Forum:Wikia's New Style

Ad change for logged-in users
Last week, we proposed making a change for logged-in users -- turning off the ads on article pages, so that logged-in users only see ads on the main page.

We got lots of feedback from the community, and the response was generally very positive. So we're going to be making the change within the next 24 hours, and logged-in users will see the article pages without ads.

One of the popular requests was to give logged-in editors the ability to see articles as a logged-out user would. We took those requests to our engineering team, and looked at the logistics of each option. What you'll see is a new option in user preferences, in the Skin tab. There'll be a checkbox under the list of Monaco skins that says "Show all advertisements: Select this option to see article pages as logged-out users see them." You can check that box if you still want to see the ads. The box will be unchecked as the default.

For people that want a quick view of one page, without having to go to preferences, there'll be a URL toggle. Just add ?showads=1 to the end of any page URL, and you'll see the article as a logged-out user would. The toggle will only apply to a single pageview, so it'll go back to your normal view when you load the page again.

We know that this change doesn't address everyone's concerns or complaints -- but we're happy that people will now have a choice about how they see the wiki pages. The new code will go live tomorrow, July 10th.

Thanks again for your feedback, your dedication and your passion. Keep talking to us about what you think, and tell us how things are working on your wiki. -- Danny (talk ) 20:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Great news. Thanks for your hard work Danny. --LordTBT Talk! 22:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good news :) ! Drewton  [[Image:Era-old.png|20px]] ( Drewton's Holocron ) 02:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC), Philralph @ sca21  10:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lovely! :D SkywalkerPL 11:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Bottom ad
There's a small problem with the bottom ad section on pages like this one where the name of the section show a lot higher than the add (and we have a lot of them on fr.guildwars). I think it miss a clear:both; attribute style. I could go in and insert the

template at end of every pages but that would be so tedious... — TulipVorlax 01:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh and by the way, on a french wiki, it looks really bad that the section name is in english. I did not find anything in special:allmessages so i suppose it's hard coded. — TulipVorlax 01:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Was there a discussion about the placement/type change for the bottom ads someplace that I missed? -- 13:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

TulipVorlax: Can you try and get a screenshot of the misplaced title? I couldn't reproduce that. The translation part is being fixed, the message will be at Mediawiki:fast-adv so you can translate. It isn't showing up correctly at the moment, but Inez is working on it.

Gahoo: To transfer what we talked about on IRC... the ad is always variable, sometimes a banner and sometimes a box. That's part of what we said originally about anonomous users seeing various sizes/placements of ads. The header was added when we realised that on pages with long final sections the ad appeared in the middle of the article... not what we intended! So this was a fix after seeing the effect in a live situation -- sannse (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh i though that a link with showads=1 was enough...
 * Here the whole page capture done with Endicosoft tool and hosted on ImageShack :
 * http://img133.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screencapturedate110720ja9.jpg
 * The section title has changed and there's something strange to the left under the spotlight. — TulipVorlax 20:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The following capture is from GuildWiki. Ad in middle of page : — TulipVorlax 01:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The first screenshot looks tiny to me, I can't see what's going on there... but the second works. That should be improved soon (I understand new code is going out today).  Instead of that ad attaching to the last level 2 header, it will attach to the last header of any type.  So in this case, it would be to the left of "Miscellaneous".


 * I've found out I made a mistake above... the box under the last header is an alternative placement to the banner under the "advertisement" header. The idea is that the text wraps around the box, in a similar way to the top ad.  If the last section is so long that the ad starts to look like it's in the middle of the article, then you can add a header lower down (maybe something like "other links"?).  Once the latests tweaks are out, this can be any size of header, and it will move the ad down -- sannse (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hurgh! The first link was badly done maybe : This one is better.
 * I'm not sure i understand the last part of your response, it feel like my english skills are not good enough. The only real problem was that when you have an infobox or something, the section header for bottom ad appear at top of page or just below last section while the ad was at the bottom of the page. Otherwise said, there was a big space between the header and the ad. — TulipVorlax 17:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

