fabriceflorin: Many editors have pointed out that they have too many moderation tools to choose from, so we are considering no longer showing reader moderation tools to editors (e.g.: mark as helpful/unhelpful, flag as abuse). The purpose of this proposed feature is to simplify the choices for editors, so they only have to look at editor moderation features on the right.
[1:41pm] Ironholds: indeed
[1:41pm] Ironholds: because, quite frankly, you already have "feature" and "hide", which are more powerful ways of achieving the same thing
[1:41pm] Ironholds: it would be like making you carry both a jackhammer and a rubber mallet. The mallet does nothing to help, it just adds weight.
[1:41pm] Callanecc: I think editors don't have hide, so they'll need abuse
[1:41pm] fabriceflorin: … so this is what the editors would see, in place of the reader moderation tools: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Article-Feedback-Moderation-Editors.png
[1:42pm] MelBee left the chat room. (Client Quit)
[1:42pm] ReaperEternal: Possibly, just have readers see "flag as abuse" while editors get "hide this post"
[1:42pm] Ironholds: ReaperEternal took the words out of our mouths
[1:42pm] Ironholds: so, we're thinking about giving autoconfirmed editors "hide".
[1:42pm] Ironholds: obviously this'd require an RfC, but we figure if people are supportive, that's something worth doing
[1:42pm] Ironholds: thoughts?
[1:43pm] fabriceflorin: Callanecc: Good point. However, we are proposing to give editors one new tool, as proposed in the mockup linked above: 'Resolve as inappropriate' -- which would hide the feedback.
[1:44pm] ReaperEternal: Then just have the tools "Resolve as fixed", "Resolved as won't fix", and "Resolve as abuse".
[1:44pm] JohnLewis: Ironholds: So you are thinking of giving autoconfirmed the ability to 'hide' feedback?
[1:44pm] Ironholds: JohnLewis: essentially, yep, although it'll have a different name (for reasons we will explain shortly ;p)
[1:44pm] Callanecc: But there are times when things aren't serious enough to be oversighted but still need to be hidden. Which is the problem with allowing all auto/confirmed editors the ability to see it which I think defeats the purpose
[1:44pm] Ironholds: thoughts, objections, rotten tomatoes?
[1:44pm] ReaperEternal: I say have two queues: Unactioned and actioned feedback.
[1:45pm] JohnLewis: Ironholds: Well I would support the addition and I see now reason why the community would oppose such a thing.
[1:45pm] Ironholds: Callanecc: yeah, this is an issue :/. Hide is sort of rollback + revision delete.
[1:45pm] Utar: Ironholds: taking out up and down for editos seems good idea
[1:45pm] ReaperEternal: This way we'd only see feedback that needs action.
[1:45pm] Bensin left the chat room.
[1:45pm] Callanecc: If we were to have a resolve option = rollback and a hide option closer to RevDel (but still available to who it is now)
[1:45pm] Utar: Ironholds: just make sure to inform them about it enough
[1:46pm] Utar: to avoid "It looks different now!" messages
[1:46pm] ReaperEternal: Then we won't have several useful posts buried in a mountain of unnecessary and fixed posts.
[1:46pm] Ironholds: ReaperEternal: way ahead of you.
[1:46pm] Ironholds: stay on topic, we'll get to that
[1:46pm] Ironholds: okay, so, how's this, Callanecc/reaper?
[1:46pm] fabriceflorin: ReaperEternal and Callnecc: Thanks for your suggestions about keeping the 'Flag as abuse' for editors. Duly noted.
[1:46pm] Ironholds: what we do is we remove helpful/unhelpful but leave "flag as abuse" for editors?
[1:47pm] Ironholds: they have a way of marking things as inappropriate but can't see hidden things (and aren't distracted by helpful/unhelpful)
[1:47pm] JohnLewis: Ironholds: Seems like an effective thing.
[1:47pm] Callanecc: My other thing about un/helpful is that (as I saw from consensus building on the guidelines) people have higher expectations of something featured than something marked as helpful
[1:47pm] ReaperEternal: yeah
[1:48pm] ReaperEternal: I'd personally say get rid of the "feature this post".
[1:48pm] Ironholds: yeah
[1:48pm] Ironholds: we're talking about renaming it, because it's kinda...nuclear.
[1:48pm] MelBee joined the chat room.
[1:48pm] ReaperEternal: We only need to deal with unactioned posts.
[1:48pm] Ironholds: like, we could have "actionable" "not actionable" "resolved" "inappropriate" or something
[1:48pm] ReaperEternal: yeah
[1:48pm] Callanecc: sounds good
[1:48pm] ReaperEternal: That's what I was suggesting
[1:48pm] Ironholds: we are talking that through now
[1:49pm] fabriceflorin: Cool. Glad everyone is generally on the same page on this question.
[1:49pm] ReaperEternal: Except get rid of the "actionable" option since that would be the default state.
[1:49pm] Ironholds: ReaperEternal: disagree
[1:49pm] DarTar: ReaperEternal: I think the model we're moving towards is that of an issue tracker, it doesn't make sense to have permanently featured issues, we want good suggestions to be highlighted so they can be acted upon
[1:49pm] Ironholds: lets use an example, right?
[1:49pm] fabriceflorin: So what do you guys think of the proposed 'Resolve' tools, as described in this section: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Feature_Requirements#Resolve_tools
[1:50pm] Ironholds: so, you see a post on an article that's great. It looks like it could be useful. You don't have the expertise on $article to implement or decide if it should be, but it looks like it should be brought to the writers' attention
[1:50pm] Ironholds: what do you do?
[1:50pm] DarTar: the ultimate goal is to close the loop between good feedback and improving articles (via revisions)
[1:50pm] Callanecc: fabriceflorin: I quite like that (I'm assuming it doesn't have a 'hide' option anymore)
[1:50pm] Ironholds: Well, with "actionable" you can say "hey, you might want to check this out specifically, article writers". Without it, uh. Dang.
[1:50pm] JohnLewis: fabriceflorin: They seem like an effective and good addition to the system.
[1:50pm] Callanecc: Callanecc: feature it
[1:50pm] ReaperEternal: fabriceflorin: looks pretty good
[1:51pm] Ironholds: Callanecc: "resolve as inappropriate" would take the place of "hide" yep
[1:51pm] Ironholds: the idea is they're bundled together to make them more intuitive
[1:51pm] jlohr_wmf left the chat room. (Quit: sleeping)
[1:51pm] Ironholds: huge props to fabriceflorin and Pau Giner, our interaction designer, for working this one out
[1:51pm] fabriceflorin: The goal of this proposed feature it to simplify the interaction model by providing 3 options in a scale: 'fixed' (good), 'unusable' (neutral) and 'inappropriate' (bad, same as 'Hide' in the current tool).
[1:51pm] Callanecc: Ironholds: yeah looks good
[1:51pm] ReaperEternal: so "inappropriate" = flag for readers, and hide for editors?
[1:51pm] Ironholds: ReaperEternal: no, it'll only display for editors :). The reader view iiis...hango.
[1:51pm] Callanecc: and view by monitors
[1:51pm] Ironholds: *n
[1:52pm] Ironholds: Okay, I can't find the reader view
[1:52pm] Callanecc: this may help to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback/Feedback_response_guidelines#User_roles_and_abilities
[1:52pm] Ironholds: Callanecc: yeah, that should be understood as a monitor view
[1:52pm] Ironholds: sorry, not editor view *slaps hand*
[1:52pm] Matthew_ left the chat room. (Remote host closed the connection)
[1:53pm] Ironholds: (we are finding the reader view mockup :p)
[1:53pm] fabriceflorin: Here's the reader view for the proposed feature -- note they do not see the editor moderation tools on the right : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Article-Feedback-Moderation-Readers.png
[1:54pm] ReaperEternal: Would be nice if you got rid of that helpful/unhelpful tool, though.
