Gentlemen, try it yourself. In Facebook share a link to a MediaWiki wiki or article. Is the picture that appears to the right of the link what you expect? Why can't it offer the site logo as one of the choices?
Go report it to Facebook, Holmes.
Well Facebook is rather big compared to MediaWiki, they can't hear little voices like mine, so maybe MediaWiki could make some adjustments on the MediaWiki side.
The problem is even worse when quoting a MediaWiki URL in a Facebook comment. In this case one ends up with the wretched "Powered by MediaWiki" logo as the only choice, despite ones painstaking crafted site logo.
When quoting Wikipedia in a FB comment one ends up with equivalent gunk from the bottom of the page.
Try it yourself. FB started putting image "previews" in comments last week.
Looking further into the problem, we see it all stems from MediaWiki (people, staff, you), non-knowledge of how text browsers or search engines work.
We know how they work, but they don't matter because all we know is how things look in our browser
Can you believe that text browser users are denied any knowledge of the site logo either? No blip on the screen like there might be for a normal image. Nothing.
Yeah, well there is no reason for anybody to use a text browser, so screw 'em
The most important image on an entire MediaWiki site, and it lays wrapped up in some <!-- logo --> markup that makes big assumptions <!--/logo -->.
Ha Ha, Ha Ha, told you so *for years*. Now when anybody quotes a MediaWiki article on Facebook, there is a 95% chance it will look bad... serves you all right! Plus (Google+? Dare not also test it there to see what happens), it is NOT a Facebook bug. Ho Ho Ho. Muhahaha.
Ho Ha, Q: what are the goofiest looking links on Facebook? A: MediaWiki links!
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 2:17 PM, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
Ha Ha, Ha Ha, told you so *for years*. Now when anybody quotes a MediaWiki article on Facebook, there is a 95% chance it will look bad... serves you all right! Plus (Google+? Dare not also test it there to see what happens), it is NOT a Facebook bug. Ho Ho Ho. Muhahaha.
How is this not a facebook bug? It doesn't scan the page properly for a list of possible images to choose from?
On 11-07-23 09:21 PM, K. Peachey wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 2:17 PM, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
Ha Ha, Ha Ha, told you so *for years*. Now when anybody quotes a MediaWiki article on Facebook, there is a 95% chance it will look bad... serves you all right! Plus (Google+? Dare not also test it there to see what happens), it is NOT a Facebook bug. Ho Ho Ho. Muhahaha.
How is this not a facebook bug? It doesn't scan the page properly for a list of possible images to choose from?
Facebook scans the <img> tags on a page for images that are at least 50x50px with a max aspect ratio of 3:1. When you try to share a url for a Wikipedia article with a good set of images you'll get a selection of images to pick from. Of course an article without any images won't have any to pick from and FB will just use no image. It does trip up on some of the templates the Wikipedia community uses, some of which embed some icons at sizes slightly larger than 50x50px causing FB to include those. The logo is an embedded background-image so it doesn't show up in the scan.
jidanni seams to have the opinion that the logo of a wiki is so important that a user with a text browser that can't see images would like to see something like "[site logo here]" to indicate that the site has a logo they can't even see.
jidanni isn't particularly good at calmly presenting a problem in a way that would get people to see what pieces are broken and get people to chime in on ways to fix them. Rather he seams to think that insulting the people he's trying to get to change something will help, rather than cause them to simply dismiss him as a jackass and miss the few valid points of his cause counterproductively making it even less likely what he's trying to get changed will be changed. He might also want to take a look at the flash based sites out there before he tries to argue that MW which is built with a number of features to permit accessibility for screen readers and text browsers was built by people with no knowledge of how screen readers and search engines work.
Looking over things. Our powered by icons and whatnot make use of <img> tags. Sadly while the background-image trick could hide them I don't believe it would work since that'll break the accessibility there since the background-image trick can't replicate the alt text, least not without having negative quirks while images are still loading. Screen reader and search engine wise the <img> would be correct here. The logo uses a background-image. It's not a static pre-bundled image like the powered by icons. In this case, I believe that the function of using the background-image rather than an <img> with an alt or an empty alt="" is to prevent overly large logos (we don't have a standard logo size, and the sizes that skins use actually vary) from overflowing out of the logo area and obscuring the page content.
logos are content, not style so we should use img
the only way to fix it in mediawiki probably is to add some kind of microformat to the logo but still I doubt facebook whether will process that microformat
How is this not a facebook bug?
On 24 July 2011 17:15, Daniel Friesen lists@nadir-seen-fire.com wrote:
On 11-07-23 09:21 PM, K. Peachey wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 2:17 PM, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
Ha Ha, Ha Ha, told you so *for years*. Now when anybody quotes a MediaWiki article on Facebook, there is a 95% chance it will look bad... serves you all right! Plus (Google+? Dare not also test it there to see what happens), it is NOT a Facebook bug. Ho Ho Ho. Muhahaha.
How is this not a facebook bug? It doesn't scan the page properly for a list of possible images to choose from?
Facebook scans the <img> tags on a page for images that are at least 50x50px with a max aspect ratio of 3:1. When you try to share a url for a Wikipedia article with a good set of images you'll get a selection of images to pick from. Of course an article without any images won't have any to pick from and FB will just use no image. It does trip up on some of the templates the Wikipedia community uses, some of which embed some icons at sizes slightly larger than 50x50px causing FB to include those. The logo is an embedded background-image so it doesn't show up in the scan.
jidanni seams to have the opinion that the logo of a wiki is so important that a user with a text browser that can't see images would like to see something like "[site logo here]" to indicate that the site has a logo they can't even see.
jidanni isn't particularly good at calmly presenting a problem in a way that would get people to see what pieces are broken and get people to chime in on ways to fix them. Rather he seams to think that insulting the people he's trying to get to change something will help, rather than cause them to simply dismiss him as a jackass and miss the few valid points of his cause counterproductively making it even less likely what he's trying to get changed will be changed. He might also want to take a look at the flash based sites out there before he tries to argue that MW which is built with a number of features to permit accessibility for screen readers and text browsers was built by people with no knowledge of how screen readers and search engines work.
Looking over things. Our powered by icons and whatnot make use of <img> tags. Sadly while the background-image trick could hide them I don't believe it would work since that'll break the accessibility there since the background-image trick can't replicate the alt text, least not without having negative quirks while images are still loading. Screen reader and search engine wise the <img> would be correct here. The logo uses a background-image. It's not a static pre-bundled image like the powered by icons. In this case, I believe that the function of using the background-image rather than an <img> with an alt or an empty alt="" is to prevent overly large logos (we don't have a standard logo size, and the sizes that skins use actually vary) from overflowing out of the logo area and obscuring the page content.
-- ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
Because there is no good reason for Facebook to render css and try to extract background images which are likely to be style... Facebook DOES have a microformat, Open Graph.
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/opengraph/ http://ogp.me/ http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:OpenGraphMeta
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
On 11-07-23 10:43 PM, alicatux wrote:
logos are content, not style so we should use img
the only way to fix it in mediawiki probably is to add some kind of microformat to the logo but still I doubt facebook whether will process that microformat
How is this not a facebook bug?
On 24 July 2011 17:15, Daniel Friesen lists@nadir-seen-fire.com wrote:
On 11-07-23 09:21 PM, K. Peachey wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 2:17 PM, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
Ha Ha, Ha Ha, told you so *for years*. Now when anybody quotes a MediaWiki article on Facebook, there is a 95% chance it will look bad... serves you all right! Plus (Google+? Dare not also test it there to see what happens), it is NOT a Facebook bug. Ho Ho Ho. Muhahaha.
How is this not a facebook bug? It doesn't scan the page properly for a list of possible images to choose from?
Facebook scans the <img> tags on a page for images that are at least 50x50px with a max aspect ratio of 3:1. When you try to share a url for a Wikipedia article with a good set of images you'll get a selection of images to pick from. Of course an article without any images won't have any to pick from and FB will just use no image. It does trip up on some of the templates the Wikipedia community uses, some of which embed some icons at sizes slightly larger than 50x50px causing FB to include those. The logo is an embedded background-image so it doesn't show up in the scan.
jidanni seams to have the opinion that the logo of a wiki is so important that a user with a text browser that can't see images would like to see something like "[site logo here]" to indicate that the site has a logo they can't even see.
jidanni isn't particularly good at calmly presenting a problem in a way that would get people to see what pieces are broken and get people to chime in on ways to fix them. Rather he seams to think that insulting the people he's trying to get to change something will help, rather than cause them to simply dismiss him as a jackass and miss the few valid points of his cause counterproductively making it even less likely what he's trying to get changed will be changed. He might also want to take a look at the flash based sites out there before he tries to argue that MW which is built with a number of features to permit accessibility for screen readers and text browsers was built by people with no knowledge of how screen readers and search engines work.
Looking over things. Our powered by icons and whatnot make use of <img> tags. Sadly while the background-image trick could hide them I don't believe it would work since that'll break the accessibility there since the background-image trick can't replicate the alt text, least not without having negative quirks while images are still loading. Screen reader and search engine wise the <img> would be correct here. The logo uses a background-image. It's not a static pre-bundled image like the powered by icons. In this case, I believe that the function of using the background-image rather than an <img> with an alt or an empty alt="" is to prevent overly large logos (we don't have a standard logo size, and the sizes that skins use actually vary) from overflowing out of the logo area and obscuring the page content.
-- ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
All I know is attempting to share "http://www.google.com/" on Facebook gives a pleasing
"Google http://www.google.com/
Search the world's information, including webpages, images, videos and more. Google has many special features to help you find exactly what you're looking for."
With a crisp Google logo as the first and only logo choice. Text and logo 100% perfect! ♥♥♥
Now allow us to turn our attention to say, what happens when trying to share oh, "http://www.mediawiki.org/" ,
"MediaWiki http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki
Use the links below to explore the site contents. You'll find some content translated into other languages, but the primary documentation language is English."
1. the URL becomes the longer ugly redirect, but never mind that, that was a previous argument.
2. Of course we are not given a choice of the site logo, which is my main argument of this thread, but as the lyrics go, "that's what they want, that's what they choose". Brian Eno - Cindy Tells Me http://youtu.be/XC9Rb8G03es
3. How did Facebook choose that snippet of text? It seems that it runs down to the first <P> outside of a <div> or something.
And they why then when sharing ones average mom and pop wikis, http://abj.jidanni.org/ http://transgender-taiwan.org/ http://radioscanningtw.jidanni.org not only does one not get a single image, but not a scrap of text gets included either. What is it that makes Facebook not see the text sitting there on the page? What goop is ruining things?
Now turning our attention to Wikia sites, well they fare a bit better in Facebook.
However attempting to share "http://www.wikia.com/" itself produces no image whatsoever.
Conclusion: Mediawiki does not pass the Facebook test.
On 07/26/2011 02:42 AM, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
- How did Facebook choose that snippet of text? It seems that it runs
down to the first<P> outside of a<div> or something.
1. Learn about the opengraph protocol:
http://developers.facebook.com/docs/opengraph/
2. Put that stuff into your mediawiki skin.
3. Learn some manners.
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Marcello Perathoner marcello@perathoner.de wrote:
On 07/26/2011 02:42 AM, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
- How did Facebook choose that snippet of text? It seems that it runs
down to the first<P> outside of a<div> or something.
- Learn about the opengraph protocol:
http://developers.facebook.com/docs/opengraph/
- Put that stuff into your mediawiki skin.
Expecting people to learn and do this sort of thing by hand is unreasonable. I don't think it should be in core but it would be entirely trivial to expose this sort of behavior via an extension.
-Chad
On 11-07-25 07:03 PM, Chad wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Marcello Perathoner marcello@perathoner.de wrote:
On 07/26/2011 02:42 AM, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
- How did Facebook choose that snippet of text? It seems that it runs
down to the first<P> outside of a<div> or something.
Learn about the opengraph protocol:
Put that stuff into your mediawiki skin.
Expecting people to learn and do this sort of thing by hand is unreasonable. I don't think it should be in core but it would be entirely trivial to expose this sort of behavior via an extension.
-Chad
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:OpenGraphMeta Though after rethinking og:image I would like to drop the #setmainimage feature and re-do that.
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
On 11-07-25 05:42 PM, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
All I know is attempting to share "http://www.google.com/" on Facebook gives a pleasing
"Google http://www.google.com/
Search the world's information, including webpages, images, videos and more. Google has many special features to help you find exactly what you're looking for."
With a crisp Google logo as the first and only logo choice. Text and logo 100% perfect! ♥♥♥
Now allow us to turn our attention to say, what happens when trying to share oh, "http://www.mediawiki.org/" ,
"MediaWiki http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki
Use the links below to explore the site contents. You'll find some content translated into other languages, but the primary documentation language is English."
- the URL becomes the longer ugly redirect, but never mind that, that was a
previous argument.
- Of course we are not given a choice of the site logo, which is my
main argument of this thread, but as the lyrics go, "that's what they want, that's what they choose". Brian Eno - Cindy Tells Me http://youtu.be/XC9Rb8G03es
- How did Facebook choose that snippet of text? It seems that it runs
down to the first <P> outside of a <div> or something.
The order Facebook goes for that text is supposed to be: - OpenGraph og:description - Meta description tag - First <p> in the page. Not sure what extra heuristics they do on the <p> scanning.
And they why then when sharing ones average mom and pop wikis, http://abj.jidanni.org/ http://transgender-taiwan.org/ http://radioscanningtw.jidanni.org not only does one not get a single image, but not a scrap of text gets included either. What is it that makes Facebook not see the text sitting there on the page? What goop is ruining things?
