Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5

15 ways to dislike feedback. Too many?

So, I'm rootling through feedback. I find some nasty racism stuff; don't like it. Hmm. How many options do I have to deal with it. 1) Is this feedback helpful? No. 2) Flag as abuse. 3) Hide 4) Request oversight. Or, I suppose, any combination of the same. Which would be about 15 options.

Are we sure we have enough options when we don't like feedback? Do we have a clue which we should reach for when we find that racist message? (No.) Have we perhaps gone a little over-the-top with this aspect of the feedback system? I can see how, on their own, each looks unimpeachable. It's only when you bring them all together that it starts to fail; not least when it appears that at least three are valid for the single racist message. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

We're trying to work out a solution to these problems :S. I can't promise any immediate changes, I'm afraid - I've been told to wait for more data. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I had the same problem once just by having the first two options. See Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5/Archive2#About the Central Feedback Page. Basically these two options create four categories including very strange stuff like an “helpful abuse”. Why do we need this? What should be flagged as “abuse” and what should be flagged as “not helpful” while not being an abuse? Where is the borderline? Why do we need these two different ratings? I find this very confusing. Isn't it enough to have one rating? Good comment vs. bad comment. Done. It's a matter of taste anyway.

And again what's the point of the “Feature” star? Is this some kind of “very helpful” rating? Like a third option, basically creating 2³ = 8 classes? Including the possibility to “feature” an abuse? Why? Why is it possible to simply set this star instead of using the helpful rating to decide how good a comment is? There is no way to find a consensus. Everybody can set and unset a “Feature” star even without providing a reason. Why is this option not a rating but a simple flag? Assume it is a rating, what's the difference to the helpful rating? Isn't it the same?

I forgot to include the “Mark as resolved” flag. This creates 2⁴ = 16 classes. For example, if a comment contains only gibberish I rate it as not helpful and as an abuse and flag it as resolved? Like this? Four clicks (the flags needs two clicks) to deal with an useless comment? Or is it enough to click “resolved” to make a useless comment go away? What's the difference? Is there a difference? --TMg 18:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter

So, I signed up for the "bi-weekly newsletter" back on August 15, and have yet to receive a copy. What gives? MeegsC (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Is your talkpage bot-proofed? If so.... ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No knowingly! How would I check? MeegsC (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Good question. All the mechanisms I know for bot-proofing a page aren't active - how very odd! Alright, I'll make sure to manually deliver yours in future :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there an archive of the newsletters? Link? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Not at the moment :(. I'll compile one when I have some spare cycles :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Group feedback by category

I would like to stress this again. We really need the possibility to group the feedback by category. For example I want to show all feedback in the Category:Computer science (and all sub-categories up to a certain level) because that's the topic where I work. I don't care about feedback in, let's say, the Category:Sports. I really think we need to know which articles in a category sub-tree are considered the worst. We need to focus on these articles. Why is such a vital feature missing? --TMg 11:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I know; I've repeatedly suggested it, but there's a feeling that it's too great an amount of work for the time we have left :S. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not start simple?
SELECT article, COUNT(*) count FROM feedbacks GROUP BY article ORDER BY count DESC
or in other words, show a list of most commented articles.
SELECT article, COUNT(*) count FROM feedbacks WHERE helpful = 0 GROUP BY article ORDER BY count DESC
or in other words, show a list of most hated articles. What's the problem with adding such simple things? Add categories later. For example skip any recursion. Do a simple JOIN with a single category. That would be 90 % of what we need. Currently we get 0 %. It's impossible to do anything useful with the feedback scattered all around the project if you don't provide any tools to focus on the important things. --TMg 17:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

really need this features : it's unpossible to maintain without this add-on... Poleta33 (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Testing AFT on German WP / moderation system

AFT page, monitors view: both "hide" at the right side and "flag as abuse" (next to "helpful?")

AFT5 Page Comparative Wireframe: Readers View, Rollbackers View, Oversighters View

Hello there! We are discussing and planning to test AFTv5 on German WP. So we're having a close look at the feedback moderation system, because we have to assign "moderation rights" to user groups. Since German WP is running "gesichtete Versionen"/ flagged versions, we have a big user group with the right to revert vandalism/approve revisions in article space. We would like to make them Rollbacker / Reviewer (aft-monitor), so that they can "hide" abusive feedback too.

Now, I'm afraid that a Rollbacker / Reviewer (aft-monitor) gets a confusing multitude of moderation buttons (see 15 ways to dislike feedback. Too many?), for example both a "hide" and a "flag as abuse" button. Overall I think we want a lean and effective moderation system, because there are lots of concerns that the feedback pages turn into a trolls heaven. It should be clearer what "hide" and "flag as abuse" mean (in which cases to use it and what happens by clicking). Why do you need to "flag as abuse" if you can "hide" yourself (redundant)? And couldn't the "hide" button have a drop-down menu to select reasons for hiding: "non-sensical text", "insults", "Personal information", "other" (see full list in Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Feedback response guidelines#Hiding and unhiding feedback)? That would explain the functionality without having to search/find/read in help pages. Any opinions? --Atlasowa (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

So, I agree with the first of those suggestions - when it comes down to drop-downs, we'll run into the problem that there are edge cases where no drop-down applies :). We are making the field identify as autocomplete-able, so people will be able to easily input any rationale they see fit - or we might just remove it entirely, to be honest. Things that are hidden are usually hidden for obvious reasons :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

So, is it possible to give the Rollbacker / Reviewer (aft-monitor) group the right to "hide", but to spare them the "flag to abuse" button? (Which would be different from this Access and permissions table?)

