See Help:Community Feeds. You can see it at: https://fortnite.wikia.com
Seems to be a variation on Community Builder thing (which apparently has no help pages...).
What do you think?
See Help:Community Feeds. You can see it at: https://fortnite.wikia.com
Seems to be a variation on Community Builder thing (which apparently has no help pages...).
What do you think?
Damn, I hit post and FANDOM ate my comment. I'm not writing that all out again, so let me say this:
CF and CB are the most worrying things I've seen FANDOM cook up in a while. I understand that both are in early alpha stages and that FANDOM clams they'll also customization in the future (I mean, they're claiming CF will be 'dynamic' among other things) but the states they're in now are highly foreboding.
CF seems absolutely designed for mobile users at the expense of desktop users (aka the ones who are actually making meaningful/useful edits/contributions), what with the large, blocky modules. The huge front-and-center Discussions module (which I abhor) just reeks of FANDOM desperately trying to promote Discussions, and that I don't see the Help page mention wikitext forums (which many wikis still use over Discussions) at all...I don't like it. To me, that portends ill; I worry that this is a sign FANDOM may soon try to phase out wikitext forums completely.
(Seriously, there is no way one could find the landing page aesthetically more pleasing than any other option unless one is exclusively a mobile user, as from what I understand, the mobile experience is a wretched one).
A 'customizable' landing page...forgive me if I have my doubts, but given how the test landing pages curently look, I suspect the landing pages will undoubtedly play into the whole "oh, we want users to have a uniform experience so customization is actually going to be restricted by our parameters" idea we've seen with the 'modernized' top nav/headers.
(e.g. like how people can't even change the font of the top nav, which I find ridiculous with respect to the "oh users will be confused if things are too unique" thing. How would something as simple as a font change upend a user's whole experience/worldview?)
And don't even get me started on the editor CB is testing... my hope had been that FANDOM had let its previous schemes for a new editor die a quiet death (since from what I remembered people hated their new editor ideas) but apparently that was not to be...
While I wasn't the biggest fan of the .wikia to .fandom move, at least that had no affect on the wiki articles' content/wiki designs. CF and CB have the potential to cause huge uproars/dissent among users, and where some may be more optimistic, I'm...wary and concerned.
When you say "wikitext forums", do you mean Forum or wiki-style forums? As far as I know, the latter isn't going anywhere. One of the main reasons Forum is being replaced is because it is very cumbersome server-side. As such, I would be more concerned about article comments, blog comments, and message walls getting removed before wiki-style forums. And just so everyone knows, staff have already confirmed that message walls aren't leaving.
@Revriley: Thanks for the detailed summary of most of my thoughts exactly. FANDOM staff keeps saying they aren't trying to hurt the wiki contribution experience with these new experiments while doing exactly that.
I can't think of one thing about Discussions, Community Feeds, or Community Builder that has directly helped promote wiki contribution.
@Andrewds1021 - I definitely meant the latter (wiki-style), as Discussions was meant to replace Forums direclty. I know wikitext/wiki-style forums aren't meant to be going anywhere, but having the Discussions module so front-and-center naturally made me wonder, "What about wikis which use wiki-style forums and don't have Discussions enabled?" Would the Feeds module simply not exist on those wikis, or would it try and promote activity on the forums in lieu of Discussions?
Perhaps it was a jump to conclusions/a bit extreme worry to think about, but that FANDOM only acknowledges Discussions in that Help page is...well, I couldn't help but be suspicious.
I admit that I didn't think of article comments and the like because the main wiki I admin uses both wiki-style forums and talk pages in lieu of Discussions and Talk Pages (and to be honest I've been thinking about enabling Talk Pages and trying to enable wiki-style forums on the newer wikis I've founded) -- so such features aren't at the forefront of my mind as much. You're right to bring those up, though. I wonder...
@Fandyllic: Glad to see I'm not alone in my concerns. The Community-Feeds wiki I linked earlier rubs me the wrong way in some of it claims. For instance:
By bringing Community Feeds to desktop, mobile web, and the app, we’ll offer that same personalization and unified content experience on all platforms. In addition, we are putting contribution at the forefront. As more wiki content, news, and conversational posts are added, Community Feeds will ultimately power Fandom.com. The kinds of content your community is excited about will be what all fans of the same topic see when they visit the Fandom homepage.
Excuse me, but framing a "unified content experience" across all platforms as an inherently beneficial thing seems disingenuous. I understand it from a branding standpoint, but from a usability standpoint? The current mobile experience is purportedly an awful one, but it seems to me that the mobilization (heh) of a 'unified' experience actually means (attempting to) improve the mobile experience at the expense of a desktop one.
As someone who primarily (if not 99% exclusively) uses Wikia content on desktop, this landing page seems detrimental to my experience. It's not particularly aesthetically better, and it's certainly not functionally better. Also, "contribution at the forefront?" With Discussions as the module in the limelight, and the mention of "trending topics," CF itself doesn't seem to be geared toward promoting contribution.
