Hi,
I've recently noticed the "Thank you" feature is only available for signed-in users, while anons cannot receive "thank yous". The anonymous users are often the ones that would need encouraging the most, so it would make sense to me to have this feature available to them too.
Are there significant technical problems against such a change?
Thanks, Strainu
On 20 May 2014 15:35, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
I've recently noticed the "Thank you" feature is only available for signed-in users, while anons cannot receive "thank yous". The anonymous users are often the ones that would need encouraging the most, so it would make sense to me to have this feature available to them too. Are there significant technical problems against such a change?
I asked for this on the editor engagement list too. Fabrice said: [1]
"Sadly, we couldn't make this feature available for anonymous users, as you have to be registered to receive notifications right now. This is because IP addresses cannot be trusted to deliver notifications to the users they were intended to. I don't expect we'll change that anytime soon. We should all encourage anonymous user to register if they want to enjoy the same benefits as other members."
Fabrice, is this still the case? Are there ways around this?
* I suppose session cookies for anons just to possibly thank them is a bit excessive. * Could limit "thanks" to a short time after the edit (limiting either sending or receiving).
Any other ways we could implement this with minimal false-positives on thanking people? If that's considered a problem :-)
- d.
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/ee/2013-July/000525.html
On May 20, 2014 4:57 PM, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2014 15:35, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
I've recently noticed the "Thank you" feature is only available for signed-in users, while anons cannot receive "thank yous". The anonymous users are often the ones that would need encouraging the most, so it would make sense to me to have this feature available to them too. Are there significant technical problems against such a change?
I asked for this on the editor engagement list too. Fabrice said: [1]
"Sadly, we couldn't make this feature available for anonymous users, as you have to be registered to receive notifications right now. This is because IP addresses cannot be trusted to deliver notifications to the users they were intended to. I don't expect we'll change that anytime soon. We should all encourage anonymous user to register if they want to enjoy the same benefits as other members."
Fabrice, is this still the case? Are there ways around this?
- I suppose session cookies for anons just to possibly thank them is a
bit excessive.
It sure sounds excessive. Setting a session cookie after an edit has been made by an anon might[1] be quite cheap in reality, or at least cheap enough to justify the cost. Privacy wise it also seems ok, but I might be overlooking some things on that regard as well.
--Martijn
[1] I haven't measured and aren't used to thinking Wikipedia scale, so I might be massively mistaken. My wholly untrustworthy intuition however thinks that if it's only set with an edit, the performance hit is limited, especially compared to the resources the edit itself costs.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Fabrice, is this still the case? Are there ways around this?
- I suppose session cookies for anons just to possibly thank them is a
bit excessive.
It sure sounds excessive. Setting a session cookie after an edit has been made by an anon might[1] be quite cheap in reality, or at least cheap enough to justify the cost. Privacy wise it also seems ok, but I might be overlooking some things on that regard as well.
--Martijn
Don't we already do this upon an anon visiting an edit page? Otherwise standard talk page messages wouldn't really work for anons, as the user wouldn't get past varnish.
--bawolff
On 2014-05-21, 3:29 PM, Brian Wolff wrote:
Fabrice, is this still the case? Are there ways around this?
- I suppose session cookies for anons just to possibly thank them is a
bit excessive.
It sure sounds excessive. Setting a session cookie after an edit has been made by an anon might[1] be quite cheap in reality, or at least cheap enough to justify the cost. Privacy wise it also seems ok, but I might be overlooking some things on that regard as well.
--Martijn
Don't we already do this upon an anon visiting an edit page? Otherwise standard talk page messages wouldn't really work for anons, as the user wouldn't get past varnish.
--bawolff
To be clear, we set a cookie on submit of the edit page, whether it results in an edit or not, but not on visit.
But that is essentially what Martijn described.
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]
On Thursday, May 22, 2014, Daniel Friesen daniel@nadir-seen-fire.com wrote:
On 2014-05-21, 3:29 PM, Brian Wolff wrote:
Fabrice, is this still the case? Are there ways around this?
- I suppose session cookies for anons just to possibly thank them is a
bit excessive.
It sure sounds excessive. Setting a session cookie after an edit has
been
made by an anon might[1] be quite cheap in reality, or at least cheap enough to justify the cost. Privacy wise it also seems ok, but I might
be
overlooking some things on that regard as well.
--Martijn
Don't we already do this upon an anon visiting an edit page? Otherwise standard talk page messages wouldn't really work for anons, as the user wouldn't get past varnish.
--bawolff
To be clear, we set a cookie on submit of the edit page, whether it results in an edit or not, but not on visit.
But that is essentially what Martijn described.
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]
As is, that should be sufficient to do this on a best effort basis, right? If the cookie forces Varnish bypass we could already "x thanked this IP address for their edits on y".