BTW, our (straw?) poll on AFT is currently at 64 for, 18 against and 4 undecided (and it's only about testing 4 months on ~15.000 selected articles ^^). Exciting! :-) --Atlasowa (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Good luck then. Czech Wikipedia also has a poll, but only about "using some tool to get feedback for articles" because it started in times when AFTv5 was young. Last time I was there it was about half for and half against but successful deployment on German version should really change that. Go and crowd will go with you ;D --07:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC), Utar (talk)

Thanks ;-) Do you have a link to the Czech poll? The real vote will be after testing and that's gonna be a hard sell. Lots of "Bedenkenträger" (intranslatable german word for a person carrying doubts) - including me, kind of, sometimes ;-P --Atlasowa (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The result (after one week) is: 78 for, 29 against and 4 undecided. So, the AFTv5 test on de-wiki is gonna happen! --Atlasowa (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

@Okeyes: Regarding "the problem that there are edge cases where no drop-down applies", that would be "others" :-P. I'm thinking of one "hide" button (for monitors) with a drop-down menu (or multiple choice?) of reasons for hiding that could be accompanied by the "request oversight" option. This would have several advantages: 1) It roughly shows the user in which cases to use "hide", without reading several FAQ/help pages and without a confusing multitude of buttons. 2) It gives a reason to the oversighter. 3) It produces data that could be used to improve AFT moderation and possibly improve/train abuse filters. Any thoughts? --Atlasowa (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice but I'm not sure how much of a pain it would be - I shall ask :). 3 is unlikely - we'd have to build a way of evaluating this data, or the community would, and we don't run the abuse filter. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

AFT on French Wikipedia : the straw poll has began !

Hello all.

A straw poll has just been launched on French Wikipedia in order to decide to deploy (or not) the AFT. We are currently at the discussion phase, I hope we will start to vote in a two weeks' time.

If you are comfortable with the French language and the AFT, we may have a lot of questions for you. So, be welcome to help the discussion !

Bests, Trizek ^{from FR} 22:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Just wondering: Would you really call fr:Wikipédia:Prise de décision a "straw poll", wouldn't fr:Wikipédia:Sondage be more appropriate? And are you really deciding about a 100% deployment of AFTv5 in article+help space, not about testing AFTv5? What about the failed AFT4 vote of 2011, are people really understanding the difference between AFTv4 and AFTv5? (my experience: they don't, despite explanations. Maybe screenshots?) Please be aware that a "spontaneous" vote could quickly end up in a negative response and that it is very hard to overturn an earlier negative vote (from what i see on different Wikipedias, YMMV). --Atlasowa (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for these comments.

We are working on this decision since months. The FAQ and the various questions suggest us a good comprehension of the differences between the v4 and the v5, and all the spontaneous discussions let us know a good conclusion of this prise de décision.

Fingers crossed ! :)

Trizek ^{from FR} 18:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Not showing up

Why is AFT5 not showing up on Folding@home? I'd like to fix this. • Jesse V.^(talk) 20:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh; that's really weird :S. Can I suggest removing "additional articles" and seeing if the random 10 percent lottery picks it up? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope. The old AFT4 shows up. • Jesse V.^(talk) 15:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Dagnabit. Okay, I'll see if we can do anything at our end :). If not it might need to wait for the big rollout. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Not showing up on Ecoute Article

Same thing here as I was trying to expereince on the tool on Ecoute. Any thoughts/help please?. Thank you. — Ludopedia^(Talk) 08:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Feature request

Would it be possible to have a drop down list of the codes at WP:FRG as reasons when hiding feedback? I think it would be a nice addition, particularly if the reasons were wikilinked to FRG. --Nouniquenames 19:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolve problems

I experienced a number of weird interface problems today using the Resolve feature at Special:ArticleFeedbackv5. Randomly, it seems to do nothing sometimes - I enter the reason and click "Mark as resolved," the message box disappears, but the "Resolved" text does not appear nor does the resolve appear in the item history. I tried manually clicking the "Mark as resolved" button, tried entering a summary and not entering a summary, tried doing CTRL+F5 to fresh the page and still could not resolve the item I was looking at (Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Rockwell_scale/638032). Yet just a few minutes ago I could resolve other items with no problem. I'm using Chrome 23.0.1271.64 m on Windows 7 Pro. Eventually I loaded the page up in Firefox 16.0.2 and it worked there right away. However, even in Firefox I still have trouble entering the resolve message and pressing "ENTER" - it reloads the page, discards the message, and does not resolve the item. Dcoetzee 18:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I later determined that my Wikipedia cookies had somehow become corrupt and lots of requests were failing, so AFT5 might not be responsible for this. Dcoetzee 22:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Getting responses to feedback to the people who leave it

Although AFT feedback is very useful, I feel like the people who are leaving it have no sense about where it goes or what happens to it. If we want to encourage good commenters to leave more feedback in the future, I think it's important to have a way to send them a response to their feedback, indicating what action we took upon resolution. This is especially important when the request is a reasonable one that we just can't comply with for legal reasons or for lack of access to the resources (e.g. include lyrics, include photo of a living person). One way to do is to simply add an optional field "E-mail address (optional)" field to the form, and to automatically e-mail them when the item is resolved with the message that was given. This could also potentially allow us to seek clarification from commenters who appear to have some legitimate issue but are difficult to understand. Thoughts? Dcoetzee 22:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Already in the features requirements for the next round of updates. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Feedback button nearly invisible

Hi. Looking for information about a GUI/button issue: Wikipedia_talk:Article_feedback#.22Post_your_feedback.22_button_nearly_invisible. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is a screenShot of the problem I'm seeing:

--Noleander (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Same problem reported on german WP, see Screenshot. There are now Bugzilla:37431 and Bugzilla:42738, apparently "unconfirmed"? To see the problem for yourself click Yes or No: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schach?stable=0&useskin=monobook --Atlasowa (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finally posting a reply here. I thought I was seeing things :-). The English WP example above is from the ACLU article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU. Of course, it may be caused by my particular preferences/skin settings (the example above is using Modern skin, but it happens in other skins also), in which case clicking on the Yes or No buttons at the bottom of ACLU may not produce the bug for others. --Noleander (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

User Okeyes (WMF) posted a note at Wikipedia_talk:Article_feedback#.22Post_your_feedback.22_button_nearly_invisible which says the problem is caused by Modern or Classic skins. However, that cannot be a correct assessment because it happens in all skins for me. Plus, the German example is using Monobook --Noleander (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed not Monobook- or browser-only. Only Vector has the CSS for a blue button. All other skins do not. AFT did define the text color (white) though, making for a bad combo (light gray button/white text color) on all skins but Vector. https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/32072/ will undo said fixed white color. In Vector, button will then be blue with white text; other skins will have light-gray button with dark text. (by Matthias Mullie 2012-12-08 08:33:12 UTC at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41653 )

--Se4598 (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Feature request: The more link at the bottom of longer feedback...

If a reader provides many lines of text as feedback, that posting, when shown on the list of feedback posts, only shows the first few lines followed by a more link, which links to another page that shows the full text along with additional info.

It would be nice if clicking more would expand the posting on the same page, kind of like the way the {{Hidden}} template works. Thank you. Sparkie82 (t•c) 07:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

That'd be awesome - adding to the list :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a bug in this feature? When I click on the More link for longer comments, the expansion page is not showing any continuation text, it is just showing the "additional details" about the feedback on the feedback. The feedback text itself still ends in "..." at the same char count. It would also be helpful if when typing into the feedback entry form, there was some indication as to how much of the comment would fit before the truncation. Teri Pettit (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Same problem with the broken "more"-button reported on german Wikipedia (Firefox 13, 16, 17; Opera 12.11). See also Bugzilla:42843. --Atlasowa (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem seems to occur with Monobook-style, but not with Vector. There seems to be a lot of bugs with Monobook by the way...--Sinuhe20 (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I have vector and i can't see "more" of the feedback on de-wiki and en-wiki. --Atlasowa (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Exempt

How do I make a page exempt from the feedback tool? Lynda is a dab page but it has the AFD thingy at the bottom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Add the page to Category:Article Feedback Blacklist. There is still a reason to have the AFT on DAB pages (suggestions for inclusions for example), but I've removed it in this case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I can remove all abuse ratings, not only mine

Steps to reproduce:

1. Go to Special:ArticleFeedbackv5.
2. Find a comment that is flagged as abuse 1 or more times.
3. Click "Flag as abuse". The number increases.
4. Click "Flagged as abuse" to remove your rating. The number decreases.
5. Now you can click again and again and remove all abuse ratings.

My first idea was, this must be a client side issue. But it's not. Look at the activity log here: Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Global warming/149308. As said above my proposed solution is to simply remove the abuse rating. Stick with the helpful rating. We don't need two ratings. (Web browser used: Opera 12.11, Windows 7.) --TMg 18:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this explains why no feedback posts have been hidden since a month.

The AFT moderation requirement of 5 different users flagging 1 post as abuse to hide it seems broken. Even the french asked if this could be changed, since 5 users is a very high threshold. I don't remember that this was answered in some way.

In the last AFT-Newsletter was announced that: "we're continuing to work on some ways to increase the quality of feedback and make it easier to eliminate and deal with non-useful feedback: hopefully I'll have more news for you on this soon :)." In the french AFT Office hour a mockup was posted for a moderation change: buttons for "inappropriate" and "not actionable". So, what's happening? Will this AFT moderation change be live on the german AFT test too? It would be very unfortunate if we start the AFT test on de-wp and after a few days the moderation is fundamentally changed and we have no documentation/help pages. Is there a timeline? --Atlasowa (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I found some changes on the AFT5 Feature Requirements, namely on the Resolve tools. Looks good. Is there a timeline? --Atlasowa (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Not at the moment: we're talking through them now. Re no feedback posts being hidden, that's actually just that the toolserver tool is broken ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

see also Bugzilla:39747 --Atlasowa (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"View reader feedback »" broken

The "View reader feedback »" links on the talk pages are broken in the Opera web browser. Nothing happens. Not even an error message in the debugger. I see there is a click handler. Why is it there? Why not simply remove it? The plain href does work. I can right click the link and open it in a new tab, for example. --TMg 23:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Same error in IE 8 and Opera 12.11. --TMg 13:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll report it :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

are there bugs in Bugzilla: for the things you report?--Se4598 (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

90 percent of the time; this was the 10, I'm afraid. The fix should be here (to quote from our dev, with attribution, "IE provides no way to completely fix this, but it should now at least no longer break the link"). Opera should work fine :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Feedback response guidelines

There is currently a dicussion at WT:FRG on the formal adoption of the Feedback response guidelines as a Wikipedia guideline. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding timescale

Is this an ongoing project or is it a trial with a fixed end point? I've explored a few of the links to further info, so apologies if I've missed this already being documented somewhere. I'm probably interested, but don't expect to be able to offer much assistance until later this month/into 2013. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Also see my comment on my talk page. Basically, what's the reason to rate every comment twice? --TMg 12:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Experimental validity. If we agree on the rating, then it was probably rated correctly. If we disagree, then one of us was probably wrong (or it's an especially difficult case). If many of "my" ratings disagree with everyone else's ratings, then I'm probably a bad rater whose responses should be ignored. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As always, WhatamIdoing is correct here :). (As an aside, but on a similar subject - I actually did an experiment on IP/pseudonymous agreement rates a few weeks ago - they agree 60 percent of the time or so. Kinda interesting). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't you have enough rating data to calculate the standard deviation for all comments by a specific user? You know the user names of the people who wrote and rated the comments. You know how experienced the users are. What's wrong with the data you already have? Why a second interface for the same task? --TMg 01:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I would really like to understand the value of doing the rating again with a different tool? Why not choose a random number of users, let them use the regular tool and compare their ratings to all others? But even then the value of such a comparison is very questionable. The current rating options are simply confusing. I would really like to know how the people use this. I assume it's a mess of up- and down-voting. What's the value of comparing ratings made by confused user with other ratings made in an other tool by a few hopefully less confused people? --TMg 18:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Comparing average responses only works if we can guarantee that the users are going to rate a large number of items and there is no difference in the items they rate. But if you rate random items, and I only rate ones whose articles I'm familiar with, or only controversial items, then our averages might differ despite using the same standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. There seems to be some confusion as to what we're trying to achieve here. What we're trying to find out is the overall quality of feedback. The problem is twofold:

1. most feedback monitors (and most feedback posts) cluster around controversial articles, for obvious reasons - high reader attention equals high pageviews and high editor attention, and high pageviews leads to a high number of feedback posts;
2. We have no way of ascertaining whether people monitor randomised feedback posts on even controversial articles, or just the most divisive posts (things that are obviously good/obviously need to be hidden).

In other words, we don't actually know the quality of the feedback we're getting: we know the quality of those posts that draw editor attention on controversial/high view articles. These are not the same things. Even taking a randomised sample of this pool wouldn't work, because our problem is with the pool we're drawing from. The solution is to take a randomised sample of feedback overall and measure both quality and user agreement there. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Button to hide or collapse Feedback box?

A german WP reader (IP) asked how to hide/not show the feedback box in the articles (which he described as "annoying", "distracting", "obtrusive"). As far as I can see, there is no way to do that? There are opt-out gadgets for logged-in users, but not for readers/ IP. In other default gadgets like ReferenceTooltips, we offer an opt-out for readers, so why can't readers hide/collapse the feedback box (which is in big type and not exactly subtile...). In the new Features under consideration i don't see a button 'X' to close the Feedback box. For some context: In the german WP there is a constant effort not to bloat the articles with navigation bars, stub-templates, wikiproject-links and other cruft. Therefor the AFT box really stands out (and it is big anyway). A button for readers and editors to hide / collapse / close / not show the Feedback box if they don't want to see it, would be appreciated. --Atlasowa (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense; want me to add it to bugzilla? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

TMg commented that this feature would make the tool more complicated and possibly less usable - would it? I imagine an X button on the right upper corner of the feedback box to make it disappear (or behind the "what is this?" link?). The reader would make it reappear by clicking on "Add your feedback" under "tools" on the left side. And the feedback box would probably return anyway after some time, expired cookie. Correct? What do other people think? Was there demand for a hide/collapse button with the AFTv4 box ("Rate this page")? Yes, there was, even on Bugzilla:29303. Apparently, Jorm was concerned that a toggle link is problematic, but this was long ago. What's the potential problem? I think it would be fair to give readers an option to collapse this tool if they want. Other opinions? --Atlasowa (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd note that the concern about AFT4 was mostly concern by experienced editors about experienced editors :). I don't think I brought up any problem - I offered to add it to bugzilla ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd really like to hear if there are objections or problems - or if everybody agrees this would be a good idea. Let's give this a week for thought before moving to bugzilla?

1) What would it be, hide or collapse? Any mockups from the positioning experiments that we could use?

ReferenceTooltips: Click the little icon in the top right corner (File:Cog.png) for options to disable.

2) How long would the choice of the reader (not logged in user) be preserved? Would the cookie persist 1 year, 180 days or 30 days? (Unless the user deletes it himself, obviously) There is an interesting thread on wikitech about default cookie time. For instance, how long does it work with the ReferenceTooltips for readers?

3) When hiding the tool, will there be a bubble telling the user how he can reactivate the tool and how long the cookie persists?

And thanks for offering to add it to bugzilla, Okeyes :-) appreciated! --Atlasowa (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

4) One more :-P At the moment, the reader that clicked "Yes" or "No" to the question "Did you find what you were looking for?" is presented with the textfield for comments. There is no obvious way to close it without commenting or voting. You can only close the whole browser tab/window or hit the browser "back" button to escape ;-) If there were an X button on the top right corner, readers would probably use that to close the questioning. It would be unfortunate, if the reader only wants to close this question/text field (that he may have used the first time ever) and unknowingly he is disabling/hiding the whole tool (on first sight). --Atlasowa (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

2) what about session cookies for those, who deny all other cookies? --91.34.129.230 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the user asking for this feature is a very experienced user, he is just hiding behind an IP address. Even if you add an X button to the top right corner, what should it do? Hide all feedback boxes on all pages? For the current session only? For days? What if a user clicked the X by accident? Does he need to restart the browser to get the feedback box back? On the other hand, if the X does not set a cookie and hides the current feedback box only it's pretty useless and probably more confusing than anything else. An other solution is to not hide the feedback box but to collapse it. But why? What's the benefit of this? My proposed solution is: Make it very easy to add the feedback box to the AdBlock list or to a Greasemonkey rule. Basically this means to use a good, self-explaining ID. Maybe there is more you can do to help Greasemonkey users? --TMg 02:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi TMg, Redundanz schafft Sicherheit. So it's good to let many roads lead to Rome.

an icon(functionality) comparable to the Sighted versions. Addidional an "Add your feedback" in the "Toolbox" or "Interaction". --91.34.136.84 (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note, it's one WikiPedia. There are countless other Wikis. So Be bold. It is the choice of the users, how to participate. Asking the companies administrator to grant one local administrative rights to install a customized browser of ones choice?! Note too, it was an interested Wikipedia accout, who added and extended this section.

What's the benefit of this? Well, what's the benefit of allowing readers to click away the donation banner? Not to annoy? Why else would you say that the small size of the close-button is needlessly annoying? Why don't we put a huge colourful donation banner on top and a blinky feedback form underneath our articles, without options for closing/collapsing? Let them have cake greasemonkey tutorials! ;-) But seriously, how does it work with the donation banner? It seems to be a lot more complicated than session cookies for standard features. --Atlasowa (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't add buttons all over the place to satisfy every need. But if there is a button I expect it to be accessible. I don't think you can compare the donation banner and the feedback tool. The banner is more like a one-time notification. "Did you know there is a fundraiser going on?" Yea, I know. Click. The tool is a tool. There is a very interesting presentation about the new Microsoft Office Ribbons. They basically removed the possibility to hide tools. People are scared of clicking these little X buttons because they don't know how to get a possible useful tool back. There are better ways. A collapse button would be acceptable, I think. --TMg 18:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I can mark a post unhelpful multiple times

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T45208

Hello, here, it was possible to mark the post unhelpful twice. Click on View more actions... to see it. Thank you!···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 18:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear :(. Thanks for letting us know! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 21:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Photos

I've been seeing a lot of "this article needs a photo" feedback, including on articles that already have at least one image. It's an especially popular comment at Dunning–Kruger effect, where I think it's meant to be funny (This article about incompetent people not knowing how incompetent they are needs a picture... of my co-worker.). I thought that this was just great demand for images, but I'm thinking that the example of feedback in the box is polluting the responses. Could we get that removed, or at least cycle through some other examples? Something open ended like "I think this page is missing information about..." might be useful. So might "You can leave this box blank if you don't want to comment". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense; I'll see what we can do :). We are looking to make the distinction between yes/no and comments more clear - as you say, I imagine we're getting a lot of "I found what I was looking for, yes! Oh, it says I need a comment. Will it not submit if I don't need a comment? Oh, pics. Uhm. Sure. More pics would be nice." Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Good question. In the german AFT translation, we dropped the "needs a picture" suggestion for this reason and took a more ambitious example: (z. B. „Im Artikel fehlt die Geschichte seit 1989, so wie sie in E. Mustermann (2007) beschrieben ist.“) = In the article the history since 1989 is missing, compare E. Mustermann (2007). Maybe too ambitious, we'll see ;-). Testing different examples is an interesting idea. Regarding feedback without forcing comments, is this AFT improvement Post without comment (see mockup below) really coming in january?

Very simple, very good. --Atlasowa (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It is :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems as a good idea to me. But how is it going to show in Feedback tab? Will it only change "X people have found what they were looking for" (good) or will it just post feedback with no text (bad)? And do you have "Are you sure?" message to show up when the reader clicks "Post without feedback" but feedback area is filled with something (not the pre-coded text)? --17:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC), Utar (talk)

There's no "are you sure" message, and it'll be treated in the same way that merely hitting yes or no is treated now :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Update

Slides from the AFTv5 report (2012-Q4)

Mockup of new moderation tools and filters under consideration.

Greetings, everyone!

I would like to share this update on Article feedback, which we just published on the Wikimedia blog.

This blog post includes key findings from our analysis of feedback and moderation activity — as well as an update on new features in development for this reader engagement tool. Our goals for these features are to surface more good feedback, reduce the editor workload and improve software performance for a full deployment. Many of these new features address issues you were kind enough to bring to our attention on this talk page.

Once these features have been developed, we plan to test them on 10 percent of the English Wikipedia, so we can hear from you about their effectiveness, hopefully at the end of January. In parallel, we will complete our code refactoring on a new database cluster by February, to improve overall performance. If all goes well, we plan to release this tool to 100 percent of the English Wikipedia by the end of the first quarter of 2013. We also expect more projects to deploy Article Feedback after this full release, and the current version is now under review by the German and French Wikipedia.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the community members who have helped us design and develop Article feedback this year. Some of you generously spent many hours with us on IRC, Skype and on this talk page, evaluating our options and guiding our next steps. Special kudos to Bensin, Dougweller, Fluffernutter, GorillaWarfare, Looie496, Risker, RJHall, Sonia, TheHelpfulOne, TomMorris and Utar, to name but a few. We're deeply grateful for your thoughtful guidance, which has helped us create a much more effective product together. Thank you all for being such wonderful collaborators!

We look forward to deploying Article Feedback widely next year, to encourage more participation from readers. We hope this engagement tool can help sign up new contributors, to revert the editor decline and provide new ways for users to improve Wikipedia together.

Happy holidays!

Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Re. "This tool is converting readers into new editors", it would be interesting know how many readers who do not post feedback go on to create an account. Without this information, it's hard to be confident that the feedback tool is having a significant impact in this respect. Also re. "Useful feedback is buried under a lot of noise", the quoted figure of "About 40 percent of the feedback was found useful by at least two evaluators" seems like it may be putting a positive slant on the results given that there were 20 reviewers. What percentage was found useful by a majority of reviewers? My own experience of reading feedback is that the vast majority is not constructive, and the minority that is constructive often isn't really helpful in improving articles. --Michig (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

There were 20 reviewers? :/. And people evaluated feedback in pairs - of N reviewers, all would be given a randomised sample of feedback in such a way that each piece of feedback was rated by two distinct people. Having 20 people review each piece would certainly increase our certainty, but probably not usefully, after a certain point, and would have reduced the statistical significance of the data overall by necessitating a smaller total sample. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The update linked above states that 20 Wikipedia editors blindly assessed 900 random feedback posts for usefulness, so I guess there were 20 reviewers. Presumably more than two people evaluated each piece of feedback, as "About 40 percent of the feedback was found useful by at least two evaluators" implies, or does it mean 'by both evaluators'?. --Michig (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There was some degree of overlap, to my knowledge, but dual agreement was the primary metric: the problem is that it might be A pieces of feedback reviewed by 3 people, B by 2 people, C by 4 people...and the only way we can use A or C is to massively reduce sample size. We've just finished another study into this, which should be written up in due course. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of AFT5 from articles

I thought I'd let everyone know about this discussion regarding MZMcBride's removal of Category:Article Feedback 5 from articles. • Jesse V.^(talk) 17:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to repeat one of the conclusions of user MZMcBride: “The tool could then compile these responses into lists of the most (or least) interesting, funny, informative articles.”. Thats what I told you several times. To make this tool useful for the community we need such lists of articles. --TMg 22:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

See "filter by tag or category" here. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

View Feedback for this Article Does Not Work on Firefox Nightly 20

Hi, the feedback viewer is not letting Firefox Nightly users view it. It displays fine for a second, then disappears, replaced by "Sorry, your browser is not supported by this prototype. To see this page, please use a different browser." It works fine in Nightly 20, I can use the Feedback page by killing the Javascript (pushing the Esc key in that 1 sec window). Please fix this. Thanks—Kelvinsong (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Firefox Nightly....? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Firefox Nightly, an alpha version of Firefox.—Kelvinsong (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :). What I suspect is happening is that we've set up a "if the browser and version is not on this list, don't let it work" thing to avoid people being confronted with broken software...and the latest firefox alpha is not, unsurprisingly, yet on this list. I'll throw this to the devs. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, there should at least be a way to override it without having to scramble for the Esc key :)—Kelvinsong (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Now in gerrit; should be deployed soon enough :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Some initial impressions: issues with the question

I recently had a friend look at AFT5 for the first time. I found that they became preoccupied with the initial question and what an appropriate answer to it was. Quote: "Well, the main issue I have is that I'd like some way of saying, "Yes, this is what I searched for, but I have no idea what it says." I just mean that the question, "Did you find what you were looking for?," is something I find difficult to answer with "Yes" or "No.""

The question certainly has some issues - it's ambiguous (does it mean "is this article about the topic you were looking for?", or does it mean "does this article contain the information you were seeking"?). Not all readers come looking for specific information (some browse casually).

Although I realise it's a bit late in the game to talk about changing it, there are other good options for the question. A very common one I see on other sites, such as documentation sites, is "Did this document help you?" or "Did you find this helpful?" Some, like the Apple site, include an option like "It's good, but..." that helps deal with cases where the article was helpful in some ways but deficient in others. We could similarly do "Did you find this article helpful?" with options "Yes", "No", and "Yes, but..." or "Sort of". I think these would be clearer and less of a stumbling block. Dcoetzee 23:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

How to clear all the flags for a post?

I see here that under the activity somebody flagged my post as abuse, and then someone cleared all the flags on my post and I can't figure out how to do that on some posts, because some are flagged for no apparent reason or by mistake. JayJay^{Talk to me} 00:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me you do that by featuring a feedback with some flags. Those flags are overwritten (cleared) in the process of featuring. See me featuring a feedback - the date and edit summary of clearing of flags and featuring is the same. --12:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC), Utar (talk)

Ahh I see but there should just be a button to clear all the flags IMO. Cheers, JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There is, but it only shows up after 2-3 flags to avoid burning people out voiding individual flags.Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Changing or deleting my 'Mark as resolved' note

I want to delete or change my note after I Mark feedback as resolved. Can I do this by clicking on Unmark as resolved? Abductive (reasoning) 05:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That will un-mark it, but your note will remain in the history - in the same way that making a new edit does not change the old edit's edit summary. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hand coding

Hi. In this edit, I've signed up for "hand coding." I'm interested in evaluating what feedback is being marked as useful. In particular, comments such as "needs an image" are seemingly being marked as useful when they're not actually useful.

I believe this is part of larger stats manipulation scheme that attempts to justify the resources wasted on this tool, but I won't know for sure until I can see what is being marked useful and by whom. I'm looking forward to it. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The last hand-coding session was completed last week; we're writing the results up now. If you have any evidence that we are deliberately or accidentally manipulating quantitative evidence I would like to hear it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suppose the results will include the feedback itself and its associated markings. I guess we'll see how everything was rated once you publish the results. :-)

Though I could swear I already read various claims about the effectiveness of the tool citing actual data. And I thought it was citing usefulness of the feedback (which is what I thought was being measured here). Hmmm. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we ran an earlier study last year, soon after the feedback tool was released (it was primarily intended to gauge whether there was a difference in feedback quality depending on where the link was). This is a look at "now that the tool is no longer this Interesting New Button people want to submit test comments through or whatever, and it has abuse filters, what does quality look like". Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Direct Link to view article feedback

As an editor, when patrolling my watchlist, I'd like to see if there's feedback for these pages i'm interested in. At the moment, it seems that I must click on the talk page, then 'view feedback' to find the article feedback. Is there any more direct way, like from the main article page or the history page? —fudoreaper (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There should be Feedback from my watched pages link directly in your Watchlist. Don't you have it there? --10:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC), Utar (talk)

If you mean an article-specific feedback view; we are actually building a more obvious link now :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I've used the system a bit more and can comment more clearly now.

• When I view my watch list, I have a link "Feedback from my watchlist". This is handy.
• If i am looking at a diff for a page on my watchlist, there's no way to view feedback. I must go to the talk page to find the link.
• The link to article feedback is special somehow. Using Firefox on Ubuntu, when I control-click the link, wanting to open it in a new tab, it opens in the same tab. It's not clear to me why this is.

So my original point was: It seems kinda awkward for an editor patrolling his watchlist to find article feedback about a specific article; because i must navigate to the talk page, and then most of the time the article doesn't even have any article feedback. (since only 10% of them do). Okeyes suggests that's going to change, which sounds good to me.

It's also not clear the best way to say to a comment: "We won't do that, here's why", or similarly "Your contribution is misdirected, here would be better". I've been resolving them with comments. But I like what we have now, feedback from readers is a great way to motivate and coordinate editing efforts. —fudoreaper (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Direct reply functions, also on the to-do list, although I'm not sure how soon we'll get to that one :/. Thanks for the support! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Formatting of the line at the top

The bit at the top says "68.100.92.188 posted feedback to Layer cake". Could we get that changed to something like "68.100.92.188 posted feedback to Layer cake (talk • history)"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll do what I can :). At the moment we're trying to put in a push to get in some new, in-depth features, which is cutting into our time for minor bugfixes (really we should try to put it the other way around, but...) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Automatically hide blank feedback?

