Talk:Learning patterns/Number of active editors involved

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Abittaker (WMF) in topic Using the tool

Problem -> solution[edit]

Edward et al., as I discussed with Jessie a few weeks ago, this formula often but not always works best. Here, it could work, but the problem is expressed as what the LP describes, and the solution contains only definitions.

I see nothing wrong with altering the problem–solution thematic structure at the start where it suits ... makes readers sit up and get used to a different angle occasionally. Here, you may wish to hammer the main text under those titles into something that works; or you could simply remove the first two level-2 titles and retain the existing text as a lead.

Are you mixing up i.e. and e.g.? :-)

Tony (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

PS The image in the summary box top-right is too small to be functional. I'd either move it out (could even be at the top, centered, or at the side, 240px, or enlarge it within the box. Tony (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, several of the global metrics patterns still need some work to fit into the standard pattern format. I'm slowly working my way through them and filling in the edges around EGalvez (WMF) original work. Wherever possible, my preference is to try to shoe-horn things into the pattern format, rather than break from the genre, in order to maintain the integrity of the pattern library. That said, as you (and others) have pointed out here and elsewhere, sometimes "Problem... Solution" isn't the best framing for a piece of advice. Not all design pattern languages are as strict about format, and some use formats like "question... answer" or "scenario... recommendation", etc. Anyway, I'm interested in other suggestions if you have 'em.
Oh, and I agree about the image size. I'll work on that. Thanks! Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Tony1 and Jmorgan (WMF) - I also agree that these could be tweaked a bit to follow the format. They are a different type of learning pattern, but I think they could have a little more context around why a particular metric was chosen as a "solution" to the global metrics "problem", followed by the explanation of how to obtain the metric. Happy to work on this as well. --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Using the tool[edit]

@EGalvez (WMF): I've been testing out Wikimetrics with this learning pattern to see how it works. I'm using it for all of WMUK's activities from Feb–July. I selected the option to 'Expand cohort to all user’s accounts across projects' in case someone didn't cross the threshold on en.wp but did on another wiki. The downside is the output includes all accounts which meat the 5 edit threshold so needs some manual de-duplication.

Does the learning pattern assume that cohorts will be expanded to all projects? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Richard, the pattern does assume cohorts will be expanded to all projects, but only suggests to "organize the data by username to see who is an active editor." This wording allows someone to use the method most familiar to them. If you are running a lot of reports, using a pivot table is the fastest option I know. They take a bit of getting used to, but several sources on the internet have tried to explain them as simply as possible. Here are examples for Google Sheets, Libre Office, and Excel. You want to roll up the data by usernames, so put usernames in the row field. Then any usernames that has an existing active editor value greater than 0 means they are an existing active editor. Let me know if pivot tables give you any trouble, I can record a video showing how to create a one from the rolling active editor report .csv. Abittaker (WMF) (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply