Personally I think the inline banners are invasive to the content, unlike side bar or top of page banners which dont interfere with the delivery of content, the page layout or potentially imply association with the topic. I also recognise that mobile presentation is already degraded to suit the device so its aesthetics impact would be lower on that medium compared desktop services. As I havent encounted one besides the screen shot and samples I cant comment on the practical aspects of impact on a stub article over that of a featured article nor how it relates to the subject topic. On 2 December 2016 at 10:17, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com

Hey Pine, Communicating about testing is something we need to work out how to improve. One of the issues is the sheer volume of content we are dealing with. During these early days our banner team is running about 7 tests a day, and we have already tested 66 banners and counting. That doesn't include all of the prototype work in design process and since tuesday nearly 200 banners have been created. Some ideas are ones that you've been sitting on saving up for big english, others are ones you dig out of the closet based on new information, then there are tests that are done on the fly in reaction to the recent results that take your course in a whole different trajectory and many (often the unexpected successes and often the bolder choices) are the ones that that are spur of the moment. To be fair this was more in the second category. We tried it once earlier in the year and we suspected it was something we would revisit. In this instance we probably could have flagged it up sooner. But running such test is still valuable information, it allows for an informed discussion. It should be noted that the fundraising team isn't directly purely by fundraising success rates. Through the design process we filter out many of the more... shall we say... bolder banners. Even when some of the bolder actions that do get tested and have been highly successful, a decision has been made to put the idea to one side. And in this instance although the test was successful, we had decided that although a winner, it was the lessons to take away that were more important. From there we hope to arrive at a banner that draws from the success but is delivered in a way that is easier on the eye. And as always we are definitely interested in hearing feedback on such efforts. It does genuinely guide our work even if it may not appear to. Regards Seddon On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Seddon *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation*

More than it represents a feasible concept that can be significantly improved upon. Reducing it's footprint, improving the look and feel so that it reduces its impact on the page. With regards to user appeals with photos: 1) They are notoriously difficult to be successful. We spent a whole year trying to beat Jimmy's face and Brandon was the only one who ever came close. 2) our banners follow closely trends on the wider web. Donor preferences at the moment seem to follow an image-lite experience. We tried last year reintroducing info graphics or pictures only to remove them again. Its an area we regularly reassess to see if our readers tastes have changed. Seddon On 2 Dec 2016 06:17, "Pine W" <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Spamming to ask for donations so that they don't spam again until December 2017 (Y) On 12/2/16, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Cometstyles