FANDOM


  • Any ideas what this is all about? I am pretty sure it wasn't there yesterday and I haven't seen any announcements regarding it. Did I just miss a blog or something?


    Edit:

    Stats (Excluding Tests)

    Updated: 05:47, October 16, 2019 (UTC)

    Counts: 17 Total - 2 w/o Auto-Linking

    • 11 logged-in
      • 4 editing
      • 2 wiki requires autoconfirmed
      • 1 block
      • 1 no question
      • 1 repeat posts
        • 1 removed/deleted
      • 1 possible non-script
      • 1 non-FANDOM
    • 6 logged-out
      • 2 wiki requires login/autoconfirmed
      • 1 account
      • 1 other
      • 2 repeat posts

    Wikis: 6 Wikis - 2 Languages

      Loading editor
    • It's one of the new improvements MisterWoodhouse hinted at a few of his blogs back. More will be revealed as time goes on.

        Loading editor
    • Another question: Do you know why it is optional to include a link to the wiki?

        Loading editor
    • Considering it is a not fully implemented feature… no. Every aspect of the feature may not be ready, so at this point it is just speculation.

        Loading editor
    • I have written up a quick explanation of the new board here: User:Noreplyz/In-Editor Help Assistance board.

        Loading editor
    • It's preferred to not test this script yourself, as it will post to the board under your username.

      I don't quite follow the logic presented in that sentence. Could you clarify? Why is posting under our name a reason for not testing the script?

      Also, what stage of testing is this? Is this "lets see how this works and make changes if needed" or "we got everything we want, lets just make sure there aren't any bugs"? Your brief summary doesn't really give a sense of how close this testing is to the rollout.

        Loading editor
    • The data being collected is how inexperienced users in need of help find the feature to work with.

      If we experienced ones do "test problems", we're tainting the pool.

        Loading editor
    • We don't want to encourage users to try out the script as admins would have to remove the test posts. Staff are also tracking clicks and posts via the module, so it's preferred to not flood the stats with testing.

      It's a week old - so it's the very start of testing. It's very much in the "let's see how this works and make changes if needed" stage.

        Loading editor
    • Those explanations make way more sense then that sentence from your page.

      Are they also tracking what users submit? It seems to me (although it is a rather small sample size right now) that at least half of the requests are not actually related to editing. For me, this would seem to indicate that new users are perceiving it as some sort of general support request system rather than a system geared towards editing questions. That makes me a bit nervous as a decent number of new users already get the false impression that CC is how you contact staff (and that those who reply are staff). Having new users perceive this as a general support request, I think, would only make this worse. If I don't know any better and believe I am submitting a request to Wikia, I would be all the more confused when I am told those responding aren't staff.

        Loading editor
    • Andrewds1021 wrote: Are they also tracking what users submit?

      Well, seeing as the threads are publicly visible, yes.

      Note that the ones in this page are all tests. But yes, I'll pass on that feedback.

        Loading editor
    • Noreplyz wrote:

      Andrewds1021 wrote: Are they also tracking what users submit?

      Well, seeing as the threads are publicly visible, yes.

      Note that the ones in this page are all tests. But yes, I'll pass on that feedback.

      1. Being publicly visible doesn't necessarily mean it is being tracked.
      2. Yeah, that was kind of obvious from the content of the posts and who made them.
      3. Thanks. Much appreciated.
        Loading editor
    • Also, I am not 100% certain but I seem to recall this thread previously being on that board. Not sure what the whole story is though. Perhaps it wasn't actually done through the editor.


      Edit:

      If that is the case (or even if it isn't), may I suggest adding this to CC's CSS?

      .page-Board_In-Editor_Help_Assistance #ForumNewMessage {
          display: none;
      }

      That way, the new message section will be hidden from casual users.


      Edit:

      Okay, I know for sure this thread was moved off that board because I replied in it not long before the move.


      Edit:

      And this one too. Of course I appreciate that Mendes2 is moving threads to the appropriate boards. However, in this particular case, if topics are being "tracked" by simply seeing what is on the board, then moving off-topic threads would tamper with the results. Wouldn't it?

        Loading editor
    • I wonder if they track return visits. Some of these posts are by anons, who might not see notifications/get a new IP. I hope this doesn't devolve into a Community Central Answers Wiki, where people just enter vague sentences into the tool without looking at what's already there, and without ever checkng the answer.

        Loading editor
    • From looking at the threads created by this feature so far... it is either a spectacular failure or it is too difficult to trigger.

