Talk:Collaboration/Flow satisfaction survey
How's this planned?
Where and how will this survey be executed? Just in the Wikis that have Flow enabled, that's here and in the frWP at least, or more widespread? Will this page in meta be linked and announced in the other wikis or will there be separate pages at each wiki? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 07:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Lila understood that Flow is dead
Lila, who is a software person, understood that flow is dead. Flow was designed and is - at best - able to provide a method for discussion, and only discussion. Talk pages are so much more than just discussion. They are sandboxes, places for collaboration and many other things. Flow will never be able to replace them because of its inherent limitations. So where else might flow be used? correct: no where!
Lila understood about that, I'm not really willing to go through all the discussions again with a new ED. Please kill this project ASAP, so no new ED will have to bother with it. --h-stt !? 14:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hello H-stt
- Flow has been considered by some people as a bad product, built only for discussions. Effectively, at the moment, that product is limited to discussions and requests. For some people that's enough.
- Some other people has considered an other aspect of Flow: a piece of a greater project, to improve and facilitate workflows.
- Lila's decision was to stop development but to keep ongoing maintenance: Flow was and is still available. That's why some communities are trying Flow on Village Pumps, Help desks, request pages and more, with creative ways to use it. We don't push them to try Flow.
- These communities provide us feedback about improvements they want WMF to build. We are going to gather that feedback and then decide if we are going to address these needs. That's the purpose of that survey..
- Best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think the concern of many of us is that having multiple interfaces is a bad idea. Especially when they are non-ubiquitous.
- Moreover the un-wiki like nature of flow editing puts the onus wholly on admins to deal with bad actors, and does not suit communities (or parts of wikis) that are more relaxed about refactoring and editing other's comments.
- Rich Farmbrough 18:59 11 September 2016 (GMT).
- It's just an insider job, no proper survey. Only acolytes of Flow where included in this biased survey, so the answers don't mean really anything. They tried anything not to get any negative input, they created an echo chamber. It's really not important to look at this sham in any way. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 18:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Rogol Domedonfors, the final results on the Flow survey were released. After massively canvassing thousands of people who had actively opted into Flow, Flow still managed to tank. Even with massive pro-Flow bias, "Prefer Flow" still only got 38% vs 52% for "Prefer Wikitext". (10% neutral.) The report is getting trashed on the Report/Discussion page in English, and I happened to stumble across Polish Village Pump ranting how absurd the report was. Alsee (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
It is a fact of life that English is a difficult language to master, and I would heartily recommend any non-native speaker (and most native speakers) to run their text past a copy-editor before publishing it.
Rather than "Either satisfied or unsatisfied" the heading should be "Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied". (Unsatisfied is OK
"Please share another aspect you find useful, if any:"
But no question about the dis-features.