Talk:Article feedback/Version 5


 * customize all ratings scale: 10 stars, instead of 5 points scale,
 * custom stars size,
 * AFT should have a setting to count ratings from all the time, not last 30 days - useful when i use AFT as a product review extension.

Combine option 1 and 2 please
I would love for people to be able to say "Yes" or "No" to whether they found what they are looking for (or neither or both which are still legitimate options) and still be able to select zero or one of the four choices in Option 2. Is that feasible? 67.6.163.68 22:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Rating
Are you going to remove the article rating completely? --Kozuch 15:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that a final decision has been made. Option #3 appears to provide an opportunity for an overall rating of the article.  The other three options don't.  The general idea is that they'll run a head-to-head comparison test and see which one produces the best results.
 * The en.wikipedia page only discusses the first two (of four) options. I have the impression that all the complaints about "hate votes" and "fan votes" are coming from en.wiki.  Perhaps different plans are being made for different projects.   WhatamIdoing 19:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Feedback space
It looks from the documentation like feedback is going to be going on a special page. Wouldn't it make more sense just to post these comments on the talk page? Calliopejen1 16:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What's sensible depends on how you plan to use them. If you want to be able to analyze the comments, then a separate page is probably more sensible.  Also, putting them on a separate page will reduce the frustration from normal editors, who will be able to easily identify comments from people who are extremely unlikely to be engaging in a two-way discussion.
 * As a compromise, I suggested transcluding the comments page onto the talk page, which would make it visible to people reading that page (but not people checking diffs on that page). I don't know what they'll actually do in the end, and the choices may change over time. WhatamIdoing 18:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We're talking about quite a few different things (sorry to take so long to get back to you! I need to get my watchlist to ping me or something). I would suggest coming to the discussion on IRC on Friday 6th, at 19:00 UTC; we'll be talking about this sort of thing then. I'll be around until 23:00 UTC, so if you can't make the "proper" session, no worries about it :). Okeyes (WMF) 23:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool process!
Lots of people seem to have specific responsibilities in the process... is there some way to track which community members are learning how the process works, so that groups can self-form to run similar initiatives with less staff involvement?  66.93.26.18 08:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, to be honest most of the editor involvement has been through giving design suggestions and helping with our quantitative analysis, not so much the management :(. I'm an editor myself (have been for six years), but I'm also a contractor, so it doesn't really count. Even with community participation, the untouched technical proposals would still need foundation auth to go ahead, and we are planning on quite a few new features in the coming year; if there are specific ones you'd like to see, give me a shout! Okeyes (WMF) 08:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

download
where is the download of this extension?
 * You can get it from SVN by way of Extension:ArticleFeedbackv5 :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Forcing a bucket
I noticed that the code chooses different feedback forms for different people. Is there a way to bypass this and simply force a certain type of form? I believe in the code they were labelled as buckets.

Productive edits
It's nice to see that AFT is managing to get also some productive edits onboard, but it's quite distressing that its "call to action" bring edits 2/3 of which are unproductive to the point of being reverted, compared to 1/4 for normal edits (if I'm reading this page correctly). Do you think it will be possible to bring the productiveness of incoming edits in line with normal "call to actions" (edit links), or at least to have more productive than unproductive edits? --Nemo 17:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's a fair comparison, since you and I are presumably in the category of people who don't edit as a result of the AFT call to action, and also don't get reverted much. I think you'd have to compare IPs to IPs, or something like that, to have an idea of whether AFT-responders are actually worse than other brand-new editors.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's why I also said "or at least to have more productive than unproductive edits". --Nemo 09:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that we're supposed to dig up w:en:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback in order to find out the answers to such questions. Well, I'm not going to (280 kB and counting). --Nemo 07:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Filter feedback by category
Since "View all feedback" seems a bit overkill in such a big project as wikipedia, would it be possible to display the feedback for only one category (with an option to select the sub-category depth level)?
 * Have you tried looking at the feedback only for pages on your watchlist? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess so, but watchlist is not that useful a filtering for very active users: that's why multiple watchlists/watchlist grouping is one of the most asked features.
 * Subcategories are a nigthmare, but if feedback added log items to recentchanges (with a switch to disable it) then Special:RecentChangesLinked could be used for all pages in a single category; may be worth filing a feature request if you find it useful. --Nemo 07:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

How to operate AFT5 via API?
I am tired with ever-glitching Web interface at w:Special:ArticleFeedbackv5Watchlist and so, and want something more robust. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a temporary service outage while they're upgrading the feature this week. It's scheduled to be running tomorrow, assuming all goes well.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Rest in peace, ArticleFeedbackv5
In 2012, ArticleFeedbackv5 was a miracle. It extended abilities of seasoned articles’ watchers to interact with readers. It was greatly helpful and fairly convenient, although IMHO relied on JavaScript too. But now it is a castrated beast without at least two necessary functions (ArticleFeedbackv5Watchlist and “thumb down”), that only helps to impose the rule of imbeciles on wikis, not to counter it.

Open for example the w:Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Human sexuality page, choose sorting by relevance. You can now see that the top of list is flooded with gibberish like “i read sexual conversations between my fiance and gay men.when confronted with this he said he wasnt bisexual,but we havent had sex in about a year...i am a straight female, and he should be honest with himself and me.how do i even begin to unders…”, whereas genuinely useful messages like “EFFECT OF HUMAN sexuality in human” are found almost in the very arse. It is now a moronic sorting, caused by imbecilic system of assessment that conflates notions of useless (a.k.a. “thumb down”) and offending.

Thanks you, guys, for spending your time for this extension. It is not your fault that Wikimedia now progressively becomes a degraded community and a dysfunctional organization, that refuse to develop and improve thing that are helpful for the useful people. Let’s hope we will ever meet in a new life. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)