Forum:Addressing article feedback feedback

From Illerai

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by imported>Omnes Ferant at 05:58, 12 October 2024 (Response to first three proposals). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Redwood Grove > Forum:Addressing article feedback feedback


Since Forum:Implementing article feedback on OSW only allowed the addition of Article feedback and the addressing of the feedback about Article feedback was left open-ended in that forum, and in the interest of obtaining explicit consensus about changes to a now-vastly used feature: The following forum thread contains a series of proposals aimed at addressing some concerns about Article feedback.

Stars removal

Right now when users attempt to give feedback, they are prompted to optionally rate the article 1 to 5 stars. To put it simply: it is useless and adds little to the feedback text. There is nothing to do about no text 5 star feedback, or 1 star rant about overall terribleness of the wiki. I propose the removal of star rating from Article feedback.

Discussion

  • Support as nom. Shayani (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - Stars add no utility to wiki editors, and I don't think it does to users either. They were originally implemented under the "(untested) theory that it could potentially lower the barrier to entry" - cook on discord. I suppose now we can test that theory, but it didn't really make sense to me in the first place. By the time users see the stars they've already cleared the barriers of identifying an issue and clicking the feedback button. Micro 23:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - It's too subjective; let's remove them. --User:Legaia 2 Pla/Signature 20:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - I thought they were nice at first, but they do seem useless. User:Kelsey/Signature 09:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - BigDiesel2m (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - I've yet to see or hear about any situation where the stars were useful or even relevant. Yeet 'em. Alynnidalar (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - The stars haven't proved helpful for editors at all. - Omnes Ferant (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Explanation about submitting

There is no explanation about what Article feedback does, where the feedback goes, whether the feedback is private or public. While we don't have to explain every detail about giving feedback, I think it is still worth it to clear off any confusion than to have an empty input field and a mesmerising Submit button. I propose the following two sentences to be added to Article feedback's modal, to be located above the submit button:

Feedback will be publically submitted to the [[Talk:<article name>|talk page of this article]] and the wiki's [https://discord.gg/runescapewiki Discord server], where it can be discussed about and answered by anyone. More info can be found at [[RuneScape:Article feedback]].

Discussion

  • Support as nom. Shayani (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support with alternative wording - I think saying the feedback is “public” still has the potential to scare people off who think that means their IP is logged or that they are identifiable. If we are to add a sentence like your suggestion, I would rather it read something like “Feedback will be posted anonymously.” without any references to Discord or the talk page (which your average wiki user knows nothing about anyway). jayden 15:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm still not convinced this is an issue to be honest. User:Kelsey/Signature 09:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I would prefer a shorter message (like Jayden's) over a long one, but I agree with Kelse that this doesn't seem to be an issue. I don't remember anybody coming into the Discord complaining about their feedback being public thus far, so I'm not convinced this is really a concern that plays out in reality. BigDiesel2m (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support shorter wording - as one of the folks who was concerned about this originally, I acknowledge we don't know of specific cases where someone was upset about the lack of clarity. However, I'd like to point out that someone with strong concerns about being identified on Discord is pretty obviously not going to come to Discord and self-identify to complain about it! In general, even if it isn't a "problem", I support greater transparency in general and think we at least should have a link to RS:AF for those who want more info. Alynnidalar (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Resolve vs Answer

When a feedback is answered, it is marked as "Resolved". I find the wording of that word to be confusing as not all feedback is resolvable; as in, the feedback is not "provided a solution" and could instead be declined. Wikipedia uses "answered" when an edit request has been answered. I think this is a more neutral wording so I propose changing wording about "resolving" feedback to it being "answered".

Discussion

  • Support as nom. Shayani (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Neutral + comment Perhaps open/closed would be the most neutral and accurate wording, since sometimes feedback is marked resolved without comment. That said, I don't find this to be a pain point either way. Micro 16:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment/Suggestion(?) - Unless if we communicate that the feedback function should only be used for changes/suggestions on a page, both of these seem to be inappropriate. Based on current wording, 'feedback' is used broadly and could just be an appreciation or compliment on the composition of the page. I would find a term like 'addressed' to be neutral as it communicates that the feedback submitted has ran it's lifecycle Submitted -> Reviewed -> Resolved. --User:Legaia 2 Pla/Signature 14 September 2024 16:02

