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On a related note the FAQ appears to be out of date: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.
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_...). 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_...) 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On a related note the FAQ appears to be out of date: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
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
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
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
Hey Pine,
Communicating about testing is something we need to work out how to improve. One of the issues is the sheer volume of content we are dealing with. During these early days our banner team is running about 7 tests a day, and we have already tested 66 banners and counting. That doesn't include all of the prototype work in design process and since tuesday nearly 200 banners have been created.
Some ideas are ones that you've been sitting on saving up for big english, others are ones you dig out of the closet based on new information, then there are tests that are done on the fly in reaction to the recent results that take your course in a whole different trajectory and many (often the unexpected successes and often the bolder choices) are the ones that that are spur of the moment.
To be fair this was more in the second category. We tried it once earlier in the year and we suspected it was something we would revisit. In this instance we probably could have flagged it up sooner. But running such test is still valuable information, it allows for an informed discussion. It should be noted that the fundraising team isn't directly purely by fundraising success rates. Through the design process we filter out many of the more... shall we say... bolder banners. Even when some of the bolder actions that do get tested and have been highly successful, a decision has been made to put the idea to one side.
And in this instance although the test was successful, we had decided that although a winner, it was the lessons to take away that were more important. From there we hope to arrive at a banner that draws from the success but is delivered in a way that is easier on the eye. And as always we are definitely interested in hearing feedback on such efforts. It does genuinely guide our work even if it may not appear to.
Regards Seddon
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 3:17 AM, 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
Hi Seddon,
By "And in this instance although the test was successful, we had decided that although a winner, it was the lessons to take away that were more important. From there we hope to arrive at a banner that draws from the success but is delivered in a way that is easier on the eye." are you saying that you've decided to discontinue the inline fundraising but will use lessons learned from it to design banners?
By the way, I thought that some of the WMF folks on Facebook had a good idea when they suggested the "I <3 Wikipedia" frames on peoples' profile pictures. That brings to mind that in a previous round of fundraising that WMF had banners with Wikimedians' photos and some fundraising messages that I believe were written by them. Perhaps you could consider bringing back a version of that campaign.
I believe that there is some tradeoff in the length of the campaign and the boldness of the fundraising, so to a certain extent I'm reluctantly willing to accept bold fundraising if that means that the campaign ends sooner.
I feel strongly that the campaign should stick to 100% of its stated target, not intentionally overshoot the target for purposes of padding the reserves. When WMF says that its goal is $X, then it should end the campaign when it has high certainty that it has reached $X. If that means that a campaign ends a week early, so much the better.
Thanks,
Pine
More than it represents a feasible concept that can be significantly improved upon. Reducing it's footprint, improving the look and feel so that it reduces its impact on the page.
With regards to user appeals with photos: 1) They are notoriously difficult to be successful. We spent a whole year trying to beat Jimmy's face and Brandon was the only one who ever came close. 2) our banners follow closely trends on the wider web. Donor preferences at the moment seem to follow an image-lite experience. We tried last year reintroducing info graphics or pictures only to remove them again. Its an area we regularly reassess to see if our readers tastes have changed.
Seddon
On 2 Dec 2016 06:17, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Seddon,
By "And in this instance although the test was successful, we had decided that although a winner, it was the lessons to take away that were more important. From there we hope to arrive at a banner that draws from the success but is delivered in a way that is easier on the eye." are you saying that you've decided to discontinue the inline fundraising but will use lessons learned from it to design banners?
By the way, I thought that some of the WMF folks on Facebook had a good idea when they suggested the "I <3 Wikipedia" frames on peoples' profile pictures. That brings to mind that in a previous round of fundraising that WMF had banners with Wikimedians' photos and some fundraising messages that I believe were written by them. Perhaps you could consider bringing back a version of that campaign.
I believe that there is some tradeoff in the length of the campaign and the boldness of the fundraising, so to a certain extent I'm reluctantly willing to accept bold fundraising if that means that the campaign ends sooner.
I feel strongly that the campaign should stick to 100% of its stated target, not intentionally overshoot the target for purposes of padding the reserves. When WMF says that its goal is $X, then it should end the campaign when it has high certainty that it has reached $X. If that means that a campaign ends a week early, so much the better.
Thanks,
Pine _______________________________________________ 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
OK, thanks for the info. I'll be interested to read a summary of the campaign when WMF is in a position to create one, which I'm guessing might be in January or February.