      As someone who tries to help on the CC forums, I think I've decided to ignore it until it seems like it is being useful. So far there doesn't seem to be any evidence it is helping anyone, just wasting time.

        Loading editor
    • Not sure what you mean by "too difficult to trigger". As has already been stated in the thread (summarizing for convenience/future readers, I am sure you guys read it), it is in rather early testing on only a select few wikis. I actually went through the process myself and just stopped short of submitting it (since they don't want anymore test tests). They do have a note if you try to fill out the form while logged out. However, this is all done in the little bubble notification; so you can guess how small the font is. Even if the font were larger, I doubt many anons would pay attentions to the large paragraph of text when they can clearly see the text field for them to type in and the submit button right next to it. Also, as I mentioned earlier, including the name of the wiki and/or a link to the page is optional. I have serious doubts it will be a good idea to keep that as an option. But I guess the point of tests is to see what happens; so let's just sit back and see for the time being.


      Edit:

      Here is a picture incase you haven't seen it yet.

      Andrewds1021 - Aion Wiki - Example In-Editor Help

        Loading editor
    • I didn't realize posts were being moved to other boards... especially since many, many posts are in the wrong boards and never get moved.

        Loading editor
    • Well, they are. What I don't know is how they got on the board to begin with. Since the create-thread interface is on the board, it could be that people are just clicking the first board they see and posting. From what I can tell, the thread titles don't match the cookie-cutter format that the in-editor help is supposed to provide. So this could definitely be the case. That is why I made the CSS suggestion that I did. As with any quick fix, it won't work on those who are deliberately posting there. However, it would stop the "well, this is just the first board I clicked on" problem; assuming that is what we are seeing.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote: I didn't realize posts were being moved to other boards... especially since many, many posts are in the wrong boards and never get moved.

      We're moving out threads from the new board that are clearly not made by the script. This helps everyone keep track of who's actually posting via the module. I know that at least Mendes2 and I move threads occasionally when required - mainly threads that are not support requests (like wiki promotions, game questions) get moved to the general board.

      Andrewds1021 wrote: If that is the case (or even if it isn't), may I suggest adding this to CC's CSS?

      .page-Board_In-Editor_Help_Assistance #ForumNewMessage {
          display: none;
      }

      That way, the new message section will be hidden from casual users.

      I've checked with Rappy - and I've added this CSS now.

        Loading editor
    • Noreplyz wrote:

      We're moving out threads from the new board that are clearly not made by the script.

      If this is the case, then the amount of activity seems to be very low, so maybe it should be put on more active wikis that have more frequent page edits. It also doesn't change my opinion from when I said, "it is either a spectacular failure or it is too difficult to trigger."

        Loading editor
    • I personally think it's an expected amount for its current scope. This experiment is a week old, is available on probably less than 5 wikis. Really too early to make a decision and say it's "a spectacular failure".

        Loading editor
    • Well, as Fandyllic pointed out, how many requests you expect could also depend on how busy the editing community of the wiki is. Here is a list of wikis I know of so far that are testing it.

      Jr Mime also did a test post but did so with the "link and wiki name" option unchecked (so we can't tell which wiki it was from).

        Loading editor
    • Gah, the No Game No Life 游戏人生 Wiki has an autoplay video!

        Loading editor
    • I don't think it's smart to count test wikis, nor test posts - just check the wiki's ImportJS. I'd only consider wikis 1, 2 and 4 on your list as actually part of the experiment, with more wikis coming soon.

        Loading editor
    • Well, here's an issue: Thread:1732879. How are we supposed to know which wiki the OP wanted to link to, and how was the OP supposed to know this wouldn't work?

        Loading editor
    • Tupka217 wrote: Well, here's an issue: Thread:1732879. How are we supposed to know which wiki the OP wanted to link to, and how was the OP supposed to know this wouldn't work?

      This is the feedback that Staff are looking for in this stage of testing - I'll let Rappy know about this thread.

        Loading editor
    • Noreplyz wrote:

      I don't think it's smart to count test wikis, nor test posts - just check the wiki's ImportJS. I'd only consider wikis 1, 2 and 4 on your list as actually part of the experiment, with more wikis coming soon.

      Well, if you don't actually want to tell us which wikis are considered test wikis, you can't honestly criticize the guesses.

      Also, the traffic to this In-Editor Help board is quite feeble, such that I'm not sure how you can draw any useful data from it.

        Loading editor
    • That is interesting. I assume you are talking about the YouTube video on the main page? It isn't autoplaying for me.