  • Support - Answered seems fine to me. User:Kelsey/Signature 09:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - A lot of feedback isn't actually answered when it's resolved (especially feedback that's just a compliment). I think Resolved actually is a more neutral term than Answered. Alynnidalar (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support closed or addressed, oppose answered - Per Microbrews and Alynnidalar, feedback is often resolved without a direct reply to the feedback, especially when the feedback is just a minor factual correction or request for clarification (e.g. Talk:Ammunition, Talk:Akkha). Answered seems to be the inappropriate term in such cases. - Omnes Ferant (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Button position

This is perhaps more subjective, but the "Give feedback" button's current position is too gaudy and attention-grabbing. This may be great at getting the maximum amount of feedback possible, but I find this practice disingenuous. The button should be where people that want to give feedback expect it, and as a result it should be as integrated with the interface as possible. Furthermore, the button's position makes it be interpreted as page content (left-aligned, serif font) at first glance.

Here is my proposed appearance and position for the button: https://pomf2.lain.la/f/qb66kk2w.png

This is roughly where the Languages button appear for places like Star Citizen Wiki, Minecraft Wiki, the latter using the button from the Vector 2022 skin of Wikipedia.

Discussion

  • Support as nom. Shayani (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose placement, support styling - My issue with your proposed location is that (at least based on prior attempts years ago to do something similar), people will associate it with feedback about the site in general, rather than page itself (the former of which people tend to have a lot more of in general). The proximity to the article title directly ties it to "feedback about the article". I don't think your location is any more or less "gaudy and attention-grabbing" than the current location, although the style looks nice. ʞooɔ 07:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support placement - I think it looks a bit awkward in its current position and better integrated off to the side.
The concerns about users thinking it's website feedback rather than article feedback are already addressed, albeit less subliminally, in the dialog which says "Give feedback on this page" and "What can be improved on this page?" (emphasis mine). If some fraction of users still think it's for general website feedback, we could give them a more appropriate outlet by adding some small text at the bottom of the dialog like "Questions about the Wiki? See RS:FAQ or ask at RS:HELP." Micro 23:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I think the "Give feedback on this page" text isn't that relevant in this case because it only appears once you click the feedback button, and the main concern I have with this proposal is that people would click the button less because they think it's for general site feedback. BigDiesel2m (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - Styling looks nice and placement seems good also. User:Kelsey/Signature 09:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose placement - I agree with Cook that placing the feedback button on the right side of the screen makes it feel more like a general "site feedback" button rather than a button for feedback on the specific page. No strong opinions on the styling. BigDiesel2m (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose placement, support styling - per Cook Alynnidalar (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback submitter identity

Article feedback does not submit user's IP address alongside the feedback, unlike editing a page without an account normally. This is a conscious decision as to not scare off users that don't want their IP address logged publically. There is currently no way for a normal user to associate a feedback with a unique identity. The ID inside the feedback template is only for the message, not for the submitter. This system is up for abuse, particularly for certain malicious users pushing specific viewpoints on articles by submitting multiple feedback suggesting the same thing and it being interpreted as "well, people want it (this way)". I propose the addition of Unique IDs associated with feedback submitters without an account. These IDs would be (roughly) tied to IP address of feedback submitters in the backend. For users that have an account, I propose the addition of the account name of feedback submitter alongside the feedback.

Discussion

  • Support as nom. Shayani (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just to expand a little bit (though jayden may expand more), the unique IDs associated with each feedback do tie back to the submitter's IP in the backend. When using /articlefeedbackblock to block a user, Gaz Bot will attempt to revert all of their feedbacks. I'm not sure if adding a user identifier is good, but maybe we can add a backend option & bot command to lookup all feedbacks by the same user, available for admins in discord. Gaz talk 15:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Weakly support unique IDs, oppose account names tied to feedback - if the current IP address info is insufficient for abuse/spam situations, then I support adding an additional ID for this purpose. However I am against directly linking a logged-in submitter's name to their feedback. If someone is already an editor, they very likely already know about talk pages and Discord, both places they can clearly associate feedback with their identity. If they're using feedback, then that could mean there's a reason they don't want to be associated. (for example, not wanting to hurt someone's feelings, to test the waters to see what people broadly think about something without it being overtly tied to them, possibly even concerns about another editor) If feedback is going to be anonymous for logged-out users, it should be anonymous for logged-in ones too. (perhaps an optional checkbox though?) Alynnidalar (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from ‘https://wiki.illerai.com/index.php?title=Forum:Addressing_article_feedback_feedback&oldid=121618’