I could ask more questions, but I think that I'd better retreat back into my digital cave. I have a UI project calling my name!
Thanks for the rapid responses to questions and comments.
Pine
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
More than it represents a feasible concept that can be significantly improved upon. Reducing it's footprint, improving the look and feel so that it reduces its impact on the page.
With regards to user appeals with photos:
- They are notoriously difficult to be successful. We spent a whole year
trying to beat Jimmy's face and Brandon was the only one who ever came close. 2) our banners follow closely trends on the wider web. Donor preferences at the moment seem to follow an image-lite experience. We tried last year reintroducing info graphics or pictures only to remove them again. Its an area we regularly reassess to see if our readers tastes have changed.
Seddon
On 2 Dec 2016 06:17, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Seddon,
By "And in this instance although the test was successful, we had decided that although a winner, it was the lessons to take away that were more important. From there we hope to arrive at a banner that draws from the success but is delivered in a way that is easier on the eye." are you saying that you've decided to discontinue the inline fundraising but will use lessons learned from it to design banners?
By the way, I thought that some of the WMF folks on Facebook had a good idea when they suggested the "I <3 Wikipedia" frames on peoples' profile pictures. That brings to mind that in a previous round of fundraising
that
WMF had banners with Wikimedians' photos and some fundraising messages that I believe were written by them. Perhaps you could consider bringing back a version of that campaign.
I believe that there is some tradeoff in the length of the campaign and
the
boldness of the fundraising, so to a certain extent I'm reluctantly
willing
to accept bold fundraising if that means that the campaign ends sooner.
I feel strongly that the campaign should stick to 100% of its stated target, not intentionally overshoot the target for purposes of padding the reserves. When WMF says that its goal is $X, then it should end the campaign when it has high certainty that it has reached $X. If that means that a campaign ends a week early, so much the better.
Thanks,
Pine _______________________________________________ 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
Spamming to ask for donations so that they don't spam again until December 2017 (Y)
On 12/2/16, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
OK, thanks for the info. I'll be interested to read a summary of the campaign when WMF is in a position to create one, which I'm guessing might be in January or February.
I could ask more questions, but I think that I'd better retreat back into my digital cave. I have a UI project calling my name!
Thanks for the rapid responses to questions and comments.
Pine
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
More than it represents a feasible concept that can be significantly improved upon. Reducing it's footprint, improving the look and feel so that it reduces its impact on the page.
With regards to user appeals with photos:
- They are notoriously difficult to be successful. We spent a whole year
trying to beat Jimmy's face and Brandon was the only one who ever came close. 2) our banners follow closely trends on the wider web. Donor preferences at the moment seem to follow an image-lite experience. We tried last year reintroducing info graphics or pictures only to remove them again. Its an area we regularly reassess to see if our readers tastes have changed.
Seddon
On 2 Dec 2016 06:17, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Seddon,
By "And in this instance although the test was successful, we had decided that although a winner, it was the lessons to take away that were more important. From there we hope to arrive at a banner that draws from the success but is delivered in a way that is easier on the eye." are you saying that you've decided to discontinue the inline fundraising but will use lessons learned from it to design banners?
By the way, I thought that some of the WMF folks on Facebook had a good idea when they suggested the "I <3 Wikipedia" frames on peoples' profile pictures. That brings to mind that in a previous round of fundraising
that
WMF had banners with Wikimedians' photos and some fundraising messages that I believe were written by them. Perhaps you could consider bringing back a version of that campaign.
I believe that there is some tradeoff in the length of the campaign and
the
boldness of the fundraising, so to a certain extent I'm reluctantly
willing
to accept bold fundraising if that means that the campaign ends sooner.
I feel strongly that the campaign should stick to 100% of its stated target, not intentionally overshoot the target for purposes of padding the reserves. When WMF says that its goal is $X, then it should end the campaign when it has high certainty that it has reached $X. If that means that a campaign ends a week early, so much the better.
Thanks,
Pine _______________________________________________ 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
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
On 8 Dec 2016 3:50 p.m., "Comet styles" cometstyles@gmail.com wrote:
Spamming to ask for donations so that they don't spam again until December 2017 (Y)
There's plenty of room for constructive criticism, but this is not it. Your weaken your point by resorting to attacks. Please be more constructive in your posts.
Dan
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org