In the alpha mode of mobile we show a number inside the talk icon that shows how many open talk topics there are on a page.
For example here: On the San Francisco [1] page you see a 7. If you click it there are 7 topics / sections.
The code has been stagnating for some time, which is a real shame in my opinion as it surfaces the talk page and discussions more. It works by generating a number of sections on each save and storing them in a page property to avoid performance implications.
I personally find it very intriguing when I see a high discussion count on what seems like a non-controversial topic. e.g. Tofu has 37 open topics and makes me curious to click on it and read what people have been discussing around it [2]
It's hard to measure the impact of the talk bubble when it is displayed like this. I'd be interested to do some sort of A/B test around it to see whether more people visit the talk page when the number is shown - I'm not sure if Growth has any plans to do this.
Also I wonder if this is something Flow is thinking about.
Either way can we make a decision and either kill this code, or bring it into beta mode?
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco?mobileaction=alpha [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofu?mobileaction=alpha
Hi,
On Fri, 23 May 2014, at 21:44, Jon Robson wrote:
In the alpha mode of mobile we show a number inside the talk icon that shows how many open talk topics there are on a page.
For example here: On the San Francisco [1] page you see a 7. If you click it there are 7 topics / sections.
Horrendous task. I'd use a talk icon instead - the count never matters. The only case is when I care whether there is 0 or not, so I know whether it's worth skimming anything against my concern or I should start a new topic.
Unless you find a use-case which you're addressing, don't code this please.
Also I wonder if this is something Flow is thinking about.
It is. There is no need to code things twice - as mobile interface is merely a skin.
Gryllida.
"Unless you find a use-case which you're addressing, don't code this please." We coding this over a year ago on this basis but nothing has been done with it. My question that I am wondering if we should explore the answer to is: "Does showing the number of talk topics on an article increase engagement in discussions?" (Note evidence from many user tests that have been run in the past 2 years give me the impression that many non-editors are not aware there is a discussion side to Wikipedia)
"It is. There is no need to code things twice - as mobile interface is merely a skin."
I'm not sure what you mean here. The mobile team has been thinking about doing this, this doesn't mean Flow has been. I'm not sure what skins have to do with anything here. Yes Flow could easily surface such a number but the number would have to be generated and surfaced somewhere since Flow is implemented completely differently.
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Gryllida gryllida@fastmail.fm wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 23 May 2014, at 21:44, Jon Robson wrote:
In the alpha mode of mobile we show a number inside the talk icon that shows how many open talk topics there are on a page.
For example here: On the San Francisco [1] page you see a 7. If you click it there are 7 topics / sections.
Horrendous task. I'd use a talk icon instead - the count never matters. The only case is when I care whether there is 0 or not, so I know whether it's worth skimming anything against my concern or I should start a new topic.
Unless you find a use-case which you're addressing, don't code this please.
Also I wonder if this is something Flow is thinking about.
It is. There is no need to code things twice - as mobile interface is merely a skin.
Gryllida.
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Jon Robson, 23/05/2014 15:54:
(Note evidence from many user tests that have been run in the past 2 years give me the impression that many non-editors are not aware there is a discussion side to Wikipedia)
I've tried https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random/Talk and then the "Return to ... page" link and I could not find a link to talk page. Is there any? In normal skins, the existence of a talk page is reported by a blue link; the red link is used to invite creation. It seems you may want to get the basics to work on mobile first.
Nemo
Currently talk is only available via the beta mode of the site: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileOptions
We've been focusing on VisualEditor stuff.
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Jon Robson, 23/05/2014 15:54:
(Note evidence from many user tests that have been run in the past 2 years give me the impression that many non-editors are not aware there is a discussion side to Wikipedia)
I've tried https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random/Talk and then the "Return to ... page" link and I could not find a link to talk page. Is there any? In normal skins, the existence of a talk page is reported by a blue link; the red link is used to invite creation. It seems you may want to get the basics to work on mobile first.
Nemo
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
(and the talk count is only available in alpha mode) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileOptions?mobileaction=beta
Sorry if this was not clear.
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com wrote:
Currently talk is only available via the beta mode of the site: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileOptions
We've been focusing on VisualEditor stuff.
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Jon Robson, 23/05/2014 15:54:
(Note evidence from many user tests that have been run in the past 2 years give me the impression that many non-editors are not aware there is a discussion side to Wikipedia)
I've tried https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random/Talk and then the "Return to ... page" link and I could not find a link to talk page. Is there any? In normal skins, the existence of a talk page is reported by a blue link; the red link is used to invite creation. It seems you may want to get the basics to work on mobile first.
Nemo
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
-- Jon Robson
Hi,
On Fri, 23 May 2014, at 23:54, Jon Robson wrote:
"Unless you find a use-case which you're addressing, don't code this please." We coding this over a year ago on this basis but nothing has been done with it. My question that I am wondering if we should explore the answer to is: "Does showing the number of talk topics on an article increase engagement in discussions?" (Note evidence from many user tests that have been run in the past 2 years give me the impression that many non-editors are not aware there is a discussion side to Wikipedia)
Then people would avoid starting a talk page when the number is 0. This is, in my view, a bad thing.
"It is. There is no need to code things twice - as mobile interface is merely a skin."
I'm not sure what you mean here. The mobile team has been thinking about doing this, this doesn't mean Flow has been. I'm not sure what skins have to do with anything here. Yes Flow could easily surface such a number but the number would have to be generated and surfaced somewhere since Flow is implemented completely differently.
This number would have to be generated by MediaWiki or Flow, but surely not by MobileFrontEnd. As I said, MobileFrontEnd is only a skin.
Gryllida.
Then people would avoid starting a talk page when the number is 0. This is, in my view, a bad thing.
This is a valid assumption and one we could test. A zero might even prompt new discussions. We'll never know unless we explore it. I'm just curious if there are any plans to test this and other similar hypotheses.
This number would have to be generated by MediaWiki or Flow, but surely not by MobileFrontEnd. As I said, MobileFrontEnd is only a skin.
Not true. MobileFrontend has a few more bits of code that make it a little more than a skin - e.g. special pages like Special:Nearby. It currently records this number via a hook and is agnostic to Flow and MediaWiki (although this code could easily be added to MediaWiki core to be standardised)
Displaying the discussion count in a design were investigating with winter as well.
Sent while mobile
On May 23, 2014, at 7:37 AM, Jon Robson jrobson@wikimedia.org wrote:
Then people would avoid starting a talk page when the number is 0. This is, in my view, a bad thing.
This is a valid assumption and one we could test. A zero might even prompt new discussions. We'll never know unless we explore it. I'm just curious if there are any plans to test this and other similar hypotheses.
This number would have to be generated by MediaWiki or Flow, but surely not by MobileFrontEnd. As I said, MobileFrontEnd is only a skin.
Not true. MobileFrontend has a few more bits of code that make it a little more than a skin - e.g. special pages like Special:Nearby. It currently records this number via a hook and is agnostic to Flow and MediaWiki (although this code could easily be added to MediaWiki core to be standardised)
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Hi,
On Sat, 24 May 2014, at 0:37, Jon Robson wrote:
Then people would avoid starting a talk page when the number is 0. This is, in my view, a bad thing.
This is a valid assumption and one we could test. A zero might even prompt new discussions. We'll never know unless we explore it. I'm just curious if there are any plans to test this and other similar hypotheses.
Then they suffer when the number is in the middle somewhere. They would also have too many discussions when an article is wrong - people would be more likely to forget to check for duplicate thread if they just look at the number.
I don't want the activity to suffer in any of such cases - I would prefer it stayed the same.
This number would have to be generated by MediaWiki or Flow, but surely not by MobileFrontEnd. As I said, MobileFrontEnd is only a skin.
Not true. MobileFrontend has a few more bits of code that make it a little more than a skin - e.g. special pages like Special:Nearby. It currently records this number via a hook and is agnostic to Flow and MediaWiki (although this code could easily be added to MediaWiki core to be standardised)
I feel that these features would go away soon and be put into software which both mobile and desktop people use.
Gryllida.
On May 23, 2014 1:44 PM, "Jon Robson" jrobson@wikimedia.org wrote:
snip...
It's hard to measure the impact of the talk bubble when it is displayed like this. I'd be interested to do some sort of A/B test around it to see whether more people visit the talk page when the number is shown - I'm not sure if Growth has any plans to do this.
