Talk:Article feedback/Version 5/Report

Thanks for publishing this. It would need to be clearer in the text that "the time has come for us to retire this tool" means really retire. --Nemo 22:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC) P.s.: In I especially liked the sections "Should have experimented with the core concepts earlier" by Pau, the comment by Matthias on how «each AFT iteration shifted in goals and implementation quite drastically» and the technical/development learnings for devs highlighted by Matthias and Ori.

My thanks as well for publishing this report. It's good work. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

One editor's practical experiences
I found the concept of an easy click to edit feedback tool very promising, but the implementation is clunky, inefficient, and ineffective. I will add to this if I think of any additional comments. Pbsouthwood (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The tool asks if the reader has found what he or she was looking for, (a useful question) then totally fails to ask what that was, wasting the opportunity to find out what the users are looking for, which would be a useful answer.
 * The questions asked while in the feedback tool are poorly designed to elicit useful feedback. the suggestion about more images is a case in point. Many suggestions for more images were totally inappropriate.
 * There is no convenient way of notification of feedback on any given article. no watchlist is possible. this requires an inordinate amount of effort to find out if there is recent, unactioned, useful feedback on articles that one wishes to monitor. This is a waste of time.
 * Most useful or marginal feedback can not be reliably assessed by a random editor. I have often seen feedback flagged as useful which was not, or no action when it was potentially useful. Feedback is most useful to the editors who are knowledgeable on the subject matter and able to discriminate.
 * Assuming that users did not find what they were looking for because they left no feedback is misleading.
 * A large portion of the feedback was insufficiently detailed to be useful. The user should be requested to be reasonably specific. It is also not possible to contact the user to request clarification. this also drastically reduces the effectiveness of the tool. An anonymising e-mail reply would help. This could be optional for people who are unwilling to leave an e-mail address, but it might not be a bad thing to eliminate the anonymous feedback as that would also eliminate almost all of the garbage feedback. Providing this as a user option for the editor who opts in for feedback would be nice.
 * Some level of user control of questions for a specific article would be useful.
 * What I am looking for in feedback is:
 * What did the user want to find,
 * Was the available information comprehensible
 * Are there any major aspects of the subject that have been omitted
 * Does the user have any concrete suggestions for improving the article
 * What is the background of the user in the subject of the article (only if one of the other items has been addressed)
 * On the whole, I find article feedback more useful than not - marginally. It has provided feedback which has enabled me to significantly improve a few article, ath the cost of a lot of wasted time

Comments from Cantons-de-l'Est
It is a good idea, but the implementation left too many open doors to toxic ou useless comments. I think that Feedback should be implemented with choices. We will loose good comments, but we will dramatically reduce the time to filter out the noise.


 * A comment applies to a section, not the article. In this way, the editors will have easier time to find what is to correct.
 * Since the reader can only pick a choice, he cannot write toxic or hainous comment. Equally, the software can group the comments by their type. In this way, the editors will choose what is most urgent to correct (for instance, copyvios before typos).
 * Possible comments :
 * The section has
 * a typo or grammatical error
 * a syntax error
 * The section
 * is OK
 * is factual and complete
 * has a copyvio
 * is defamatory
 * is hainous
 * lack illustrations (photos, diagrams, maps, etc.)
 * lack sources

We can add other bullets. However, we must not fall into vagueness (like, the section is wrong ; "wrong" is too vague : date, typo, verb ?). And, in no way, have an "others" bullet with a way to write something. This will open the door to hainous/toxic/useless/childish comments, and someone will have to filter out these, clearly a waste of time in the light of previous experiment.

We will miss many useful comments, but I prefer 60 % useful comments to 80 % hainous/toxic/useless/childish comments.

Cantons-de-l&#39;Est (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)