I can see however that this could have privacy concerns. Delivering the message "Martijn Hoekstra thanked this IP address for their edits on porn star y" delivered to the wrong person in the same ip isn't great. I'm not sure this is different from talk page messages though, I think it isn't.
If we stored more information in the cookie (last n revisionids of edits for some sensible n?) we could make this more reliable. As a session cookie his would leak less privacy sensitive data than is already in the browsers history, and may avoid the above problem.
Would this approach be feasible in theory? In practice?
--Martijn
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Hi David,
I am delighted that you are interested in extending the Thanks feature we released last year, so it can be used to thank more users.
I am no longer working on this project, but am not aware of any changes that would make it easier to thank anonymous users: IP addresses are still as unreliable now as they were a year ago.
But I have Cc:d Danny Horn, the new product manager for core features like Flow and Notifications, so he can chime in from his viewpoint.
Personally, I would love to see the Thanks feature be used even more than it is today, as it seems like such a civilized way to show appreciation to each other :)
Cheers,
Fabrice
On May 20, 2014, at 7:56 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2014 15:35, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
I've recently noticed the "Thank you" feature is only available for signed-in users, while anons cannot receive "thank yous". The anonymous users are often the ones that would need encouraging the most, so it would make sense to me to have this feature available to them too. Are there significant technical problems against such a change?
I asked for this on the editor engagement list too. Fabrice said: [1]
"Sadly, we couldn't make this feature available for anonymous users, as you have to be registered to receive notifications right now. This is because IP addresses cannot be trusted to deliver notifications to the users they were intended to. I don't expect we'll change that anytime soon. We should all encourage anonymous user to register if they want to enjoy the same benefits as other members."
Fabrice, is this still the case? Are there ways around this?
- I suppose session cookies for anons just to possibly thank them is a
bit excessive.
- Could limit "thanks" to a short time after the edit (limiting either
sending or receiving).
Any other ways we could implement this with minimal false-positives on thanking people? If that's considered a problem :-)
- d.
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/ee/2013-July/000525.html
_______________________________
Fabrice Florin Product Manager Wikimedia Foundation
If only I was a developer of any sort ;-)
On 21 May 2014 21:56, Fabrice Florin fflorin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi David,
I am delighted that you are interested in extending the Thanks feature we released last year, so it can be used to thank more users.
I am no longer working on this project, but am not aware of any changes that would make it easier to thank anonymous users: IP addresses are still as unreliable now as they were a year ago.
But I have Cc:d Danny Horn, the new product manager for core features like Flow and Notifications, so he can chime in from his viewpoint.
Personally, I would love to see the Thanks feature be used even more than it is today, as it seems like such a civilized way to show appreciation to each other :)
Cheers,
Fabrice
On May 20, 2014, at 7:56 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2014 15:35, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
I've recently noticed the "Thank you" feature is only available for signed-in users, while anons cannot receive "thank yous". The anonymous users are often the ones that would need encouraging the most, so it would make sense to me to have this feature available to them too. Are there significant technical problems against such a change?
I asked for this on the editor engagement list too. Fabrice said: [1]
"Sadly, we couldn't make this feature available for anonymous users, as you have to be registered to receive notifications right now. This is because IP addresses cannot be trusted to deliver notifications to the users they were intended to. I don't expect we'll change that anytime soon. We should all encourage anonymous user to register if they want to enjoy the same benefits as other members."
Fabrice, is this still the case? Are there ways around this?
- I suppose session cookies for anons just to possibly thank them is a
bit excessive.
- Could limit "thanks" to a short time after the edit (limiting either
sending or receiving).
Any other ways we could implement this with minimal false-positives on thanking people? If that's considered a problem :-)
- d.
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/ee/2013-July/000525.html
Fabrice Florin Product Manager Wikimedia Foundation
On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 17:35 +0300, Strainu wrote:
I've recently noticed the "Thank you" feature is only available for signed-in users, while anons cannot receive "thank yous". The anonymous users are often the ones that would need encouraging the most, so it would make sense to me to have this feature available to them too.
Are there significant technical problems against such a change?
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61022 (if arguments are missing, adding them in a comment is welcome).
andre
Using two words I'd say "dynamic IPs".
Though a reasonable time limit (a hour?) would work too.
Vito
Inviato con AquaMail per Android http://www.aqua-mail.com
Il 20 maggio 2014 16:36:02 Strainu strainu10@gmail.com ha scritto:
Hi,
I've recently noticed the "Thank you" feature is only available for signed-in users, while anons cannot receive "thank yous". The anonymous users are often the ones that would need encouraging the most, so it would make sense to me to have this feature available to them too.
Are there significant technical problems against such a change?
Thanks, Strainu
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org