[1:54pm] Callanecc: The way I'd like to see it is that there is an inappropriate post (BLP for eg): reader can flag as abuse, editor can flag as abuse (maybe hide it - I'm on the fence), monitor and hide it and view it, oversight can oversight & view oversighted
[1:54pm] Ironholds: ReaperEternal: for readers? Why?
[1:54pm] Ironholds: Callanecc: that's how it'll work
[1:55pm] Callanecc: Ironholds:
[1:55pm] Ironholds: (although actually I'm doing some fun data analysis now on how much value reader actions add to the monitoring process. Watch this space.)
[1:55pm] DarTar: Ironholds: you didn't tell me, looking forward to reading you
[1:55pm] Callanecc: But I'd also like monitors to be able to reset abuse flags (to zero) and un/helpful (to 0)
[1:55pm] Ironholds: DarTar: I had the idea on like, Tuesday
[1:56pm] Ironholds: it's super-basic and probably silly. but it might show something interesting.
[1:56pm] DarTar: I was discussing this with Fabrice too, let's follow up on this later
[1:56pm] ReaperEternal: Because the thumb up thumb down doesn't seem to be useful.
[1:56pm] Callanecc: ReaperEternal: I agree, I tend to ignore them
[1:56pm] Ironholds: is that "they're not useful" or "when I see them, they're not useful"?
[1:56pm] Ironholds: As said - looking into it as we speak
[1:56pm] DarTar: ReaperEternal, Callanecc: I guess the question is, can they be used to classify potentially good feedback
[1:57pm] Ironholds: DarTar: cool!
[1:57pm] Ironholds: yeah. the test I'm using is "in cases where both readers and editors have taken actions on a post, do they agree?"
[1:57pm] DarTar: particularly feedback that editors don't see (buried in article feedback pages that no one visits)
[1:57pm] Ironholds: but we may be getting somewhat off the path
[1:57pm] Callanecc: DarTar: maybe, I think the abuse of it is quite huge - hence why I'd like to be able to reset
[1:57pm] ReaperEternal: Do readers even read feedback buried multiple pages back?
[1:57pm] Ironholds: aanyway. So people like the redesign of "resolved"?
[1:58pm] ReaperEternal: Ironholds: Yes.
[1:58pm] Callanecc: Ironholds: yes
[1:58pm] DarTar: yes, that's a concern – we found that up to 75% of posters were voting up their own feedback (and fixed that back in September)
[1:58pm] JohnLewis: Yes.
[1:58pm] Ironholds: Grand! And on the questions of "feature this post" and who gets access to "hide" - this, we will work on
[1:58pm] PPena left the chat room. (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
[1:58pm] Ironholds: fabriceflorin, what's the next thing? I know we have a pretty big list of ideas.
[1:58pm] fabriceflorin: One question we have about the proposed 'Resolve tools' is that it doesn't support one particular use case very well. This is when I see a feedback post that is usable, but I don't have time to fix it, and it is not worthy of featuring. We are considering adding a new editor moderation tool for that use case called 'Mark as usable' -- or replacing the 'Feature this post' with that 'Mark as usable tool'. What do you think of that idea?
[1:59pm] DarTar: ReaperEternal: feedback posters do, casual readers or editors don't see the vast majority of feedback that gets posted every day
[1:59pm] PPena joined the chat room.
[2:00pm] Callanecc: I'd change "Fixed" to "Done" - little thing but I think clearer
[2:00pm] Ironholds: so, here's my question
[2:00pm] Ironholds: at the moment it's "resolve as [blank]"
[2:01pm] Utar: Callanecc: you can't aleays do what feedback is asking for
[2:01pm] Callanecc: fabriceflorin: would mark as usable replace feature?
[2:01pm] Ironholds: would people approach it differently if it was "mark as [blank]"? Like, does it make you feel that it's less of a mandatory thing, or more, or...?
[2:01pm] ReaperEternal: I'm an admin and I rarely look at feedback.
[2:01pm] Utar: but you can mark it as Fixed
[2:01pm] Callanecc: Utar: then it's be unusable
[2:01pm] fabriceflorin: Callanecc: Yes, we are considering 'Done' as well. However, 'Fixed' seems a bit clearer, and is consistent with the Wikipedia principle of 'So fix it'. This is also a term that is used by many bug tracking systems, like Bugzilla.
[2:01pm] Utar: So Done It !
[2:01pm] JohnLewis: ironholds: I think 'Mark as [blank]' is a more user friendly approach rather than the 'resolve as [blank]'
[2:01pm] Callanecc: fabriceflorin: fair enough - sounds good
[2:01pm] Ironholds: JohnLewis: define user friendly?
[2:02pm] Utar: mark is also more firendly for foreign visitors of enwiki
[2:02pm] Callanecc: Ironholds: Resolve has a very specific meaning which some people may not want to intend
[2:02pm] Callanecc: For example a BLP vio
[2:03pm] JohnLewis: ironholds: The term user friendly probably was not the best to use but if the text is a 'does what it says on the tin' approach, It may be more of a catch for users.
[2:03pm] Callanecc: for a copyvio
[2:03pm] DarTar: one big problem we have for data analysis: fixed (or resolved) can mean two things, (1) some editor made a revision as a result of the feedback or (2) the issue is already fixed and it won't produce any further revision
[2:03pm] fabriceflorin: Utar: In the current proposal, a feedback post can either be 'resolved' or 'unresolved' -- the question we have now is whether it would be better to use 'mark as' , so that editors don't feel that they have to 'resolve' everything. Do you think that using 'Mark as' instead of 'Resolve as' would reduce the pressure on editors?
[2:04pm] Callanecc: fabriceflorin: yes
[2:04pm] DarTar: we want to have the ability to identify (1) i.e. feedback that results in further edits
[2:04pm] Ironholds: *nods*
[2:04pm] Utar: fabriceflorin: YES
[2:05pm] Utar: MARKer is much easier to learn word than resolve
[2:05pm] Utar: foreigner friendly
[2:05pm] fabriceflorin: JohnLewis Callanecc and Utar: Thanks for letting us know that 'Mark as' may be more effective than 'Resolve as' - Utar, your point is very thoughtful.
[2:06pm] ReaperEternal: I don't care what word gets used
[2:06pm] Utar: fabriceflorin: lots of enwiki users don§t have English as first language
[2:06pm] Ironholds: the question is, if we change it to "mark", what does "unresolved" become?
[2:07pm] fabriceflorin: We have barely begun to look at how these words will be translated, will ask the Language team for their input, once we settle on English words that people are comfortable with ;o)
[2:07pm] ReaperEternal: unmark
[2:07pm] Utar: ^ so they can easily forget to place "the" in front of the word "first"
[2:07pm] Ironholds: ReaperEternal: I mean, as in, the "unresolved" filter
[2:07pm] Utar: especially when writing fast
[2:08pm] Callanecc: Ironholds: Unactioned
[2:08pm] Callanecc: ?
[2:08pm] Ironholds: Callanecc: that might work. We can think on it
[2:08pm] Ironholds: the next thing, which people should also like - one-click moderation
[2:09pm] Ironholds: so at the moment, you go to moderate something and you have to fill in a comment
[2:09pm] fabriceflorin: Here's the link for that one-click feature: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Feature_Requirements#One-click_moderation_actions
[2:09pm] Ironholds: and open a second little fly-out to do it, and move your cursor to get to the additional button, and it's sort of generally unpleasant
[2:09pm] Ironholds: a lot of work just to moderate /one/ piece of feedback.
[2:09pm] Callanecc: Ironholds: Actually I was going to suggest something else here - when a monitor hides they get a list of reasons
[2:09pm] Callanecc: but the others (except hide and oversight) are one click
[2:09pm] Ironholds: What we're thinking of doing is simply making it a one-click "you hit it, now it's moderated" thing - and you can add comments afterwards if you so choose.
