So for a stub article the original banner was a little overbearing in relation to the content but a substantial part of that was related to that banners particular dynamics that we weren't too fond of ourselves and looking to improve.
Seddon
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
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@gmail.com wrote:
I've been thinking about these inline ads since I first encountered one, which I believe was either yesterday or today. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of inline ads, but they seem to be clearly delineated from article content, and as far as I can tell there is simply no easy way to do
on-wiki
fundraising without a certain amount of distraction to the reader. I
don't
like this practice, but it's hard for me to say that I dislike it any
more
than massive banners. Until WMF has such a large endowment that it no longer needs to do online fundraising (which would create a different set of financial accountability problems than we have now; maybe or maybe not more or less, but different) I'm reluctantly willing to go along with the program. If people have some convincing reasons why inline fundraising should not happen, I hope that they will speak up. At the moment I think it's OK to go with the flow.
In the future I would suggest that this kind of change should be communicated ahead of time, on this mailing list and elsewhere. (Unless I missed it, which would be my fault.
Thanks,
Pine
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey Geni,
So this is a style of banner that we have used on mobile over the last year. We have previously had good feedback about the mobile version
with
people feeling it was less obtrusive to the reader experience. This
banner
that you saw was one of our first attempts at seeing whether
transferring
this to desktop was even a viable idea.
That test showed this design had a huge amount of potential from a fundraising point of view, between a 60% & 90% increase in donations. However we felt that the banner wasn't quite providing the same
experience
as we were getting on mobile. The size was larger and so we think that
we
can refine the concept so that it remains effective but making it less intrusive both than it’s current form and our current control banner ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein?banner=B1617_ 1117_en6C_dsk_p2_sm_template&force=1&country=US). We are working a number of smaller versions that are a little more in keeping with the experience provided on mobile, so keep in mind this is
far
from a finished version.
I would like to emphasis that we are not committed to this. It's
certainly
a change from what we have had in the past and, based on that, both I
and
my colleagues would genuinely like to hear people's views on this type
of
banner. For now this banner will be limited to testing and our current small banner ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein?banner=B1617_ 1117_en6C_dsk_p2_sm_template&force=1&country=US) will be remaining our control. We would like to do a few more tests
with
an
improved take on this style and I would be happy to share the outcomes
of
those if it would help inform the discussion.
Regards Seddon
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:56 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Screenshot of what I mean:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inline_donor_bannerbass.png
Inline ads are generally considered to be something that gets into scummy advertising territory (for example even adblock plus's rather questionable Acceptable Ad policy doesn't accept them).
On a related note the FAQ appears to be out of date:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en
Unless we are still in the 2015-2016 fiscal year.
-- geni
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Seddon
*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe