Re: Googley comments

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
29 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Googley comments

WJhonson
While poking over my Google Analytics I discovered this odd thing I
think they call it a "Bounce" rate ?
It's supposed to measure how often people come to your *one page* and
then bounce away without sticking to your site to read others related
pages.  That sounds like what you're talking about below.

That is, do people read one page and then go away?  Or do they read one
page and then another 25 more in the same sitting, before the boss
comes in and fires them?

That kind of thing.

Will




-----Original Message-----
From: Carcharoth <[hidden email]>
To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thu, Sep 3, 2009 4:14 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Googley comments


On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:06 AM, David Gerard<[hidden email]> wrote:

<snip>

> Y'know, we have pretty much no facillities *just for the reader*.

I thought they had things called articles they could read? :-)

Seriously, some of the better portals are hard for readers to find.
And I'm not sure how far some readers go beyond the articles they are
reading. Page views are about the only clue there. It would be nice if
the usability people found out this sort of thing, or if there were
stats revealing the most popular *routes* taken by people, from say, a
place like the main page. But I think that requires things like
cookies and privacy concerns might weigh against such things, though
if some readers could be persuaded to have their browsing session
"recorded", that would be very interesting.

I was very pleased to see the "Featured content portal" feature very
highly on one of the recent page view listings.

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l






_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
FT2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Googley comments

FT2
How something's framed can shape how it's used.

I would never have a "comment on this article" page, it's pointless and a
monitoring nightmare. We'd get arguments and dramas, then we'd be expected
to clean them up, BLP and negative material and accused of "sheltering" one
side when we purge them... you name it. We don't need that.

What I would think more likely to succeed? A "Help us improve" tab, not a
"comment" tab

Specifically with a header and edit notice "If you can see a way to improve
this article, or better more up to date information, let us know!"

I also might consider trialling a button that said "If you notice an error,
omission, outdated facts, or any other ways we can improve this article,
'''[[TALK PAGE|click here]]''' and let us know!"

FT2
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Googley comments

David Gerard-2
2009/9/4 FT2 <[hidden email]>:

> What I would think more likely to succeed? A "Help us improve" tab, not a
> "comment" tab
> Specifically with a header and edit notice "If you can see a way to improve
> this article, or better more up to date information, let us know!"


+1

Brilliant!


> I also might consider trialling a button that said "If you notice an error,
> omission, outdated facts, or any other ways we can improve this article,
> '''[[TALK PAGE|click here]]''' and let us know!"


Hmm, could be good ... maintenance nightmare for BLPs stll, though.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Googley comments

Bod Notbod
In reply to this post by FT2
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:47 PM, FT2<[hidden email]> wrote:

> What I would think more likely to succeed? A "Help us improve" tab, not a
> "comment" tab

One of the proposals on the strategy wiki has recommended an
adjustment to talk pages. I added that perhaps the tab should be
called "discussion/feedback" to encourage people who are primarily
readers to let us know what they thought of an article without it
necessarily sounding like they had to be knowledgeable.

I'm afraid I can't link to the proposal cos I can't remember the name
or whether I watchlisted it.

But I imagine this kind of proposal is fairly common:

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13573

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Googley comments

metasj
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:59 AM, David Gerard<[hidden email]> wrote:
> 2009/9/4 FT2 <[hidden email]>:
>
>> What I would think more likely to succeed? A "Help us improve" tab, not a
>> "comment" tab
>> Specifically with a header and edit notice "If you can see a way to improve
>> this article, or better more up to date information, let us know!"
>
> +1

Especially useful for non-logged-in users.


>> I also might consider trialling a button that said "If you notice an error,
>> omission, outdated facts, or any other ways we can improve this article,
>> '''[[TALK PAGE|click here]]''' and let us know!"

How about simply a cheerful "feedback" button?

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Googley comments

Charles Matthews
In reply to this post by Bod Notbod
Bod Notbod wrote:

> One of the proposals on the strategy wiki has recommended an
> adjustment to talk pages. I added that perhaps the tab should be
> called "discussion/feedback" to encourage people who are primarily
> readers to let us know what they thought of an article without it
> necessarily sounding like they had to be knowledgeable.
>
> I'm afraid I can't link to the proposal cos I can't remember the name
> or whether I watchlisted it.
>
> But I imagine this kind of proposal is fairly common:
>
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13573
>  
The introduction of Talk pages was, it should not be forgotten, one of
the most brilliant innovations of the early days of Wikipedia. The idea
that the Talk page is specifically for discussions aimed at improving
the article in its current state is actually a pillar of how we work.
Feedback of the "like it/hate it" kind (which is what voting would be)
cuts across all that: I think that is obvious based on experience of how
people (readers - most of the world doesn't edit) react to articles. A
single annoying aspect is likely to get negative votes, and whether
voting is commented or not, there are going to be problems.

