Meta talk:Requests for adminship/Mono (temp)

I just wanted to note here that the Picture of the Year banners were particularly aggressive this year (in terms of color, animation, etc.). If there had been better (or any) review prior to them going live, I think we would have been much better off. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these were overly aggressive. No disrespect intended to those who made the judgment calls -- of course different people will make different calls. But in my opinion, featuring this one contest in a context of so many worthwhile projects in the Wikimedia landscape -- and when most visitors are seeking encyclopedic content etc. -- should be done with a lighter touch. Just some feedback for next time. -Pete F (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the biggest fan of the fading animation that loaded very often. πr² (t • c) 01:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were more aggressive than in the past. However, this was for two reasons: POTY banners ran under 50% for the duration of both rounds and the frequency of banners appearing on WMF projects has steadily increased. We thank the Wikimania 2013 team for taking a one-week hiatus from their campaign during our Round 2. We don't have voting statistics yet, but from early estimates we once again shattered our turnout records. We don't really have a way of gauging the effectiveness of our banners, so I relied on community feedback and guessing about which banners worked. In the future, we'll probably continue using the pale blue banner for R1 and the pale green one for R2, both without animation. That's something we have to decide in 2013. ℳono 00:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]