AdBlocking
Thanks for making me install AdBlock Wikia. Really appreciate the way it made my Internet surfing smoother and prevented intrusive ads. Shaur M. S. Grizlin 10:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised that you say that... Logged-in users don't see ads on article pages anymore, so you shouldn't have any need for AdBlock on Wikia. -- Danny (talk ) 20:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Who says he didn't install it on June 17 and is just now getting around to mentioning it? Or that he's not installing it in preparation for when you inevitably backpedal on not showing ads to logged-in users (since you're clearly incapable of committing to anything anymore)? -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 22:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You corrupt corporatists, 99% of people who visit this place are just here to read articles on wikis. A few will click on ads and get spam in their inbox, or a computer virus/malware, or lose money in other ways, even get tricked into believing bullshit conspiracy theories from this www.NostradamusOnline.com ad next to me. --Whachsul733 02:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Mikael, in addition to AdBlock Pro I recommend NoScript. For those web sites that you care to enable scripts it's easy enough to enable for that site either temporarily or permanently. najevi 05:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

...
Making logged-in uses unable to see ads is not the answer to the problem, as the ads are still there and decreases the quality of pages, lowing new users and even frequent users the doesn't log in frequently. It would be pointless to a user log in every time to just read pages, and the "preview as anon" button idea made me laugh. Wikia needs the ads, true, but as said here and in other parts of the forum, the ads should be outside articles like before, or Wikia will lose more revenue then win with the ads as it is now because users may block them, and blocking is a plus not only because it removes the intrusive ads, but also makes the pages load faster. I have a question: Making logged-in users unable to see ads would not also reduce it? Also, why not accept donations like Wikipedia? Obviously, if Wikia accepts donations there would be no need to be free of ads like Wikipedia, just place them in a better place of the pages that doesn't annoy everyone. --THIS IS SPARTA WIKIA! 02:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Are unanswered questions going to be answered?
Danny and Sannse you know how politicians who plan to speak at conventions surround themselves by like-minded party members but screen out any vocal opposing party members? Well, that is what it seems like is going on here.

Wikia is pampering (even patronizing) the vocal few who care enough about the Wikia New Style to comment or ask questions. As new comment and questions evaporate from this population of users who either you pat yourselves on the back.
 * no longer see ads themselves and/or
 * enjoy special permission to use a preferred Monobook skin as site-default and/or
 * have tired of your stone-walling tactics

In reality you just haven't measured the impact of your policy honestly.

Take this past week as an a example. You haven't exactly been swamped by comments or questions here and yet you have not used that freed up bandwidth to answer the very reasonable questions that have previously been asked and yet continue to go unanswered in the now archived posts of this forum topic. You may have forgotten about those questions but those who submitted questions surely have not.

When you announce new policy; invite feedback; receive feedback (especially feedback in the form of clarifying questions) but then ignore it ... well ... that does not foster good will. It most certainly does not demonstrate the assumption of good faith that you seem so fond of appealing to.


 * Do you plan to reciprocate the assumption of good faith by reviewing the unanswered questions and responding?
 * Or are you waiting for those of us who assumed good faith on your part to repeat our questions under fresh forum headings?

najevi 05:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Like others here, I feel somewhat let down in that the wiki I work on was created on Wikia under a certain set of assumptions, and now we find, after a year's solid work, that life has changed.
 * However, I can't see any common ground between my views and what najevi states above. I have read all the comments on this page (and archives), and I just don't see the alleged sinfulness. Below najevi has asked some specific questions -- that's good. But the above is just totally uncalled for, IMHO. I have never seen greater honesty and transparency from a commercial organisation than what I have observed here.
 * What would be useful would be if someone could research what alternatives for free wiki hosting are available. I suspect from the lack of decent comment on this that there really are no good alternatives. Some might see that as further evidence of Wikia's guilt, but to me it suggests that they really need the ad changes to pay for everything. --JohnBeckett 09:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Najevi. As I've said before, the detail you are asking for is not sustainable. We cannot sit here with you and micro-analyse every decision we make and every aspect of the company. We are answering all we can, but that doesn't mean we are able to reply to every single question and comment. And that extra time this week... we've been using it to get back to helping and supporting wikis and users. Discussing this is important of course, but so is all the other work we try to do to make Wikia as good as it can be. -- sannse (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Why can't Monobook be a site-default skin?
Given that sites using Monobook as a default skin also see the 300x250 block ad and/or the 90x730 leaderboard ad, why shouldn't all wiki communities be free to specify Monobook as the site default skin to be seen by:
 * 1) visitors that do not log in
 * 2) logged in visitors who have checked "Let the admins override my skin choice."

The advertisers still enjoy the uniformity of their ads appearing in the two preferred locations. There is no impact to ad placement options available at the bottom of each web page.

The only obstacle I can imagine is the loss of the lower areas of the left hand navigation bar for so-called skyscraper ads.
 * Is the skyscraper ad format in such high demand that communities should be deprived of the Monobook skin as an option?

It is not reasonable to state that Monobook will continue to be available as a user preference skin and not make it available as a site preference skin.