So before some strategy genius decides that whole namespace is for
something other than its traditional role, I think there should be a
pause for reflection. Perhaps there could be a way of encouraging
comments which were general (not specific to an existing thread or
starting a new topic), and simply filed in a dedicated "general comment"
archive, running in parallel with the traditional slug-it-out
editing-related comments.

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Googley comments

Bod Notbod
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Charles
Matthews<[hidden email]> wrote:

> The introduction of Talk pages was, it should not be forgotten, one of
> the most brilliant innovations of the early days of Wikipedia.

Indeed. A very intelligent friend of mine said he often finds the talk
page as interesting as the article itself. He described them as a
'Talmudic commentary'. I keep meaning to make sure that I always read
the talk page after scanning an article but I don't seem to have
implanted that idea in my head with sufficient rigour yet, I tend to
forget.

I've sometimes used the talk page to list research resources that I've
used that I don't feel would be quite right to put as external links
on the article itself.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Googley comments

metasj
In reply to this post by Charles Matthews
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 6:28 AM, Charles
Matthews<[hidden email]> wrote:

>> But I imagine this kind of proposal is fairly common:
>>
>> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13573
>>
> The introduction of Talk pages was, it should not be forgotten, one of
> the most brilliant innovations of the early days of Wikipedia. The idea
> that the Talk page is specifically for discussions aimed at improving
> the article in its current state is actually a pillar of how we work.
> Feedback of the "like it/hate it" kind (which is what voting would be)
> cuts across all that: I think that is obvious based on experience of how
> people (readers - most of the world doesn't edit) react to articles. A
> single annoying aspect is likely to get negative votes, and whether
> voting is commented or not, there are going to be problems.
>
> So before some strategy genius decides that whole namespace is for
> something other than its traditional role, I think there should be a
> pause for reflection. Perhaps there could be a way of encouraging
> comments which were general (not specific to an existing thread or
> starting a new topic), and simply filed in a dedicated "general comment"
> archive, running in parallel with the traditional slug-it-out
> editing-related comments.

+1   That would be handy.  Many talk page comments today would better
fit into that sort of 'general comment' archive -- having a place to
organize each would help improve relations with casual commenters as
well (who often get ignored, or brushed aside with a comment that it's
been mentioned previously... which isn't such a great reason to
proscribe new comments).

Sj

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Googley comments

Gwern Branwen
In reply to this post by Bod Notbod
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Bod Notbod<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Charles
> Matthews<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> The introduction of Talk pages was, it should not be forgotten, one of
>> the most brilliant innovations of the early days of Wikipedia.
>
> Indeed. A very intelligent friend of mine said he often finds the talk
> page as interesting as the article itself. He described them as a
> 'Talmudic commentary'. I keep meaning to make sure that I always read
> the talk page after scanning an article but I don't seem to have
> implanted that idea in my head with sufficient rigour yet, I tend to
> forget.

In the old days, I used to always open a tab when the talk page link
wasn't red. Thanks to projects etc., I can no longer do this since
half the time I'll just find a bunch of template spam.

What I've done is inveigle a JS coder to write the following for my monobook.js:

// load talk page inline
if(wgNamespaceNumber==0) addOnloadHook(getTalkPage)
function getTalkPage() { var tlink =
document.getElementById('ca-talk'); if(tlink.className == 'new')
return; var url = tlink.getElementsByTagName('a')[0].href; url +=
(url.indexOf('?')==-1) ? '?action=render' : '&action=render' ; var tp
= document.createElement('div'); tp.style.border = '1px solid blue';
tp.style.margin = '.5em 0'; tp.style.padding = '.35em';
tp.style.height = '128em'; tp.style.overflow = 'auto'; tp.id =
'ajax-talkpage'; tp.appendChild(document.createTextNode('fetching talk
page...')); document.getElementById('bodyContent').appendChild(tp);
getXML(url,getTalkPageStateChange);}
function getTalkPageStateChange() { switch (getReq.readyState) { case 4:
if (getReq.status == 200) { var tp =
document.getElementById('ajax-talkpage'); clearNode(tp); var txt =
getReq.responseText; tp.innerHTML = txt;} else {
tp.appendChild(document.createTextNode('** Problem ** ' +
getReq.statusText))
}
break;}
}

At the bottom of every article is a second frame, which loads the talk
page. When I've read to the bottom, a glance tells me whether the talk
page is dross or whether there're things worth reading, and I can
continue scrolling.

It doesn't hurt performance much at all. (Sometimes there are so many
templates on the bottom of an article and the top of the talk page
that even this feature doesn't help much, though...)

--
gwern

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
12