I think the following is controversial, but I hope not: talk pages are anti wiki in nature, and more of a necessary evil if disagreements can't be solved through collaborative editing than something we should promote the visibility of. They are a last resort, and I would be perfectly happy if a newcomer never knew they existed for a long while.
I would be very reluctant about any change that might cause a newcomer to edit a talk page and suggest a change (that probably nobody will read, and if they do probably won't respond to) than just edit the page.
If any A/B testing is done, any marginal loss of mainspace edits, for any number of extra talk page views or edits, should imo be counted as a regression.
Too rambling; u wot m8? Before setting up A/B tests, please consider and discuss success conditions. They nay be unintuitive.
--Martijn
Also I wonder if this is something Flow is thinking about.
Either way can we make a decision and either kill this code, or bring it into beta mode?
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco?mobileaction=alpha [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofu?mobileaction=alpha
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
I'd have to disagree, I think talk pages are where consensus building happens, and while users don't have to discover discussions to be able to participate, i don't see it as a negative thing at all. I think the current talk pages are user hostile (the UI, syntax conventions, etc. not the people [usually]) but I think Flow will help that. In testing (~20 rounds ) a common refrain from users has been "Wikipedia has discussions?!" many were totally unaware and thought discussions were a new feature we were testing with them, not the winter prototype http://unicorn.wmflabs.org/winter/
*Jared Zimmerman * \ Director of User Experience \ Wikimedia Foundation
M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmermanhttps://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoekstra@gmail.com
wrote:
On May 23, 2014 1:44 PM, "Jon Robson" jrobson@wikimedia.org wrote:
snip...
It's hard to measure the impact of the talk bubble when it is displayed like this. I'd be interested to do some sort of A/B test around it to see whether more people visit the talk page when the number is shown - I'm not sure if Growth has any plans to do this.
I think the following is controversial, but I hope not: talk pages are anti wiki in nature, and more of a necessary evil if disagreements can't be solved through collaborative editing than something we should promote the visibility of. They are a last resort, and I would be perfectly happy if a newcomer never knew they existed for a long while.
I would be very reluctant about any change that might cause a newcomer to edit a talk page and suggest a change (that probably nobody will read, and if they do probably won't respond to) than just edit the page.
If any A/B testing is done, any marginal loss of mainspace edits, for any number of extra talk page views or edits, should imo be counted as a regression.
Too rambling; u wot m8? Before setting up A/B tests, please consider and discuss success conditions. They nay be unintuitive.
--Martijn
Also I wonder if this is something Flow is thinking about.
Either way can we make a decision and either kill this code, or bring it into beta mode?
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco?mobileaction=alpha [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofu?mobileaction=alpha
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
On Friday, May 23, 2014, Jared Zimmerman jared.zimmerman@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'd have to disagree, I think talk pages are where consensus building happens, and while users don't have to discover discussions to be able to participate, i don't see it as a negative thing at all.
It's a fine thing to disagree about. My view on the matter is possibly old fashioned, and while editing as the main consensus building tools with talk pages as a last resort for when that process breaks down is still the principle held by the "be bold" and "consensus" guidelines on the English Wikipedia, I don't know how widely held it still is. Still I feel strongly about it, and believe it is the single most important aspect of the success of wikis.
I think the current talk pages are user hostile (the UI, syntax conventions, etc. not the people [usually]) but I think Flow will help that. In testing (~20 rounds ) a common refrain from users has been "Wikipedia has discussions?!" many were totally unaware and thought discussions were a new feature we were testing with them, not the winter prototype http://unicorn.wmflabs.org/winter/
I don't disbelieve it, but I don't really see it as something interesting new users should be aware of, and mildly harmful if they are led to think Wikipedia is built through up front discussion rather than bold editing and resorting to discussion only when the be bold model breaks down. Promoting harmful misconceptions about the wiki model of editing is not a good idea.
The important thing to measure though is not our respective opinions on the matter, because in the grand scheme of things, they don't matter. The thing to measure is does it encourage newcomers to edit main space more, whether that's right now, or after 20 talk page edits, or does it cause them to edit main space less?
--Martijn
*Jared Zimmerman * \ Director of User Experience \ Wikimedia Foundation M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmermanhttps://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Martijn Hoekstra < martijnhoekstra@gmail.comjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','martijnhoekstra@gmail.com');
wrote:
On May 23, 2014 1:44 PM, "Jon Robson" <jrobson@wikimedia.orgjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jrobson@wikimedia.org');> wrote:
snip...
It's hard to measure the impact of the talk bubble when it is displayed like this. I'd be interested to do some sort of A/B test around it to see whether more people visit the talk page when the number is shown - I'm not sure if Growth has any plans to do this.
I think the following is controversial, but I hope not: talk pages are anti wiki in nature, and more of a necessary evil if disagreements can't be solved through collaborative editing than something we should promote the visibility of. They are a last resort, and I would be perfectly happy if a newcomer never knew they existed for a long while.
I would be very reluctant about any change that might cause a newcomer to edit a talk page and suggest a change (that probably nobody will read, and if they do probably won't respond to) than just edit the page.
If any A/B testing is done, any marginal loss of mainspace edits, for any number of extra talk page views or edits, should imo be counted as a regression.
Too rambling; u wot m8? Before setting up A/B tests, please consider and discuss success conditions. They nay be unintuitive.
--Martijn
Also I wonder if this is something Flow is thinking about.
Either way can we make a decision and either kill this code, or bring it into beta mode?
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco?mobileaction=alpha [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofu?mobileaction=alpha
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.orgjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Design@lists.wikimedia.org'); https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.orgjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Design@lists.wikimedia.org'); https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Martjin, its a good thing to ask "does participation on a talk page increase, decrease, or have no effect on participation in the main article space" but it does presuppose that there is greater value in participating on the article main space doesn't it? As someone who cares about supporting healthy online communities I want to make sure that all good faith ways of contributing are seen as equally valid, useful, and helpful to the project and community. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_peripheral_participation
*Jared Zimmerman * \ Director of User Experience \ Wikimedia Foundation
M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmermanhttps://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Martijn Hoekstra < martijnhoekstra@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, May 23, 2014, Jared Zimmerman jared.zimmerman@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'd have to disagree, I think talk pages are where consensus building happens, and while users don't have to discover discussions to be able to participate, i don't see it as a negative thing at all.
It's a fine thing to disagree about. My view on the matter is possibly old fashioned, and while editing as the main consensus building tools with talk pages as a last resort for when that process breaks down is still the principle held by the "be bold" and "consensus" guidelines on the English Wikipedia, I don't know how widely held it still is. Still I feel strongly about it, and believe it is the single most important aspect of the success of wikis.
I think the current talk pages are user hostile (the UI, syntax conventions, etc. not the people [usually]) but I think Flow will help that. In testing (~20 rounds ) a common refrain from users has been "Wikipedia has discussions?!" many were totally unaware and thought discussions were a new feature we were testing with them, not the winter prototype http://unicorn.wmflabs.org/winter/
I don't disbelieve it, but I don't really see it as something interesting new users should be aware of, and mildly harmful if they are led to think Wikipedia is built through up front discussion rather than bold editing and resorting to discussion only when the be bold model breaks down. Promoting harmful misconceptions about the wiki model of editing is not a good idea.
The important thing to measure though is not our respective opinions on the matter, because in the grand scheme of things, they don't matter. The thing to measure is does it encourage newcomers to edit main space more, whether that's right now, or after 20 talk page edits, or does it cause them to edit main space less?
--Martijn
*Jared Zimmerman * \ Director of User Experience \ Wikimedia Foundation M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmermanhttps://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Martijn Hoekstra < martijnhoekstra@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 23, 2014 1:44 PM, "Jon Robson" jrobson@wikimedia.org wrote:
snip...
It's hard to measure the impact of the talk bubble when it is displayed like this. I'd be interested to do some sort of A/B test around it to see whether more people visit the talk page when the number is shown - I'm not sure if Growth has any plans to do this.
I think the following is controversial, but I hope not: talk pages are anti wiki in nature, and more of a necessary evil if disagreements can't be solved through collaborative editing than something we should promote the visibility of. They are a last resort, and I would be perfectly happy if a newcomer never knew they existed for a long while.