I'm (and other AFT monitors probably are too) a little tired of having to manually hide blank feedback; is there any way that the system can automatically remove blank feedback? If not, can a bot be created to automatically do so? The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 18:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless you're looking at the "show me absolutely everything" view you shouldn't see it at all, and the same is true of readers and other editors. Have you considered just leaving it? :P. I'll ask if we can display it in some other format. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I'm looking at "All visible" so that I can catch everything. I would leave the blank feedback alone, but the feedback tool is so congested with blank feedback that we can't see as much of the real feedback. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 17:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, for future reference "all comments" shows, well, everything with a comment :). But yeah, I appreciate it's infuriating - I've been talking through various mechanisms to make blank feedback less disruptive. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, now I get what you mean by "all comments". I will try to use that for now on (why didn't I see it sooner? ). But I still think that blank feedback shouldn't be allowed. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 03:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that is it means we lose a lot of the data that can be used in aggregate (the simple yes/no). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that was a quick reply! Yes, but isn't the feedback tool designed mostly for gathering suggestions for improvement to the article? The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 03:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It is, but it's also pretty useful as a research tool :). Wikimania this year had User:Protonk, who had used AFT4 data to tell the future (he could predict precisely which articles would lose FA or GA status disturbingly accurately). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, I'm happy right now with the "all comments" option. Thanks for all of your replies. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 03:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem; let me know if I can be of any additional help :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Article feedback RFC now being drafted

Hi. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback is now being drafted. Any and all users are encouraged to add a view or polish up the page. The RFC is scheduled to begin on Monday, January 21. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Help pages

The usergroup-specific help pages are extremely similar, to avoid divergent evolutions in the long term and unneeded maintenance difficulties, a template at Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Help could be created and usergroup-specific information added as needed. Also the page Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool is the one linked from the AF interface, but it doesn't appear in the template above. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Article feedback is in the template but is not linked from the interface, yet seems more reader-friendly compared to the former which is more explicative. Shouldn't it be the other way around ? Cenarium (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, for the second point it's because of the trial of version 5. Cenarium (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah :). So, we're in this weird situation where because some of the pages are based on software, we can present different levels of readability to different classes of user, but where pages are based on templates, we can't (because templates don't really have native support for that). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on Article feedback opened

Hi all,

The request for comment on article feedback has opened. All editor are invited to comment, endorse other users's views, and/or add their own view.

Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Why it it on Wikipedia space pages?

Why is the article feedback tool on this page Wikipedia:Redirect? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

One of our Fellows asked for it to be enabled for help and some policy documentation so we had a way of checking stuff answered the questions people had about Wikipedia's internal processes. Obviously, this will be turned off if/when AFT5 as a whole is. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

IP address publication

I suggest that people leaving feedback be warned rather more obviously and immediately that their IP address is going to be published for the whole world to see. Victor Yus (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we have a patch to fix this waiting for code review. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! (But isn't it enough just to change the message text? Does it really need code?) Victor Yus (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Unlike most aspects of the MediaWiki interface, the AFT does not seem to use the MediaWiki: namespace for its strings. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Firefox Nightly 21 (again)

Once again, I am receiving the

"Sorry, your browser is not supported by this prototype. To see this page, please use a different browser."

message. I am using Firefox Nightly 21, and it displays fine before blanking the page to show the browser message. Can someone just get rid of the browser version check???—Kelvinsong (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we're working on that; at the moment we have a large code review backlog that is being tackled. As you may be aware it's likely to shortly become irrelevant to enwiki users. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Source code showing

I observed this first on the page Ontario Association for Mathematics Education. PLURAL:1|one rating|1 ratings (enclosed with {{}}) shows up where it is supposed to say one rating. If it matters, my browser is Internet Explorer 8. 069952497a (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll see what we're doing on this :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Article feedback request for comments scheduled to end Thursday, February 21

Hi. This is just a gentle reminder that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback is scheduled to wrap up on Thursday, February 21. Any and all editors are encouraged to participate in the discussion. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

As long as new comments are still being added, I don't see any harm in leaving it open a while longer, as Fabrice Florin requested. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not allow AFT/5 on disambiguation pages?

I found the tool moderately interesting on the household hardware article, but now would like to see it on hardware, to get feedback on whether readers are finding the specific type of hardware that they're searching for. I put that page in Category:Article Feedback 5 Additional Articles, but nothing happened. What's up? Wbm1058 (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

We disabled it initially because AFT4 wasn't on disambiguation pages (for obvious reasons - the sort of feedback it solicited wouldn't have been particularly helpful). We can certainly turn it on on disambigs if people want, but the current RfC suggests that turning it on at all on this project is unlikely :/. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for enabling it on hardware, a disambiguation which continues to draw ~750 hits per day. These must be coming externally from searches. I've stayed on top of new links to this dab, which are added fairly frequently, by promptly disambiguating them. Will be interesting to see what comments we might get at this point, as the disambiguation is now pretty well organized and complete. I wonder if all of these ~750 hits are real people, or if any are robots? Wbm1058 (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Another Feature Request

The version of AFT5 that I like the most is presented here as a wireframe mockup of what its filename currently calls AFTv5.10.20, Option 1. However, this dialog seems to me like it should have its sections rearranged and slightly redesigned in order for them to attain maximum effectiveness as a cohesive whole. May I first propose that the first section – i.e.: the one that asks users, "Did you find what you were looking for?" – have its answer-selection interface be changed from one based on buttons, which to me look somewhat final, into one that utilizes radio buttons? After all, most users, including myself, would expect clicking on a button to initiate an action that would probably lead away from the current article, and I don't think that we want readers to become confused over this. Second, might I add that having a text box between the two lists interrupts the dialog's look, sending it a position that I personally might describe as teetering on the edge of user-interface design's equivalent of a cliff above a sea of possible chaos? Moving it below the collapsible section labeled 'Tell us more (optional)' would preserve the dialog's uniformity. Finally, shouldn't the label system used for associating the comment box with the context of its contents resemble the tab styles used in switching between the multiple categories of feedback posts? I think that this kind of uniformity might make sense.
RandomDSdevel (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

