Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5/Feedback evaluation
Feedback (the old way):
- term "hand-coding" is not used before the part What do you mean by "hand-coding"? which doesn't seem good
- in text is abuse while pictures use offence and o
--21:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC), Utar (talk)
Couple of comments[edit]
- This page is hard to find. The page that actually shows the results of feedback on articles is still eluding me. In particular there's no link towards these from the tool that the reader uses to give this feedback. As was described on Village Pump today, the "WDGAF" principle of design.
- How do I see feedback received?
- I've no interest in the "hand-coding" aspect. Good luck to those who take part in such, but it's not for me. I'm not interested in sorting feedback or even the very broad goal of "improving the encyclopedia". That's much too hard for little me - instead I'm just interested in improving a set of articles for which I have useful subject knowledge. I really only edit stuff that's on my watchlist. So how can I, as a subject-focussed editor, access this feedback being collected about a small set of articles which I have a particular interest in improving? Surely I'm the sort of editor who needs to be guided by this, so that the improvement work most needed can be started. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- So, there may be a misunderstanding here; the hand-coding is not how we expect people to interact with feedback :). There will be dedicated feedback pages tied into each article which will provide a place where you can see and respond to comments left about your content. The hand-coding was just a research experiment to try and gauge which of the designs we were testing produced the best content. I agree that we should make the research results more prominent, though; I'll put some time into linking them through from the main AFT5 page on Monday :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I found it quite an enjoyable insight into how people are using this tool. I'm really quite interested to read the findings. Will they be linked-to from this page? --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hopefully! If not, from WP:AFT5; I'll find out how Aaron is getting on with the writeup. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- I found it quite an enjoyable insight into how people are using this tool. I'm really quite interested to read the findings. Will they be linked-to from this page? --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- So, there may be a misunderstanding here; the hand-coding is not how we expect people to interact with feedback :). There will be dedicated feedback pages tied into each article which will provide a place where you can see and respond to comments left about your content. The hand-coding was just a research experiment to try and gauge which of the designs we were testing produced the best content. I agree that we should make the research results more prominent, though; I'll put some time into linking them through from the main AFT5 page on Monday :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Found it! It's at m:Research:Article feedback/Stage 2/Quality assessment; think it's worth linking to from the AFT5 page? I don't want to clog the page, but if people will be interested... :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)