-----Original Message----- From: Magnus Manske [mailto:magnus.manske@web.de] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 3:56 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Slipping quality as Wikipedia gets bigger (formerlyCan you trust Wikipedia?)
Well, as the author of said feature, I've been asking for a long time what's the holdup. I'm fairly certain it is, at the very least, ready for the planned test phase. I keep asking people what should be fixed, but so far (that is, in the last few month) noone could tell me the reason it remains turned off.
If parts of it are broken or not up to MediaWiki standard or Evil(tm) in some other important way, please, PLEASE tell me so I can fix it.
Should I backport it from CVS HEAD to some other branch? Which one? Anything!
So far, I've been mostly ignored.
Magnus
Please put this feature into effect immediately! If we don't like it, we can always turn it off afterwards. But we will NEVER know if thousands of Wikipedians will like it if we wait for an overwhelming clamor on this mailing list.
Ed Poor
From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com
-----Original Message----- From: Magnus Manske [mailto:magnus.manske@web.de] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 3:56 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Slipping quality as Wikipedia gets bigger (formerlyCan you trust Wikipedia?)
Well, as the author of said feature, I've been asking for a long time what's the holdup. I'm fairly certain it is, at the very least, ready for the planned test phase. I keep asking people what should be fixed, but so far (that is, in the last few month) noone could tell me the reason it remains turned off.
If parts of it are broken or not up to MediaWiki standard or Evil(tm) in some other important way, please, PLEASE tell me so I can fix it.
Should I backport it from CVS HEAD to some other branch? Which one? Anything!
So far, I've been mostly ignored.
Magnus
Please put this feature into effect immediately! If we don't like it, we can always turn it off afterwards. But we will NEVER know if thousands of Wikipedians will like it if we wait for an overwhelming clamor on this mailing list.
If it does anything to further degrade Wikipedia's performance, I'd recommend not putting it in.
Jay.
On 02/11/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Please put this feature into effect immediately! If we don't like it, we can always turn it off afterwards. But we will NEVER know if thousands of Wikipedians will like it if we wait for an overwhelming clamor on this mailing list.
If it does anything to further degrade Wikipedia's performance, I'd recommend not putting it in.
Is there any desire for (or even discussion about) it among one of the smaller language communities? If so, it might be useful to try rolling it out there first and seeing what happens - something that trebles the load on, say, nl.wiki will be less horrendous to cope with than something which trebles the load on en.wiki.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Magnus Manske [mailto:magnus.manske@web.de] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 3:56 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Slipping quality as Wikipedia gets bigger (formerlyCan you trust Wikipedia?)
Well, as the author of said feature, I've been asking for a long time what's the holdup. I'm fairly certain it is, at the very least, ready for the planned test phase. I keep asking people what should be fixed, but so far (that is, in the last few month) noone could tell me the reason it remains turned off.
If parts of it are broken or not up to MediaWiki standard or Evil(tm) in some other important way, please, PLEASE tell me so I can fix it.
Should I backport it from CVS HEAD to some other branch? Which one? Anything!
So far, I've been mostly ignored.
Magnus
Please put this feature into effect immediately! If we don't like it, we can always turn it off afterwards. But we will NEVER know if thousands of Wikipedians will like it if we wait for an overwhelming clamor on this mailing list.
Ed Poor
I really think that ratings are vital, in order to deal with improving and maintaining Wikipedia's quality as its size and audience scales. If the ratings code is a performance, hog, at least trying it experimentally will find out how bad the problem is, and perhaps illuminate how it could be fixed to make it better. I can think of lots of potential strategies for doing this, but it would be nice to see the problem in reality, rather than in theory, before trying to fix it.
Perhaps the rating code could be turned on only for admins, or users with usernames beginning with 'E' to 'J', or only during non-busy hours... or automatically turned off if load rises over a pre-set limit?
Or perhaps just turned on for a few hours one weekend, to see what the effect on load really is?
