FANDOM


Forums: Yew Grove > Article feedback
Replacement filing cabinet
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 2 September 2014 by Liquidhelium.

Something I've always wanted on here was a way for readers to easily give feedback on our content. The benefits are twofold -- we get potentially valuable information about the state of our articles, plus it's a way to get the consumer-masses involved in at least thinking about the content. In the best case, it could get more people involved in the editing community. Note that this is mostly aimed at unregistered people, but anyone can use it.

We had been waiting on Wikia to port Wikipedia's Article Feedback extension, but it's clear that's never going to happen. In lieu of an extension, Cam recently made a JavaScript script that basically does the same thing, but without needing new server resources. You can test it out by putting importScript("User:Cqm/Scrapbook.js"); in your JS, or in the console.

This is how it works:

  • A small section is put on the sidebar with an option to rate the article out of five stars.
  • When you click the rating, you're given an option to add a comment to your rating, and submit it.
  • Upon submission, it sends an edit request to RuneScape:Feedback/<pagename>.
  • (Clever part) An AbuseFilter prevents edits to any RuneScape:Feedback/ pages. That means that none of these edit requests actually go through, but they are kept by the AbuseFilter, which has a log and an API that we can use (although the interesting parts, meaning the comments, would only be viewable by admins without some tweaking).
  • I will run a script to pull results from this API and post them publicly, although I will most likely anonymize the IP addresses, because otherwise we could run into some privacy issues. We can then use the ratings and comments to see what needs work, and fix it.

Why the AbuseFilter? It prevents the edits from going through, saving us from edit spam. It also means the IPs aren't public, which is important in some jurisdictions. It also means that we don't really need to worry about abuse or people trying to vandalize the feedback, because it's all going into a black hole anyway. The only possible issue is that the AbuseLog could get cluttered, but we can probably strip out those log events from the main log.

How many people will actually use this? I have no idea. However, clicking stars is about the lowest-effort way anyone could possibly get involved with the community -- it's crazy simple. Plus we get a million-plus pageviews a day. It's still very possible that it won't be as popular as I'm expecting, so I'd like to do a trial run of article feedback for a week or two and see what the response rates are. If it's really not working, we can can it.

If everyone's okay with this, we're also looking for suggestions for what to put on the form after it is submitted. There's not that much space, but we can link to chat, or a new editors' guide, or a list of tasks...we have to pull them in! The other option is just having it disappear after submission, which is what it currently does. ʞooɔ 10:33, August 18, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - Per Cook. ʞooɔ 10:33, August 18, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Wait, it allows valuable feedback and takes no additional server resources? Why don't/won't wikia adopt this? Are they too busy fighting the neverending war against their potato server blight? Also, support I guess. --Jlun2 (talk) 11:09, August 18, 2014 (UTC)

They chose to invest resources in article comments instead thinking it's a better way to start engaging new editors. Wikimedia are also exploring a similar route with mw:Extension:Flow after ditching their article ratings extension. So perhaps Wikia have a point, but either way ArticleComments is terrible on every level and Flow is unlikely to ever come to Wikia. And lets not forget that this is possibly the hackiest way to set up article ratings imaginable. User:Cqm/Signature

Support - Tested it. Seems legit. Maybe. Crafting-icon Bluefire2 (Talk | Edit me) Ancient effigy detailOil4 I made this 10:34, August 18, 2014 (UTC)

Support - I tested it and it worked fine. Seems like it could be useful. Temujin 11:12, August 18, 2014 (UTC)

Question - Sounds great, but there's one thing I don't understand: a feedback submission prompts an edit request, which is then stopped by the AF so we can review and stuff. What exactly does this entail and what do you mean by edit request? Wouldn't it be simpler to have the feedback, say, posted on the article's talk page or something? 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 26px-Brassica_Prime_symbol.svg.png 12:43, August 18, 2014 (UTC)

Clicking submit sends a request to the server saying to edit the feedback article -- see here for more info. It's the same idea as what we use to divert charm log vandalism to RuneScape:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Charms. If we didn't have the abusefilter, clicking submit would automatically create the feedback page with whatever the person's comment was. Because we have the filter, it prevents those edits from actually going through, but it keeps a log of them. This way is significantly simpler than having people post on talk pages, because they can just click a button they see on the page to leave their feedback, with the textbox there already. ʞooɔ 12:52, August 18, 2014 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. "Edit request" confused me as I didnt't realise it referred to the submitted edit to the feedback subpage; for some reason I thought it meant an edit to the article itself (which'd be...strange). Silly me. Anyway, support. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 26px-Brassica_Prime_symbol.svg.png 13:49, August 18, 2014 (UTC)

Support - Cook thinks he's so clever for using the AbuseFilter for this. Suppa chuppa Talk 12:51, August 18, 2014 (UTC)

I am tho ʞooɔ 12:52, August 18, 2014 (UTC)

Generic uninformed nonchalant support - Cook asked me to support this. I don't see a reason not to. --LiquidTalk 14:54, August 18, 2014 (UTC)

Support - --Deltaslug (talk) 18:24, August 18, 2014 (UTC)

Support - This is a good way to mask the idea of making an edit, which could be a boundary for viewers who are not very familiar with editing or who do not want to edit for whatever reason. Information from our viewers can only improve the quality of our articles. Riblet15 07:39, August 19, 2014 (UTC)

Support - no reason not to Ancient talisman Oil4 Talk 08:37, August 19, 2014 (UTC)

Eeyyyyyupz - I'm really curious about the response rates, but I've always liked the idea of feedback in the first place. That thread of course didn't have a good implementation, and since this one clearly does, I like this idea. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:00, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

You like this idea. But it's stupid. It makes Wikia look weird. MolMan 15:21, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

Support - Wonder how many people will actually provide any useful feedback in their comments. This is worth trying. 5-x Talk 21:04, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

Question - What if this turns into a 'blk dragon lvl needs updaet" thing? Why should they bother trying to edit when they can just leave a quick comment about it? User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 00:14, August 21, 2014 (UTC)

Because not everyone knows how to go about fixing it. To be honest, I'm not entirely convinced about how useful it's going to ultimately be, especially when looking through wikipedia:WP:Requests for comment/Article feedback, but I'm willing to give it a try to see how it works out. There's also issues where people leave comments for things to fix that should be addressed relatively quickly but aren't because the report Cook will produce won't be for another X amount of hours/days/weeks. This is forgetting that a rating by itself is close to useless, but it's something to draw them in and increase the chances of them commenting. User:Cqm/Signature

Support-ish It's interesting enough to try. It's easy enough to stop if it only collects garbage. --User:Saftzie/Signature 00:53, August 22, 2014 (UTC)

Support Seems easy enoughKeg of beerAtlandyBeer 01:51, August 22, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I've enabled the script as no one has raised any opposition for it. I've also moved the filter used to catch the feedback so we don't get any of the test feedback included, so I'd ask anyone who is considering using it to test it for themselves to refrain unless they're giving genuine feedback. User:Cqm/Signature

Nitpicking - I suggest using Prayer-icon or something similar as the star icon. Ronan Talk 15:54, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

The icons currently used are actual characters as opposed to images meaning we won't ever have to deal with wikia's many image issues. I think there's a line to be drawn when it comes to 'scaping everything up. User:Cqm/Signature
Compromise. MolMan 23:03, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

Closed - Article feedback using abusefilter will be implement at Cook's earliest convenience. --LiquidTalk 00:38, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.