I would be very reluctant about any change that might cause a newcomer to edit a talk page and suggest a change (that probably nobody will read, and if they do probably won't respond to) than just edit the page.
If any A/B testing is done, any marginal loss of mainspace edits, for any number of extra talk page views or edits, should imo be counted as a regression.
Too rambling; u wot m8? Before setting up A/B tests, please consider and discuss success conditions. They nay be unintuitive.
--Martijn
Also I wonder if this is something Flow is thinking about.
Either way can we make a decision and either kill this code, or bring it into beta mode?
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco?mobileaction=alpha [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofu?mobileaction=alpha
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Jared Zimmerman < jared.zimmerman@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Martjin, its a good thing to ask "does participation on a talk page increase, decrease, or have no effect on participation in the main article space"
but it does presuppose that there is greater value in participating on the
article main space doesn't it?
Yes, and I stand by that point.
As someone who cares about supporting healthy online communities I want to make sure that all good faith ways of contributing are seen as equally valid, useful, and helpful to the project and community.
This claim in itself is rather troublesome. I assume you mean a less extreme version of this; I'm sure you're not claiming that a good faith contribution of a new article of the new game a bunch of friends invented in class is equally valid, useful and helpful as writing a featured article (something I have never been able to do, and am painfully aware of). What exactly it is you are claiming I'm not sure of, so it's hard to agree or disagree.
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_peripheral_participation
That's an interesting read. But how I read that article, it's that according to this (by its creator abandoned) theory, newcomers in a community learn to become 'full' community members (this seems to contradict your earlier statement that all good faith contributions are equally valuable) by doing small things that are valuable to the community, even if they are small and low-risk. That doesn't support of equally validity, usefulness and helpfulness even if we would agree that making talk page edits are actually valuable to the community, which we don't. (I would assert that it's neutral to the community, but bad with regards to newcomer engagement and newcomer education). But it's definitely interesting, thank you for pointing me to it, I'll use it as a jumping board for further reading.
If my reading of that article is wrong, i strongly encourage you to go in and fix it (or, if you fancy the n = 1 experiment, leave a note on the talk page with a new account, and see what happens)
--Martijn
*Jared Zimmerman * \ Director of User Experience \ Wikimedia Foundation M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmermanhttps://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Martijn Hoekstra < martijnhoekstra@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, May 23, 2014, Jared Zimmerman jared.zimmerman@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'd have to disagree, I think talk pages are where consensus building happens, and while users don't have to discover discussions to be able to participate, i don't see it as a negative thing at all.
It's a fine thing to disagree about. My view on the matter is possibly old fashioned, and while editing as the main consensus building tools with talk pages as a last resort for when that process breaks down is still the principle held by the "be bold" and "consensus" guidelines on the English Wikipedia, I don't know how widely held it still is. Still I feel strongly about it, and believe it is the single most important aspect of the success of wikis.
I think the current talk pages are user hostile (the UI, syntax conventions, etc. not the people [usually]) but I think Flow will help that. In testing (~20 rounds ) a common refrain from users has been "Wikipedia has discussions?!" many were totally unaware and thought discussions were a new feature we were testing with them, not the winter prototype http://unicorn.wmflabs.org/winter/
I don't disbelieve it, but I don't really see it as something interesting new users should be aware of, and mildly harmful if they are led to think Wikipedia is built through up front discussion rather than bold editing and resorting to discussion only when the be bold model breaks down. Promoting harmful misconceptions about the wiki model of editing is not a good idea.
The important thing to measure though is not our respective opinions on the matter, because in the grand scheme of things, they don't matter. The thing to measure is does it encourage newcomers to edit main space more, whether that's right now, or after 20 talk page edits, or does it cause them to edit main space less?
--Martijn
*Jared Zimmerman * \ Director of User Experience \ Wikimedia Foundation M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmermanhttps://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Martijn Hoekstra < martijnhoekstra@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 23, 2014 1:44 PM, "Jon Robson" jrobson@wikimedia.org wrote:
snip...
It's hard to measure the impact of the talk bubble when it is displayed like this. I'd be interested to do some sort of A/B test around it to see whether more people visit the talk page when the number is shown - I'm not sure if Growth has any plans to do this.