[2:10pm] fabriceflorin: Currently, we show a flyout whenever you click on a moderation tool, such as 'Feature this post', as shown in this screenshot: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/AFT5-Feedback-Page-Editors-05-14.png
[2:10pm] Ironholds: Callanecc: that could work. The problem then is internationalising it; reasons are going to change from wiki to wiki
[2:10pm] Callanecc: Ironholds: True, but there are always going to be differences
[2:11pm] Callanecc: Not sure who you've programmed it, but have an extension for each wiki which can be set to the different reasons
[2:11pm] fabriceflorin: With the new one-click proposal, you would see instead something like this, that gives you the option to add a reason afterwards, instead of having to do it each time: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Article-Feedback-Moderation-Editors.png
[2:12pm] Ironholds: Callanecc: that'd be an utter PITA
[2:12pm] Ironholds: most of the time we get around differences by not incorporating rationales into the software
[2:12pm] Callanecc: fabriceflorin: I think one click is fine for everything except hiding and oversight
[2:13pm] fabriceflorin: … the example I am referring is the second one from the top: 'Resovled by JSmith - No reason given - <Edit>'. What do you think of this after-the-fact opportunity to add a moderation note, without having to fill out a flyout each time you moderate?
[2:13pm] JohnLewis: fabriceflorin: That is much better. Increases moderation and the note would then be near optional.
[2:13pm] Dan653 joined the chat room.
[2:14pm] Callanecc: fabriceflorin: I don't really have a problem with the two clicks, but I can see it would be useful. However I think if you are hiding or oversighting you should give a reason
[2:14pm] Dan653: agree with above
[2:14pm] Callanecc: Ironholds: Ah well it was worth a shot
[2:14pm] Ironholds: sorry
[2:14pm] fabriceflorin: Thanks, JohnLewis , glad this works for you. We suspect that it would greatly increase the speed at which you can moderate. We would still keep the flyout for really important tools like 'Request oversight' or 'Oversight' but not for the more lightweight tools.
[2:15pm] Utar: fabriceflorin: IIRC I asked several months ago for my cursor moving to text area when marking as Fixed
[2:15pm] Callanecc: fabriceflorin: I don't think hiding is a lightweight tool
[2:15pm] Utar: just ot the note of "too many clicks"
[2:15pm] fabriceflorin: Callanecc: Your point is well taken that hiding ('Mark as inappropriate') should perhaps still have a flyout.
[2:18pm] Callanecc: Regarding the 'add a note' when hiding would it be possible to have this appear on user contribs?
[2:18pm] Ironholds: Callanecc, so, one thought
[2:18pm] Ironholds: you know how with things like the edit summary window, you have a user-specific dropdown based on what you typed before?
[2:18pm] Ironholds: we could build that into the "mark as inappropriate" flyout's comment box.
[2:19pm] Ironholds: (we were actually planning to, it's in a bugzilla ticket somewhere)
[2:19pm] Callanecc: Ironholds: That sounds good
[2:19pm] Ironholds: would that help with the issue of drop-downs
[2:19pm] Ironholds: neat
[2:19pm] Utar: Ironholds: not sure but I may have asked for that oo
[2:19pm] fabriceflorin: The next feature we would like to ask you about is 'Feedback page filters', which would add new filters to match the new 'Resolve' tools, as well as remove a few of the extraneous filters we now have. It is described here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Feature_Requirements#Feedback_Page_Filters
[2:20pm] Ironholds: Utar: quite probably!
[2:21pm] Callanecc: fabriceflorin: what is the Irrelevant filter?
[2:21pm] fabriceflorin: The key change we are considering is to would have two main filters ('Most relevant' and 'Unresolved'), with 'Unresolved' replacing the 'All comments' filter. We have had a lot of requests for an 'Unresolved' filter that would only show comments that have not yet been moderated. What do you think of that?
[2:22pm] Callanecc: fabriceflorin: sound great!!!!
[2:22pm] awjr joined the chat room.