It has been clearly stated that new wikia features (e.g. widgets) will not be developed for Monobook. For those communities who are happy with that condition, why not allow Monobook to be selected as the site default skin? Admins for a wiki community are able to make a decision as to whether the Monaco widgets provide any desirable value to their readers.

najevi 06:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought that someone from Wikia had claimed that switching to Monaco led to greater community involvement (= greater interest to advertisers). That sounds complete nonsense to me, but I haven't seen any evidence. --JohnBeckett 09:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure this is something that's in the archives... but they are getting rather long now. So... there are a few reasons for this.  Including, in no particular order:  The new skin has been designed to encourage people to participate.  We tried to make sure it emphasises that you can edit rather than just read, and we believe it will increase the number of people joining the wikis.  We also believe that new users will prefer the new skin, it's older users who will tend to prefer what they know.  And it will help newbies (especially those completely new to wikis) to see the same skin as they move around Wikia.  So we are looking out for them while still allowing older users to use Monobbook.  We will be developing for Monaco. Obviously we want new features like EditTips to be available to newbies, but they will only be available on Monaco.  That helps our development team and saves our resources.  Also, advertisers like a consistent look to the site.  They don't want to advertise on 6000 little sites, they want to advertise on one big one.  Having some aspects of the site consistent (the overall look) will help us attract advertisers.  So we think this skin will be good for us, and for users... but we understand that some will want to stay on Monobook, and so are providing that option as an individual choice. -- sannse (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If the Monaco skin offered a genuine value-added experience to the majority of readers then surely those wiki communities that seek such a new experience would have migrated on the strength of those merits.
 * For reasons already detailed in the archives I find the removal of the Monobook site-preference option unnecessarily heavy handed on your part. Moreover, the continued support of Monobook as a user-preference is incongruous with your stated reasons.
 * In the absence of a commitment to support Monobook as a site-preference, the implicit message here must surely be that:
 * if and when something which currently works in your user-preference Monobook skin ceases to work; then don't be surprised if that feature is deprecated.
 * najevi 15:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think let the Monobook be the site-default skin would be better because I don`t want unlogged people get scared away by Monaco or other little-bit-messy widget themes besides some specified Monobook looks really rocks. That Monaco stuff ruined this wikia(one of the examples), and I have to stop editting it until the default skin get back to Monobook because now it looks really awful.-- Erik Talk Con 05:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Does Wikia approve of a link allowing readers to dismiss an ad?
This question or suggestion has appeared more than just a few times in the past two months but has never drawn a response from Wikia staff. It is clearly not a violation of the Wikia terms of service since it leaves the choice of action to each visitor on a page by page basis. najevi 06:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Folks, can we get real! No one is going to document precisely what text can be used on a wiki. I could create a page commenting on some public figure, then each week make subtle changes that move the article ever closer to unsupportable defamation. No one can come up with a formula in advance that would predict when Wikia would react to my silly behaviour.
 * If we can assume anything, it is that Wikia is introducing ads to earn an income (they are not doing it to upset people). Actually, there is one other thing that we can assume: Naturally a "click here to irritate an advertiser" button will eventually cause trouble between a wiki and Wikia. Likewise, if a site notices ads for a particular brand of shoes, and the site then cunningly introduces a bunch of pages criticising those shoes, there will be trouble. Life is unfair, particularly when you have to pay the bills. --JohnBeckett 09:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The link I am referring to is a simple "Dismiss Ad" or "Close Ad" link. I think you read more into this than intended. najevi 14:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Does WIkia get paid for impression ads regardless of the number of page views?
I understand that click-through ads require viewers to click on the ad for Wikia to collect revenue. I also read that Wikia plans to transition away from click through advertising revenue to impression advertising revenue.


 * 1) I assumed Wikia is paid for hosting impression ads regardless of whether people view them, is this the case?
 * 2) *Does number of page views somehow factor into the revenue formula?
 * 3) Is there some date by which all click through ads at Wikia will be phased out?
 * 4) Are there going to be any click through ads in the 300x250 block or the 90x730 leaderboard?
 * 5) Is it accurate to assume that all ads appearing in the left hand nav bar are click through ads?

najevi 07:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In short:
 * No
 * 1) *Yes
 * No
 * Yes
 * No

In slightly longer: we are using a variety of ad suppliers, a variety of types of ad, and are working to increase and improve both. The individual deals that we make are more likely to be impression ads than click-throughs. But when we don't have a specific deal then the ads will be more likely to be per-click. All this is generalisation though, there are many variations. -- sannse (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ad
I'm not sure if you are able to see this but I see an h2 header saying , which I'm guessing is an ad space, on the bottom of pages across Wikia when you check "Show all advertisements" in your preferences. I see it here and here as an example, and I see it on the bottom of the Forum. Wikada - Talk Contributions 22:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Reported" a little higher on this page see . — TulipVorlax 23:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yo. On safari (for the PC, but presumably for the mac as well,) your deep-page ad-block is mis-rendering with visible HTML.