I think the following is controversial, but I hope not: talk pages are anti wiki in nature, and more of a necessary evil if disagreements can't be solved through collaborative editing than something we should promote the visibility of. They are a last resort, and I would be perfectly happy if a newcomer never knew they existed for a long while.
I would be very reluctant about any change that might cause a newcomer to edit a talk page and suggest a change (that probably nobody will read, and if they do probably won't respond to) than just edit the page.
If any A/B testing is done, any marginal loss of mainspace edits, for any number of extra talk page views or edits, should imo be counted as a regression.
Too rambling; u wot m8? Before setting up A/B tests, please consider and discuss success conditions. They nay be unintuitive.
--Martijn
Also I wonder if this is something Flow is thinking about.
Either way can we make a decision and either kill this code, or bring it into beta mode?
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco?mobileaction=alpha [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofu?mobileaction=alpha
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
I kind of like the idea, but this:
On Fri, 23 May 2014 18:24:51 +0200, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
I would be very reluctant about any change that might cause a newcomer to edit a talk page and suggest a change (that probably nobody will read, and if they do probably won't respond to) than just edit the page.
Such behaviors seem pretty likely to me (this would be caused by making talk pages more visible – or more visible than article editing, even – not just by adding the number by itself). It'd surely be interesting to actually test it :D
We need to remember the caching implications of this, by the way. Pulling the number of Flow topics associated with a page has to happen in Javascript, on a secondary thread, because we can't regenerate the HTML for every article page every time its talk page changes.
On May 23, 2014, at 1:43 PM, Bartosz Dziewoński matma.rex@gmail.com wrote:
I kind of like the idea, but this:
On Fri, 23 May 2014 18:24:51 +0200, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
I would be very reluctant about any change that might cause a newcomer to edit a talk page and suggest a change (that probably nobody will read, and if they do probably won't respond to) than just edit the page.
Such behaviors seem pretty likely to me (this would be caused by making talk pages more visible – or more visible than article editing, even – not just by adding the number by itself). It'd surely be interesting to actually test it :D
-- Matma Rex
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
--- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
On 23 May 2014 22:15, "Brandon Harris" bharris@wikimedia.org wrote:
We need to remember the caching implications of this, by the way.
Pulling the number of Flow topics associated with a page has to happen in Javascript, on a secondary thread, because we can't regenerate the HTML for every article page every time its talk page changes.
Yep. currently in mobile we don't have this issue (alpha is never cached) but we would need to think more about this.
(Cc'ing Flow list)
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Jon Robson jrobson@wikimedia.org wrote:
In the alpha mode of mobile we show a number inside the talk icon that shows how many open talk topics there are on a page.
What do you mean by "open"?
Also I wonder if this is something Flow is thinking about.
Sure. A Flow board is a "window" onto all its topics, it initially displays the first 10. An upcoming rewrite will hint how many there are in total at the bottom of a TOC; I think Flow could update the same page property you're using. Flow can have topics in multiple states: closed with a summary and hidden, so we'd have to figure out what to count.
One issue is on a mature wiki there may be discussions going back years but little or no recent activity. Flow will soon give you an option to display topics by most recent activity as well as by date created, but you have to visit the talk page to explore this. There are ways to compute how "hot" a board is based on counts and recent-ness of topics/posts/contributors, but a wiki isn't a popularity contest.
I don't mind the number in the discussion icon and I think we should try it in the Winter Fixed header. IMO on the desktop Hovercards might be a better place to show more information about activity on a talk page/Flow board.
The code has been stagnating for some time, which is a real shame in
my opinion as it surfaces the talk page and discussions more. It works by generating a number of sections on each save and storing them in a page property to avoid performance implications.
I personally find it very intriguing when I see a high discussion count on what seems like a non-controversial topic. e.g. Tofu has 37 open topics and makes me curious to click on it and read what people have been discussing around it [2]
Either way can we make a decision and either kill this code, or bring it into beta mode?
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco?mobileaction=alpha [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofu?mobileaction=alpha
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:33 AM, S Page spage@wikimedia.org wrote:
on the desktop Hovercards might be a better place to show more information about activity on a talk page/Flow board.
I filed *Bug 65692* https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65692 -Hovercards should show useful info for talk page.