[2:22pm] fabriceflorin: Callanecc: The 'irrelevant' filter would combine 'Unhelpful' and 'Flagged as abuse' into a single filter that shows all comments that have received low marks from these two tools.
[2:23pm] Dan653: that sounds good
[2:23pm] fabriceflorin: Dan653: Glad this proposal works for you.
[2:23pm] ReaperEternal left the chat room.
[2:23pm] fabriceflorin: The idea came from community editors, who requested it many times on our talk page.
[2:24pm] Ironholds: any other thoughts on the filters?
[2:24pm] awjr left the chat room. (Client Quit)
[2:24pm] Ironholds: or we can move on
[2:24pm] Callanecc: Just that I don't think editors should be seeing the Inappropriate filter (whether they can mark it as that or not)
[2:25pm] JohnLewis: The filters seem to be a viable addition.
[2:25pm] Ironholds: hmmn. I don't have an answer for you on that right now, Callanecc
[2:25pm] Ironholds: but I can stick it in my write-up of this office hours and try to get a response quickly
[2:25pm] Callanecc: No worries, I thought not
[2:25pm] Ironholds: but I will do my best
[2:26pm] Ironholds: In the meantime, something (potentially) controversial...
[2:26pm] fabriceflorin: Thanks, guys. The last feature we would like to ask about today is the proposed 'Feedback link on article pages': http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Feature_Requirements#Feedback_link_on_article_pages
[2:27pm] fabriceflorin: This link would appear below the article title, showing the number of 'relevant' suggestions, with a link to the feedback page, as shown in this mockup: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Article-feedback-suggestions-link-mockup.png
[2:27pm] Callanecc: No problems from me with this one. But can it only show up when there is featured feedback (and show that filter by deault)
[2:27pm] PPena left the chat room. (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
[2:27pm] fabriceflorin: Callanecc: Yes, it would only show if there are 'relevant' posts.
[2:28pm] Callanecc: Yeah sorry that's the one I meant
[2:28pm] fabriceflorin: By 'relevant', we mean either 'featured' or 'helpful'.
[2:29pm] PPena joined the chat room.
[2:29pm] fabriceflorin: What this feature tries to solve is making the feedback more visible to editors. Today, many editors don't even realize that there is feedback on the articles they edit. One question is whether we should show that link to editors only, or also show it to readers.
[2:29pm] JohnLewis: Look good but my only view on it is could it be more integrated? Having the slogan and then the feedback is a break view in my opinion. WOuld it be possible to have it on the right side just below where topicons would be (Like Page Protection would be etc.)
[2:29pm] Jyothis joined the chat room.
[2:30pm] Ironholds: yeah the problem there is we run into problem with geotags and suchlike
[2:30pm] JohnLewis: I forgot thats where Geotags would be.
[2:30pm] Ironholds: It looks like we have to go, I'm afraid - end of our hour :). But we have a survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/aft5-7 which also includes some features we didn't ahve time to discuss, if anyone wants to fill it out: all feedback gratefully received
[2:30pm] Ironholds: I'll incorporate it into my post-office hours report.
[2:30pm] Callanecc: Ironholds: Just following up on Reaper's point I think it'd be good if feedback protection could be applied to unprotected articles
[2:31pm] Callanecc: Otherwise they just get added to the blacklist never to be seen again
[2:32pm] JohnLewis: Feedback specific protection would be nice. If an article is receiving mass feedback that is unhelpful, but the article is fine, Feedback protection.
[2:32pm] Utar: fabriceflorin: I thought you are going to place just Feedback link, the same way as tabs Article and Talk are
[2:32pm] Ironholds: Callanecc: point *nods*. I'll think of it.
[2:32pm] Ironholds: *on it
[2:32pm] Ironholds: Utar: that was the original thinkin'. There are some concerns that we want to move away from tabs and shouldn't be adding new ones.
