Archive talk:The new look 3

Let's look at the reasons for the new look:

"Because it’s the right thing to do for the future of Wikia. We understand the caution of many of those who have commented on the blogs, but we also kept in mind that this is just one of the many groups or types of users on Wikia. We looked at feedback from the beta testers, from focus groups and direct measurements of activity on wikis, and listened to our in-house experts in web design and user interaction. We did our best to gather *all* the information we needed to make this the best look possible for Wikia, and we feel confident in our choices."

I'd like to point out that this never really answers why the new look is being implemented; it merely says that "it's the right thing for the future of Wikia" and never provides any reasons as to why this is. Also, I really doubt that beta testers and focus groups had different opinions than the majority of users that commented on blogs if they were chosen without bias (id est, Wikia staff didn't try to choose people that would like the new look). How exactly did you look at "direct measurements of activity on wikis" in such a way that you could tell how much people liked the new look? Furthermore, wouldn't "experts in web design and user interaction" be able to tell that the new design looks horrible and is almost universally hated by users? If someone is an expert in user interaction, they should, theoretically speaking, be able to tell that making a change despite such widespread opposition is a good way to alienate the community. Let's look at some more of the page:

"There are always some similarities among websites that have modern, frequently updated design. In other words, when companies use best practices for the web and adapt to what users demand, their websites tend to contain similar design elements and functionality."

I'd like to point out that Wikia is not "adapting to what users demand". In fact, they're doing the opposite, so that reason for the similarities is invalidated. Also, I'm thinking that saying "some similarities" is a bit of an understatement. Lastly, I'd like to ask that a member of wikia staff answer this and actually address each of the points individually. Non-wikia staff users, please don't respond, even to agree. If you do, they'll probably say that it's been responded to and ignore it. EDIT: Could a staff member respond to this? I feel a bit like this is being ignored. - Is drak  thül  03:40, September 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * As with any place on the web, Wikia needs to be agile, fresh and current in order to continue to be a top site, and to offer free hosting and support to all of our 150,000+ wikis. This means that we are constantly assessing what works and what doesn’t across Wikia.


 * We found in our latest assessment that users continually ran into the same issues while interacting with Monaco. The long-tail data, direct user testing, and click tracking all pointed to the same thing: it was time to rethink the entire interface. This is why we are changing, and because we collected and analyzed data on the difficulties in Monaco, we feel strongly that the new look is a better Wikia.


 * We are now at the point of determining what bugs or hold ups exist in the new look. We know they exist, and so are asking the community to help us to track them down. We hope you spend time on the beta wikis and help out by using the green in-page tool.


 * We believe we have one of the best communities on the web, and do take to heart what is said by all of our users. We will continue to update you on the staff blog, and will be writing a beta wrap-up post at the end of the private beta. Sarah (Help Forum) (blog) 18:40, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * "We believe we have one of the best communities on the web, and do take to heart what is said by all of our users."
 * So, what about the sysops of some of your biggest wikis getting ready to fork away rather than deal with this? Where's their commentary getting taken into account? --Kaydeethree (talk) 18:43, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * You've ignored a few things I said, and your answer conveys no information. You haven't said what the issues that users ran into while interacting with Monaco were. You still haven't addressed how wiki activity and click tracking tell you that users dislike Monaco and like oasis. Also, the issue isn't bugs or hold ups; it's that the new look itself is horrible and facebookish. You do have one of the best communities on the web, but a large portion of it is wanting to leave because of the new look. Also, if you really take to heart all that is said by us, why isn't the new look idea gone by now? - Is drak  thül  00:15, September 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * So the entire purpose of the beta was just to find bugs, not make adjustments or changes based on user feedback? Wow. I wish you told the beta testers that. If you think the Wikia community is great, you wouldn't have just crippled everyone single one of us with the new ToS. -- LordTBT Talk! 01:42, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

300 wide
"Ad modules were considered in the design but were not the primary focus of the change"

From what has been said elsewhere, it seems quite clear to me that ad modules were the primary focus of the sidebar width-setting, which leads naturally to the reduction in article width. Would the staff who have determined that 300 is the only acceptable size please give us doubters links to all the top-100 websites that use a 300-width ad panel?

— Robin Patterson (Talk) 03:01, October 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Just go looking, Robin, the sites I looked at (Wall Street Journal, New York Times, SomethingAwful) all have it. If you want to sell ads profitably to ad networks, this ad size in the upper right corner is a must. -- ◄mendel► 07:54, October 1, 2010 (UTC)