On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 Mar 2015 2:11 am, "Quim Gil" qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Moushira Elamrawy melamrawy@wikimedia.org wrote:
The banner itself is currently driving traffic to the userpage (which itself needs further iteration)
I think offering a link to the history of the page is better.
We already do.
The last editor is not that relevant (and quite often it will be a bot),
Yet more people click on it for whatever reason: http://mobile-reportcard.wmflabs.org/#other-graphs-tab.
I don't think people realize that the date links to the history. I certainly didn't until someone told me.
In some ways that makes sense - users (I'm assuming) want to know who is writing this stuff, so they click on the name, as that's a person. But that presents skewed information where really they would be better served by the history page (Maybe anyways. That's making a lot of assumptions about user intentions which could be wrong).
More generally we really need to pay attention to our data and rely on it more. I see far too many changes across the site based on guesswork and personal preferences and that's an anti pattern we need to reverse. Now we have a ux research team and ways to a/b test we can test different designs and see if they generate the correct behaviour. In this case I hope we will test to see if last modified at the top is driving more edits than putting it at the bottom.
Is the goal of the last modified header to drive edits? Sure it implies that people like "me" can edit but it seems more like it would communicate to the reader the nature of the page they are reading as opposed to encourage them to actually edit.
--bawolff