Also- you suck. -Derik 02:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is fixed now (the visible code that is, not us sucking). Which also means that the "advertisement" header is translatable.  Just edit Wikiamedia:fast-adv for your language -- sannse (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean MediaWiki:Fast-adv. ;-) — TulipVorlax 21:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Eep! how did I make that mistake? (again) -- sannse (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just wish to reiterate the "you suck" part of my thesis. Not you specifically- the object of my current weath is our Wikia "community helper," but seriously, the whole "sucking" problem's been pretty across the board.  We are now 0 for 2 of Wikia people coming in to adjust our site without us wanting them to- both times they broke things and didn't bother to check, their work, simply declaring "mission accomplished" and scuttling off.
 * Suuuuuck. -Derik 18:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Derik, I fully understand that you think we suck. Message heard, several times, thank you for you opinion.  But I don't think that this level of incivility is helpful or takes us forward in any way.  Please can we keep it polite and constructive?
 * On the main page changes: as Scott showed with his screenshots, he did check... although it's possible that there was a caching issue. The main page ads are turned on now, and it's currently pushing the main page content down. We've shown you how to fix that; you've suggested on the community portal that you'd like to leave it broken in order to spite Wikia. I don't think that would benefit anyone, including your readers. Let us know if we can help. -- sannse (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No actually, it's not "currently pushing the main page down," as his screenshots show. It's actually broken in Safari (which his screenshots show,) and firefox (which his screenshots don't.)  See- he's running the shiny-new version of firefox which the rest of the world isn't using yet.  And FYI, the version HE uploaded broke firefox and Safari too, because he only checked it in IE and the completely-rewritten-rendering-engine Firefox 3.
 * And I kinda take issue with describing having a little bit of extra white space 'broken.' Scott's layout let me with a buttload of unwanted whitespace on the formerly-dense main page (of course, I'm running adblock,) and that's clearly not considered "broken."  How can pushing down content be considered broken?  It's what your ads do on every other page!  If puching down content constitutes breaking your page, can we disable your adscript because it's breaking our site?  You know, for usability reasons?  Surely we're allowed to fix broken functionality.
 * As for spiting Wikia... while our wikia helper was reformatting our main page, he also stopped to remove our non-wikia-url branding (a redirect, but a provision in case the community decides to move,) our links to adblock, and the link to the community discussion about whether or not to leave wikia. No other content was removed.
 * Do you understand that the community's decision not to allow that to take place is not merely "a sullen resistance to change," you characterized it as, but actually a more fundamental, completely justifiable outrage at Wikia's conduct?
 * TT1 feels that those proposed changes would render our main page more broken on a fundamental and essential level, than whatever minor rendering quirks might occur with the previous layout.
 * Besides, the ads are on top. That's what's important, right? -Derik 20:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean, I have to believe that going in and deleting or hiding things critical of Wikia on your communities isn't Wikia policy, and if you knew it was happening you'd be upset.
 * Should I not tell you about this sort of thing? I mean, granted, when I pointed out that Monaco's searchbox so badly coded that it didn't work if was turned off, the immediate response I got was "Less than 1% of users surfs with Javascript turned off."  But your tech-guys did eventually fix it, because while you are willing to accept some degree of Monaco sucking, you'd prefer to to suck in that way, since it was completely avoidable and gained you nothing.  Don't you want to be told about avoidable suck?
 * Hey Wikia, you know that sucking thing you do? You're doing it again! -Derik 20:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Derik -- Just to clarify... Where was the phrase "a sullen resistance to change" used? You're attributing that to Sannse, but I haven't seen her use that phrase anywhere. -- Danny (talk ) 21:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

She described our unwillingness to upgrade to a new-improved-CENSORific page as "you'd like to leave it broken in order to spite Wikia." I translate that as putting us in the "sullen resistance to change" box, which isn't the right box at all, we're in the "broken is better than bowdlerizd" box.

I thought it was clear by context that I was telling her what seems to be being communicated via rhetorical paraphrase so she can either affirm or correct my perception. Telling the other person what you're hearing from them instead of simply parroting back the words they used (which you might both be interpreting differently) is a very useful cross-check device- it allows you to correct one another's understandings until you achieve a true meeting of the minds instead if skewing one another's words through the filter of your preconceptions or an emotionally volatilized moment. To some degree, her response to my original post was a summation/assertion of what she felt the dynamic in play was. I have corrected that model and emphasized aspects that I feel will re-orient her perspective, and in turn described my understanding of the message she is attempting to communicate to me- which she will doubtless also whack a few times until it's more in line with what she's actually trying to say. Takes a bit longer, but the result is worth it.

If only we both spoke German. A language so blunt and to-the-point that their word for a sex act has the same root as "to commit violence." And EVERYTHING you say in german sounds rude- which renders the emotional component null and forces you to actually listen to one another. One day perhaps mankind shall develop a universal-interchange language for unambiguious communicating on this level, and much of our problems may vanish overnight. :~)

Don't worry, I know Saanse just went to bed and I won't get a remittance on that response-token for 12-16 hours. I'm under no illusion that an absence of that response makes me right in the meantime. I shall wait on her response. -Derik 22:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Telling users they can avoid ads, apart from main page, by signing in
Are there examples of this being done yet? Is it being included in welcome templates? Philralph @ sca21 07:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any yet. Have you put it in your welcome template? I think that's a great idea, for anon contributors. -- Danny (talk ) 21:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On fr.guildwars, i had this in Mediawiki:Anonnotice. But i've remove it... Maybe it's time i put it back... — TulipVorlax 21:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I really question the idea. If the premise is that logged in users won't get the page-destroying ads, and we're encouraging everyone to log in regardless of whether they can, will, or should contribute... then nobody will be seeing the new obnoxious ads. Once that's the case, won't we be back to square one? Won't there be no choice to switch things around so we're all seeing those ads? This seems like, at best, delaying the inevitable. Chip 00:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, if we're allowed to instruct readers to log-in in order to avoid the ads, then logically we are allowed to, in general, instruct them on how to remove the ads in ways that do not make the ads mandatorily invisible?
 * If this is correct, then we would be allowed to post a message near the top of many or every page, advising readers to install the Firefox AdBlock app, or similar apps for other browsers? This would have practically the same effect as suggesting they log-in, with the added bonus of not having to give out personal information to a faceless company, as well as benefitting them on sites other than just wikia.KrytenKoro 06:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is ridiculous. You don't even need an email address to register. What personal information are you talking about? It takes less than 20 seconds to input a username. --<font color="Green">LordTBT <font color="Green" size="2">Talk! 07:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Kryten: From Wikia's point of view, encouraging people to log in is a positive thing, but encouraging people to use AdBlock is a negative.

People who are logged in are more likely to feel like part of the community, and more likely to make an edit. We want more logged-in people -- that's why we have big, shiny, green buttons around the page encouraging people to log in.

So we're happy if people encourage their readers and contributors to log in... it's better for the community and better for Wikia overall. Encouraging people to use AdBlock doesn't help anyone.

To answer Chip's question - we don't expect that everyone will log in, so there will still be plenty of people who'll see the ads. Right now, about 1% of our visitors are logged-in. Even if that number triples, it'll still only be 3% - and if that encourages more people to contribute, then the content that they write will bring even more readers to the site.

We already did this with the Quartz skin - logged-in users didn't see any ads on Quartz, and we didn't see a huge rush of people logging in. Taking ads off for logged-in users is just a way to make life easier for the people who are working to build up their wikis. If some people end up logging in without contributing, we can live with it :) -- sannse (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ads with suggestion as Login?
Ads suggest as "Login" middle in the content? It's not a picture. You can fill out the form. Nice to catch accounts from Wikia users. I feel this is big security risk. Depend on the page colors user can not see the different! -- HenryNe 23:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please report all problem adverts to community@wikia.com - see Help:Bad advertisements for more on what to send us. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, done. -- HenryNe 20:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Banner Ad Menu Overlap


The main page banner is overlapping the first menu. -- <font color="Green">LordTBT <font color="Green" size="2">Talk! 03:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is related to a problem we've seen with login and other boxes on some wikis - I'll add this to the report on that. Thanks for the screenshot -- sannse (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have problems with horrible ad-boxes pushing down whole tables, look at w:c:fantasy:Aerina in anonymous mode with a Monaco screen, the same on other wikis like conworld, ancientgreekfanfiction and conmyth... How stinky New style!!! Golden Eagle 23:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)