      Okay, fair point regarding the test wikis. Also, I didn't actually check the ImportJS for each wiki. I just assumed if a post came from there the JS must be imported. I guess the user must just have installed it in their personal JS because the most recent update to any of the JS for the No Game No Life Wiki was all the way back in the beginning of August.


      Andrewds1021 wrote: Another question: Do you know why it is optional to include a link to the wiki?

      That is the exact problem I was thinking of when I asked about the linking being optional. I can't think of a situation in which the link would be detrimental. That being the case, I see the worst case as the link being unnecessary. The benefit? No more of the "link please" replies we often have to give users. Now, in this case, Cheeseskates was able to guess the wiki. I presume by viewing the user's masthead and taking a look at the listed wikis.

      Now, though, suppose this was an anon. What do you do? If you ask for a link per usual, will they even know you replied? As I said before, I doubt anons will notice the small note about needing to bookmark the page and check back later.


      Noreplyz, I know, on your description page for the tool, you say to tell Rappy. As such, perhaps I could repost this to start a thread on his wall. However, since you seem to be kind enough to "pass it on" for us, I'll post it here first and start the thread only if you say so. Anyways, here is an idea to address the linking issue from that thread: rewrite internal/interwiki links. It seems like there should be some way to detect the internal link syntax as well as what it is linking to. Then, change all internal links to interwiki links to the request's source wiki. Interwiki links to CC could also be rewritten as internal links; but that seems like an unnecessary extra step.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote: ...

      Also, the traffic to this In-Editor Help board is quite feeble, such that I'm not sure how you can draw any useful data from it.

      We cross posted so I didn't see this till after. While I agree with you on this point, past posts in this thread seem to indicate that they are in early stages of testing. I would expect that broadening the testing pool is already on the to-do list.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote: Well, if you don't actually want to tell us which wikis are considered test wikis, you can't honestly criticize the guesses.

      Also, the traffic to this In-Editor Help board is quite feeble, such that I'm not sure how you can draw any useful data from it.

      Not that I don't want to - just that I don't know other than that it's rolling out to various wikis, and my own guesses (why include test posts from test wikis into the judgement of whether it's good or not?)

      Ultimately, I'm trying to relieve any confusions here with the new board, but I am not involved in the preparation or rollout of the experiment. I'm just letting the curious people know about why there are these posts popping up and what to do with them.

      Andrewds1021 wrote: Noreplyz, I know, on your description page for the tool, you say to tell Rappy. As such, perhaps I could repost this to start a thread on his wall.

      Feel free to post any further feedback on Rappy's wall. I did pass along some of the feedback here - I hadn't passed along the confusion that can come from having the 'wiki name/url' option unchecked yet, so free to shoot him a message about it.

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • Thanks Andrewds1021. I'll follow the Rappy wall thread and hopefully there will be some feedback.

        Loading editor
    • Well, it was bound to happen eventually.

      Thread:1735088

      Thread:1735089


      Edit:

      Count so far:

      • total - 8
        • logged-in - 2
          • block related - 1
          • other - 1
        • logged-out - 6
          • edit wiki that requires login - 4
            • repeat posts - 2
          • change username - 1
          • other - 1
        Loading editor
    • Wait so maybe 2 of 8 are actually relevant?

        Loading editor
    • Has this been shut down or are users really not using this new thing?

        Loading editor
    • "Edit wiki that requires login" seems like a reasonable query - and an interesting interaction where you can see that the "you need to log in to edit" message is not clear enough and really could be updated or made more obvious.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote: Has this been shut down or are users really not using this new thing?

      Also, perhaps they are not seeking in-editor help because the editing experience is already adequate?

        Loading editor
    • Yes, but I think the "you need to login to edit" message is already in a more prominent place than the "get help" message. It shouldn't be too intruive becuse users might just be trying to view source rather than actually edit. Perhaps the in-editor help could detect whether or not anon editing is allowed. Then, either hide itself or repeat the "login to edit" message. I mean, anon editing is disabled via wiki features so I would imagine there should be some way to retrieve the status.

        Loading editor
    • Noreplyz wrote:

      Fandyllic wrote:

      Has this been shut down or are users really not using this new thing?

      Also, perhaps they are not seeking in-editor help because the editing experience is already adequate?

      Sssssuuuurrreee....

        Loading editor
    • Sigh.

        Loading editor
    • I am thinking this script needs to be on a few more wikis.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.