-- Neil
Neil Harris wrote:
Perhaps the rating code could be turned on only for admins, or users with usernames beginning with 'E' to 'J', or only during non-busy hours... or automatically turned off if load rises over a pre-set limit?
Or perhaps just turned on for a few hours one weekend, to see what the effect on load really is?
Jimbo's plan calls for everyone being able to rate, including not-logged-in users. This will be for test purposes only; the ratings from the test phase will be deleted again, once the statistics people got their hands on it and can hopefully tell us how to fine-tune the rating process.
The "performance hog myth" dates back to the very first version. I have worked on the problematic parts and IMHO they should be good. I can't be certain without real testing, though. However, I doubt it will degrade performance in the initial phase; if there's a problem, it will most likely show once there are at least a few hundred thousand ratings. There will be many write/delete queries on the table, which might lead to table locks; this might be countered with low priority queries, though.
Magnus
Magnus Manske wrote:
Neil Harris wrote:
Perhaps the rating code could be turned on only for admins, or users with usernames beginning with 'E' to 'J', or only during non-busy hours... or automatically turned off if load rises over a pre-set limit?
Or perhaps just turned on for a few hours one weekend, to see what the effect on load really is?
Jimbo's plan calls for everyone being able to rate, including not-logged-in users. This will be for test purposes only; the ratings from the test phase will be deleted again, once the statistics people got their hands on it and can hopefully tell us how to fine-tune the rating process.
The "performance hog myth" dates back to the very first version. I have worked on the problematic parts and IMHO they should be good. I can't be certain without real testing, though. However, I doubt it will degrade performance in the initial phase; if there's a problem, it will most likely show once there are at least a few hundred thousand ratings. There will be many write/delete queries on the table, which might lead to table locks; this might be countered with low priority queries, though.
Magnus
For vote acquisition, the entries might as well be split across multiple tables to spread the locking load, if locking is a real problem, and the votes then merged in (daily?) batch operations. There's no real need for the system to give real-time results.
-- Neil
Neil Harris wrote:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Magnus Manske [mailto:magnus.manske@web.de] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 3:56 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Slipping quality as Wikipedia gets bigger (formerlyCan you trust Wikipedia?)
Well, as the author of said feature, I've been asking for a long time what's the holdup. I'm fairly certain it is, at the very least, ready for the planned test phase. I keep asking people what should be fixed, but so far (that is, in the last few month) noone could tell me the reason it remains turned off.
If parts of it are broken or not up to MediaWiki standard or Evil(tm) in some other important way, please, PLEASE tell me so I can fix it.
Should I backport it from CVS HEAD to some other branch? Which one? Anything!
So far, I've been mostly ignored.
Magnus
Please put this feature into effect immediately! If we don't like it, we can always turn it off afterwards. But we will NEVER know if thousands of Wikipedians will like it if we wait for an overwhelming clamor on this mailing list.
Ed Poor
I really think that ratings are vital, in order to deal with improving and maintaining Wikipedia's quality as its size and audience scales. If the ratings code is a performance, hog, at least trying it experimentally will find out how bad the problem is, and perhaps illuminate how it could be fixed to make it better. I can think of lots of potential strategies for doing this, but it would be nice to see the problem in reality, rather than in theory, before trying to fix it.
Perhaps the rating code could be turned on only for admins, or users with usernames beginning with 'E' to 'J', or only during non-busy hours... or automatically turned off if load rises over a pre-set limit?
Or perhaps just turned on for a few hours one weekend, to see what the effect on load really is?
-- Neil
Just to clarify this: I'm not proposing to permanently restrict rating to admins or any other subgroup -- any user, logged in or not, should eventually be able to rate articles, just as they can edit them.
The idea of restrictions is to solely prevent initial testing from killing the system, after which the range of allowed users can be progressively increased, eventually to include all users as soon as system resources or code optimization permit.
The sooner the system is tested, the sooner it can be in shape for full production use.
-- Neil