After all, the main selling point on the CF page seems to be cultivating visitor retention, and visitor retention != making visitors/users into contributors.
As for Community Builders...argh. I actually - up to a certain point - get why Staff might be so fixated on a "new editor for non-coders," because I remember seeing a contributor on one wiki stop editing because for whatever reason visual editor stopped being their default editor/they couldn't use visual editor, and that was the only editor they really knew how to use...
..and sure, there are plenty of users like that, and yes, these users sometimes frustrate more experienced/regular editors who use source editor and hate how edits via visual editor mess up wikitext. So I understand why Staff still thinks developing a new editor has potential. As someone who does mostly in source editor, though, I have my extreme reservations about the editor CB is displaying.
Well, I suppose I don't need to rehash that. Or why the top nav as displayed in CB makes me worry for all sorts of reasons (drop-down menu tiers robustness + why do they want to rehaul the header/top nav again after making such a big deal about the recent header modernization we already went through? Something doesn't add up.)
I suppose I didn't mention my concerns about Theming/theme designer] in CB... This seems to be related to the CF-mobile app 'theming' unification FANDOM is interested, and that bodes very ill in my book.
I don't know. So many things about CF and CB are rubbing me the wrong way. Despite the fact that these are experimental, alpha features being tested on very few communities right now, I think we editors should be giving them a lot of scrutiny and attention/spreading the word as best we can right now. Threads like this one are already a good start.
I hadn't thought about that, communities that don't have Discussions yet. However, with regards to one that have wiki-style forums, I don't see why they wouldn't already have Discussions. The two can run side-by-side; so having wiki-style forums provides no reason to delay getting Discussions.
I think the most interesting part of the quote you used is "that same personalization and unified content experience". It seems to me to be an oxymoron to describe something as both personalized and unified; unless they are referring to different scopes. Personally, I have no issue with editors like Community Builder and VisualEditor so long as they are not too buggy and users can opt for a lower-level editor.
FYI thread-style Forum can also run side-by-side with Discussions.
As much as I hate Community Builder, let's try to stay on topic about Community Feeds.
I'd like to point out that FANDOM staff have said that community-feeds.wikia.com is not representative of Community Feeds in general and is more of a marketing experiment and sandbox. That said, it contains many of what I would call just "lies".
Let's go through some of it:
Personalization currently doesn't exist, but the staff are planning to develop it, according to the roadmap.
But without knowing how it works, it is just vaporware.
Re: my concern they're prioritizing mobile users over desktop users, I want to point out that the very first paragraph of the CF wiki includes this: "the Fandom app proves two important lessons that we’re bringing to Community Feeds..."
The Fandom app. The mobile app. Pardon me, but...what? Does this not suggest that Community Feeds, a feature in development for desktop along with mobile, was conceived and developed based on user behavior studied in the mobile app?
That "user research" -- so, Fandom app user research then, or not? Are they saying user behavior on the Fandom app reflects the behavior/desires of users on the other platforms, or is this research cross-platform after all? Boldly attributing their latest "we gottem this time" grasp on user desires to lessons learned via the FANOOM app fills me with trepidation.
"Most visitors never see the main page..."
Visitors overall, across desktop and mobile sites? I really wish they could (or would?) share the statistical analysis that led to this conclusion (and that they were more forthcoming with actual numbers in general, but I digress).
So...while looking at pageviews via Insights for individual wikis is very obviously not broadly applicable data/data that reflects average global behaviors (or even reflective of local pages' long-term/overarching use), I can't help but think of all the times I've looked at PopularPages on various wikis and seen their respective homepages consistently be near the top for 1-week and 4-week views.
Here's the homepage topping both lists for the Muppet Wiki; second place for Redwall, same for the Alvin Wiki, top for the Saints Row wiki...and yes one could easily cherrypick examples and once again I don't mean to say they're evidence of large trends. All I mean to say is that it's not hard to look at FANDOM's wording and think homepage traffic must be in the gutter, when that's not the case for a lot of wikis. Now, bouncing frequency/length of stay on homepages is another matter--we'll see if I get to that later.
"...and when they do they don’t find the content or community engagement they’re looking for."
This point is one I can't flat-out reject, since countless wikis out there do have underdeveloped (or sometimes overdeveloped) or disorganized homepages that aren't much use to anyone (I will quietly admit I have neglected the homepages of wikis I've founded--ones that don't get too much traffic to be fair, but that's no excuse. When one is solo contributing, one initially tries to prioritize adding wiki content first, homepage development second...)
...So you know what, fine. I'm sure Staff is to no small degree thinking of these types of wikis, ones that haven't had the time/manpower/skills/energy to develop the homepage and, well, if they weren't doing much with the homepages in the first place, why should they complain? Or so the logic might go.
However, my major, glaring concern with this is that there are very clearly wikis out there with great homepages: well-maintained; well-organized; well-designed... so if FANDOM were majorly or solely operating on the above reasoning, they'd be painting over cracked drywall and rich wallpaper unilaterally, never mind that the latter may have looked/worked better before.