[2:32pm] Utar: ok
[2:33pm] Utar: then enjoy Geotags
[2:33pm] Callanecc: JohnLewis: there is the option to do so now see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback/Feedback_response_guidelines#Feedback_disabling
[2:33pm] fabriceflorin: Utar: We considered adding a tab, but our designers did not support that idea, because they thought it caused too much confusion next to the 'talk' link -- and didn't belong next to 'View history'.
[2:33pm] JohnLewis: Callanecc: Didn't see that. Thanks for the link.
[2:33pm] Utar: ok
[2:33pm] fabriceflorin: Utar: Do you think we have to move the feedback link next to Geotags, or can we keep it below the title for now?
[2:34pm] Jyothis left the chat room. (Remote host closed the connection)
[2:34pm] fabriceflorin: Callanecc: You are doing really good work with the Feedback response guidelines, thanks so much for doing it!
[2:34pm] Jyothis joined the chat room.
[2:34pm] Utar: fabriceflorin: I will have to go and see some enwiki geotaged article
[2:34pm] Utar: we place them to the right corner, not left
[2:34pm] Callanecc: fabriceflorin: No worries, hopefully there will be an RfC on it in the next few weeks
[2:35pm] Utar: oh, here are on the right, too
[2:35pm] Utar: fabriceflorin: rather left side
[2:36pm] fabriceflorin: In closing, we would like to share this link to some of the key findings from a recent study done by DarTar last month, which we will publish next week. Some of these findings are really interesting and are helping us plan our next steps: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1g8rzdOu0SbJB4qxnRj6xNYV2x-5g9lYIeCxT0JSXWLQ/edit#slide=id.p
[2:36pm] Utar: fabriceflorin: is "redirected" placed under this Feedback link_
[2:36pm] Utar: ?
[2:36pm] mlitn left the chat room. (Quit: mlitn)
[2:37pm] MelBee: please ignore me, just a test
[2:38pm] fabriceflorin: DarTar is now working with Ironholds and other team members on another round of feedback evaluations, to test the new tools we are developing. You should be hearing from them shortly, if you are subscribed to our newsletter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#Newsletter
[2:39pm] Ironholds: ugh, I have to run :(. Sorry, guys!
[2:39pm] Callanecc: Ironholds: catch you later
[2:39pm] fabriceflorin: OK, I think this is it for now. Thank you so much for your invaluable guidance, as always! We always learn so much from IRC chats like this one. Stay tuned for more … and don't forget to fill in the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/aft5-7
[2:40pm] JohnLewis: ironholds: Catch you tomorrow morning.
[2:40pm] fabriceflorin: Thanks, Ironholds!
[2:40pm] Ironholds: sure! Take car eall
[2:40pm] Callanecc: fabriceflorin: thanks for having them and give us the opportunity to talk to you about it
[2:40pm] Ironholds left the chat room.
[2:41pm] Dan653 left the chat room.
[2:41pm] fabriceflorin: Callanecc: You're very welcome. It's through events like this that we can learn from each other and collaborate to build better tools to improve Wikipedia.
[2:41pm] Callanecc: Indeed
[2:42pm] fabriceflorin: Thanks again, everyone! I look forward to continuing this discussion on our talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5
[2:43pm] Utar: fabriceflorin: we will be watching...
[2:44pm] fabriceflorin: Utar: Sounds good. Ironholds participates more than I do on the talk page, but I read everything! Thanks for posting there ...
[2:44pm] Utar: fabriceflorin: i try to read at least some of those and reply some times
[2:44pm] Utar: see you all
[2:44pm] Utar: fabriceflorin: bye
[2:45pm] Utar left the chat room. (Quit: Page closed)
[2:46pm] JohnLewis: I should probably be getting off now. See you all later (More specifically, Tomorrow)
[2:46pm] fabriceflorin: Bye, guys! Utar, Callanecc JohnLewis and others, thanks for all your good ideas today! To be continued next month …
[2:47pm] JohnLewis: Before I go, fabriceflorin: Thanks for your work which makes the articles on Wikipedia improve with feedback in one central place.