On 27 Mar 2015 7:44 am, "bawolff" <bawolff+wn(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Jon Robson <jdlrobson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 27 Mar 2015 2:11 am, "Quim Gil" <qgil(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Moushira Elamrawy
>> <melamrawy(a)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).
Sure. this is definitely one interpretation and you are probably right but
I'm saying we should test and validate that hypothesis... Otherwise we are
just making guesses (albeit good ones).
>
> 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.
From my understanding the idea was to help people
realise that wikipedia is
edited by volunteers (and thus make people at least aware
they can edit. It
still shocks me in 2015 that I have conversations with people who don't
know they can edit). My point here is we should think about why we are
doing things and what we are trying to achieve. I hear too many times: "I
don't like this! This is ugly!" But when this doesn't have any qualitative
reasoning this is pretty useless to the movement and seems to zap
everyone's energy.
I kicked off this thread just to bring up the point that this thread has
confirmed which is many people are going to have different opinions around
moving this bar (just like any design changes) and we need to make sure if
we do make this change we can explain them and explain why it was the right
thing to do. I'm confident the design team is thinking about these things.