On Sep 2, 2015, at 3:53 PM, Toby Negrin
<tnegrin(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
1. We're moving people from an open platform to a
closed platform: I think
this is an oversimplification of the situation -- as has been noted before,
the android app is 100% open source and while the data is not, in my
opinion, comprehensive, it's inarguable that a large percentage of mobile
traffic on the internet is from apps. It's not possible to fulfill our
mission[4] if Wikipedia and sister project content is not available in
widely used channels.
I'm not sure this makes a lot of sense. The widest, most-open content channel that
the projects have is through the web interfaces: all phones, all devices, all computers
can access the same content in the same manner. That is to say: 100% of our readers have
the ability to use the web versions (either desktop or mobile web) where as only a subset
can use the Android app, which is a different subset that can use iOS. (They also end up
having fragmented experiences, which is sub-optimal.)
So it seems to me that the apps are not required to fulfill the mission. They feel like
distractions, and - quite possibly - negatives to the mission (in that we can't
convert Readers into Editors through the app).
(Which, by the way, this whole "focus entirely on readers" shift seems
counter-intuitive to me. Having a billion readers doesn't mean anything if there
aren't any editors anymore. It's a complete failure at that point.)
2. The campaign was not publicized before launch: We
notified the Finnish
community on their Village pump before the campaign began[5] and the
campaign is detailed on the central notice page[6]. We felt this was
appropriate considering the scope of the test.
Restricting the conversation to two very small, almost impenetrable discussion areas
seems unwise. It seems obvious to me that this idea and action would cause friction with
the community. I don't think there's any bad-faith going on here, but this
definitely feels like an oversight.
3. Banners/Interstitials don't work/suck/etc:
There's a difference between
a forced install and letting users know that an app exists and our
designers have worked hard to make the banners effective without being
excessively intrusive. You can see the designs on the Phab ticket above. I
don't generally place a great deal of faith in blog posts or other
company's data -- the google study showing the ineffectiveness of
interstitials has already been challenged by other similarly reputable
sources [7,8]. For this and other reasons, I believe that we need to gather
our own data.
Is "our own data" more important than the goodwill of our users or developers?
I think that's a big part of why people might be upset about this: it's a step
away from what had classically been the principles underlying the movement's
activities.
Even that said, though: this is the first anyone is saying "yes, we did some
research about interstitials". It seems to me that the Google study was something
that could have been discussed ahead of time. I also don't understand why we
can't do the whole Open Source thing and make use of other people's research,
unless this indicates a further shift into "not invented here" territory.
4. We don't understand what success looks like: We
are planning a meeting
with our Research team[9] to assess the statistical validity of our
results, but the basic question is if users read more content using the app
than the mobile web. This information will help guide us on future product
decisions and will be shared with the community.
An experiment without a box isn't an experiment.
"We would like to determine if people read more through the apps than through the
web interface" is a _great_ question (but also one that could probably be answered
just by looking at squid logs). I don't know that it needs an advertising campaign to
create app users to do it (though I could be wrong, and often am, and would love to hear
how if so). It further seems that advertising the mobile apps would create a biases in
the research (if only that "newish" app users are likely to use it more often
earlier in their
"We would like to determine if people download the app more often if they've
been given an interstitial" is also an interesting question but it's got a
secondary question that no one seems to care about: "How many readers have we put off
from returning by showing them this interstitial?" I know that I often immediately
shut windows and tabs when I'm told "download our app!"
If this were brought to the wider community in a different manner, there may have been a
completely different response:
"We do not believe that people are aware that there are official Wikipedia apps. We
would like to run an experiment to see how likely people are to switch to the app
experience if they know it exists. Of those that switch, we would like to find out how
many of them increase their usage of the content, and, ideally, we'd like to know
which features of the app are the most popular and useful. Additionally, we'd like to
know the drop-off counts. We want to do it in a controlled environment where we
understand the patterns as they exist fairly well. We'll run this experiment for X
days, and we know that there will be biases on W, Y, and Z."
I could easily get behind that set of questions.
I don't really expect a response to any of this, by the way.
---
Brandon Harris :: bharris(a)gaijin.com :: made of steel wool and whiskey