The presumption, "they're not finding the content they're looking for" is confident in its generalization, but I have to assume they're basing this on the bounce frequency/how long people are staying on the home page, and how they're navigating away from it.
Also, I can't help but shrug helplessly at "community engagement" in particular, since Staff have said in previous statements that visitors (paraphrase, off top of my head) "tend to visit wikis to look up specific quick bits of info before bouncing" and not really linger--suddenly these visitors are looking for and desire community engagement?
Which is it, again? To be fair, I expect they (if they haven't already) might say something like, "previously they weren't looking for Community engagement because it wasn't an obvious option, but Discussion makes it easier than ever to engage in the community and did I mention Discussion takes up the majority of the landing page right now? No?"
("Users are looking for many different kinds of content" / Gee, you think? Not to be snarky. They clearly do think personalization is key, since homepages like top navs can already direct users to all sorts of diverse content. 'Dynamic' content...)
You know, if Personalization is actually working for the Fandom app, that's fine and dandy. Not that I know the nuts and bolts of the app experience, but given how mobile site homepages have never been the greatest, it's not a bad if they're trying to make the mobile experience more usable/navigable...right?
But a tiny screen where tapping on large icons (a la the one in CF's explore module) is easy and convenient is a far cry from the space and functionality a desktop/laptop/even tablet's screen can offer, so what could be ideal/full of potential for one could be...relatively unnecessary for the other.
"Discussions (without CF) makes it very hard (only if you click the wordmark)..."
Quick question: is clicking the wordmark (or the [second] wiki title, if the admins haven't hidden it) to return 'home' something you consider unintuitive or not particularly easy? I feel like I must be reading that the wrong way, since it's standard practice across plenty of sites. Are you perhaps referring to the mobile site experience? (Since I pretty much never use the mobile site, I'd have to take your word on it). Because the wordmark/topnav seems to be easy to access when looking at Discussions via desktop.
Also, random thought, but I wonder if anyone ever stops to consider that regular visitors to wikis may start typing the wiki address and hitting enter on the first autofill that appears? The first autofill suggestions are not necessarily going to be the homepage--for instance, when I started typing for the Muppet Wiki...well, I hit enter on the first autofilled suggestion, which was Rowlf's article. Thus, I didn't immediately land on the homepage.
I say random because I had no sleep last night and I apologize if this post is in part repetitive or incoherent; I'm very tired. Suffice it to say, I worry that CF is a sign they're actively thinking of mobile users at desktop users' expense, they may be thinking that what will work on the Fandom app specifically just might work for the desktop experience too...
..and thinking like that, while not devoid of insightful opportunity, can be careless.
Another thing (again? sorry - I should try to edit this post down later)... if Personalization entails manual picking-and-choosing to some degree, then I could see an attempt at a desktop equivalent being "having users pick and choose modules/categories/etc" to view on the landing page...not that I'd necessarily think that's a good thing (that I thought of customizable modules at all is because they were the first thing to come to mind when I saw Personalization/picking content one wants to see...then I realized I was thinking outside the module).
I guess I'm left just as flummoxed as Andrew when it comes to the "personalization / unification" line, in the end. What is FANDOM's vision for personalization, and when does personalization become "too much" and threaten unification?
Ugh. And as someone who doesn't like how FANDOM and Reddit and other sites have been to varying degrees clamping down on customization (e.g. limiting CSS/JS site-wide)...who really values having customization as an option... I want to remind FANDOM - lovers of unification that they are - that homepages are' in themselves a 'unifying' experience on platforms?
If all users are visiting the same local homepage (ignoring how embedded ads will push down siderails and what not), then that's local consistency. I'm thinking polls: on a static homepage, you can ensure that all visitors see a poll and have the opportunity to vote in it - but replace that with the Discussions module, and suddenly you have a scrollable feed and a lower chance all 'landing page' visitors will see the polls you hope they vote in.
(I don't know about you, but scrollable feeds--what do people do with those? They scroll. They don't linger especially long, flitting through information fast, and is that really more ideal than having a static homepage with content of finite length?)
I am definitely rambling by now and again - sorry. Maybe some of this will be readable in the morning.
Running two different parallel pages is what Fandom does now. Their MMP has never really taken off, and they hacked the full contents of the desktop page into it (preventing SEO drain from having a different mainpage on mobile). It's not really amenable.
At the very least, the MMP has not worked as a product designed to "find the content or community engagement they’re looking for". Although it allowed a lot more content and freedom than Feeds. Mobile articles remain a bleached, unthemed corporate desert.
I do agree that Community Feeds will cause outrage if Fandom doesn't deliver real & high levels of mainpage layout & content options. Also in all honesty, the mainpage should not be a Discussions feed with a couple wiki afterthoughts. That's a fair source of trepidation.
People who visit Fandom ARE here for wiki content. If Discussions might help them stick around, cool. But the content we write is what brought them here. Feeds needs to reflect that in future updates.