The three wiki pages you describe are filled with lists, definition lists, and headers. The only <p> I can find on those page have content so short that Facebook probably can't figure out if they're content, or junk like you'll find in various parts of the web. ie: The issue here is those pages lack any real textual content for Facebook to even extract. I'm not even sure if my Description2 extension could extract enough text to fill a meta description on those pages.
Now turning our attention to Wikia sites, well they fare a bit better in Facebook.
However attempting to share "http://www.wikia.com/" itself produces no image whatsoever.
You'd better get some facts strait here: - Wikia does in fact declare an image for that page you list, the only reason it doesn't show up is because Wikia's logo is less than 38px in height. This is the same as the rest of the wiki homepages, there is nothing inferior about this page or MediaWiki here. If you want something to blame for this, either gripe that Wikia hasn't chosen a logo large enough, or that Facebook doesn't like images less than 50px in any size (and face the slew of reasons why you don't want the other images that small showing up in FB). - Wikia's pages do in fact show pretty well in Facebook. This is because Wikia is using my OpenGraphMeta extension after I personally advised them to use it because before that (while they had like buttons in their skin) their pages were even WORSE than stock MediaWiki. - When it comes to Facebook scanning pages for data 99% of whether or not this is going to work well is the fault of the skin. The ONLY relevant thing MediaWiki can do differently when it comes to that is og: meta tags. And because everything is dependent on where the skin puts something in page order, how they embed it, what other kinds of images they add in the page, and how they insert the logo, the results of trying to share something on Wikia with Facebook has nothing to do with MediaWiki handling on this because Wikia is using a custom skin.
Conclusion: Mediawiki does not pass the Facebook test.
Examining http://www.google.com/, they achieve their perfect Facebook link and logo through 100% old fashioned HTML goodness without a drop of OG. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.G._Original_Gangster ☻
And OK, if OG is the way to go, then perhaps MediaWiki should stuff some in for the user, just like it does already on every page with <link rel="search" ... href="/opensearch_desc.php" which contains xmlns:moz=...mozilla.org/2006/browser...
I mean there are probably a few $wg variables from LocalSetting.php that could be referenced when creating the OG <meta> stuff, without needing to ask the user questions about his wiki when he first sets it up, nor needing him to install an extension.
Like $wgLogo for starters.
"j" == jidanni jidanni@jidanni.org writes:
j> Like $wgLogo for starters. I'm not sure if putting that in the OG <meta> stuff means "this is the only image for this page / site" etc. or not. Hopefully at least $wgLogo will at least become one of the candidates for a Facebook etc. preview image.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:44 AM, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
"j" == jidanni jidanni@jidanni.org writes:
j> Like $wgLogo for starters. I'm not sure if putting that in the OG <meta> stuff means "this is the only image for this page / site" etc. or not. Hopefully at least $wgLogo will at least become one of the candidates for a Facebook etc. preview image.
Per the OG docs, you can specify multiple images in the <head> for Facebook to choose from.
-Chad
Follow the excitement on https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30113 Be sure to include examples of other software packages that "deep six" the site's painstakingly created logo for instead a gleeful "powered by" logo. Kitsch too.
Dear Dan,
On 2011-07-24 12:17, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
[some unimportant issue with a random website] Ha Ha, Ha Ha, told you so *for years*. Ho Ho Ho. Muhahaha. Ho Ha, Q: what are the goofiest looking links on Facebook? A: MediaWiki links!
Have you forgotten to take your pills?
Seriously. I think I'm not the only one who is starting to get annoyed with your way of letting us know about issues you seem to have with MediaWiki.
Send a patch, or say it in an appropriate way.
Patrick.
On 24/07/11 06:17, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
In Facebook share a link to a MediaWiki wiki or article. Is the picture that appears to the right of the link what you expect? Why can't it offer the site logo as one of the choices?
I am guessing you wanted the site logo (for Wikipedia, the sphere in the top left). When adding a link in Facebook, it parses the page content and then offer you a selection of pictures *from the article content*. With the Vector and the Monobook skins, the logo is part of the site style, not the article content.
This was done intentionally to avoid any confusion between style and content, for example for Braille display.
So I would say it is working as intended and changing it will break our accessibility.
The problem is even worse when quoting a MediaWiki URL in a Facebook comment. In this case one ends up with the wretched "Powered by MediaWiki" logo as the only choice,
Please look at bugzilla for a similar bug report. If it does not exist, please open one. We should probably use the same trick to get the MediaWiki logo out of site content.
Can you believe that text browser users are denied any knowledge of the site logo either?
Working as intended.
For those wondering how it looks like, have a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:W3m-wikipedia.png
mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org