We tried this option (and many more; we did a lot of A/B testing) and found it simply wasn't efficient; people didn't use some, and submitted more junk through others. We picked the current design because it minimised the stupid ;p. At this stage we're largely wrapping up features development, I'm afraid. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, hmph; I prefer clicking stars to writing comments and was wondering how the Article Feedback Tool might accommodate everyone while still remaining useful. Could you show me where my idea, or, rather, its original version, might have been discussed and mocked up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BCG999 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, you've seen where it was mocked up ;p. I'll poke Fabrice, who made it, and see if he can elucidate on why this option wasn't used. I suspect the massively increased barrier to entry was our rationale, but it was rather a long time ago. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Could I see it mocked up with my suggested changes implemented, or do we have to ask this 'Fabrice' person to do that for us? I intended the middle 'Tell us more (optional)' part to be collapsible…

RandomDSdevel (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This 'Fabrice' person is our product manager and is probably busy. I'm not sure what you're asking at this point - for the reasoning behind us not using the original mockup, for a mockup of your design, for a mockup of and research into your design...? On the second and third options, as I've said we're pretty much wrapped up and have shifted to getting the final version out and distributing it to other wikis; I'm afraid we're not looking into altering the feedback form so prominently at this point (it would require buyin from the english, french, german, hungarian and swedish communities) so it doesn't seem like an optimal way to spend time to mock it up :/. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

How about for the next version of the Article Feedback Tool?

– RandomDSdevel (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback RfC closed

Thank you to everyone who participated in the AFT5 RfC, regardless of which way you voted. We are grateful for the amount of time people spent giving us feedback on its features, advantages and disadvantages; as volunteers, giving up this much of your time to talk to us is not a trivial thing. We continue to believe that an article feedback tool is a theoretical net gain, and hope that the 'opt-in' deployment we have compromised at will give people the benefits of AFT5 without many associated costs. If you want to have AFT5 deployed on an article you watch, simply add Category:Article Feedback 5 to the page and the tool will automatically appear.

In the meantime, we are busy planning deployments for many other Wikimedia projects where the communities have reached consensus in favour of the tool, including trial runs on the German, French and Hungarian projects - you can look at our deployments plan here. If you are aware of other wikis where AFT5 might be useful or appreciated, please drop a note on my talkpage so that we can discuss it, seek local consensus and investigate deployment options.

If you are interested in the other software we are currently building, you can sign up to the engagement mailing list. Our next project on enwiki will be Echo, a new notifications system. We hope you will give us feedback on it, as well; a lot of the discussions we've had about AFT5 have informed the things we're looking at for Echo as well as Flow :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

New version of Article Feedback

Hi, everyone! We're getting ready to release an updated version of Article Feedback (AFT5) on the English, German and French Wikipedias in coming days. I would like to give you a quick update on this multi-day deployment, which started today and will continue through Thursday, March 21 (for the French Wikipedia release).

We have now removed the older version of AFT5, which will no longer be available on the English and German Wikipedias for at least 24 hours (depending on how long it takes for the old feedback data to be merged on the new database schema). We will post here as soon as the new version is up.

In the meantime, you can try out the new version on prototype by following the instructions on this testing page.

This new version includes many new features requested by editors and other stakeholders over the past few months:
• Better feedback filters: surface good feedback, hide useless comments.
• Simpler moderation tools for editors: moderating feedback is now easier and faster.
• Separate reader moderation tools: encourages readers to moderate with their own tools.
• Feedback link on articles: shows up if there is useful feedback for your article.
• Auto-archive comments: remove comments that are not moderated after a while.
• Discuss on talk page: share useful feedback with editors on talk page.

As requested in the recent AFT5 RfC, this new tool will only be available on a limited number of articles on the English Wikipedia, in these categories: 'Category:Article_Feedback_5' and 'Category:Article_Feedback_5_Additional_Articles'. If you would like to get reader feedback for articles you watch, you are welcome to add that first category on your pages, anytime you like -- and the AFT feedback tool will be added on your page when we deploy the new version.

We'll keep you posted on our progress on this talk page in coming days. To learn more about this tool's deployments in other languages, check out this 2013 release plan.

Thanks again to everyone who helped us create Article Feedback! We hope these new features will help you improve Wikipedia with useful suggestions from our readers! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the tool. I'm sure the other communities will make good use of it. Perhaps the English WP could revisit this tool in a year or two and see if circumstances have changed. I still think it could be really useful. --Noleander (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Noleander. I appreciate your kind words -- as well as your thoughtful suggestions in the RfC, which helped us improve the new version of the tool (e.g. the new 'Discuss on talk page' feature), as well as inform our plans for future products like Flow. We will definitely keep you all posted on how this tool is received in other communities, and would love to re-open an discussion with the English Wikipedia community once we have more data on its effectiveness overseas. To be continued ... Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 Release Update 1

We are now in the process of converting all feedback posted on the English Wikipedia to a new database schema, and this is taking longer than expected. As a result, we need to postpone the re-deployment of Article Feedback on the English Wikipedia to Tuesday, March 19th by about 20:00 UTC, once last year's data conversion is complete (it's about 50% done as of this writing). We're sorry for this delay, and will let you know as soon as the new version of the tool is ready for testing on the English Wikipedia. This means the current tool will remain disabled until Tuesday, sadly. :( But you are welcome to try out the new version on prototype, as described in this testing page.

In the meantime, we are now aiming to re-deploy the new AFT5 tool to German Wikipedia today (on about 13k articles), if all goes well. We will keep you appraised on our progress. We also plan to deploy AFT5 on the French Wikipedia by the end of next week (just a dozen articles at first, going up to 42k articles in April). Stay tuned for more ... Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Feedback watchlist changes

I've just found my article feedback watchlist has undergone some major changes, so I came here.

For anyone who like me was using ?filter=comment in a bookmark, this must now be changed to ?filter=allcomment to get a similar effect. ?filter=comment now only displays featured comments, which is none at all on my watchlist (it seems I'm the only person to look at the feedback for the stuff on my watchlist).

All of the feedback for non-mainspace pages has disappeared. Has this been deleted? Or is there some other URL parameter that needs to be added to browse feedback for non-mainspace? I've tried namespace= and ns=, but neither seems to have any effect. (Is there any documentation for the URL parameters?) – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 00:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I got an email from MWF this morning saying they were going to be doing maintenance or upgrading to the tool. I'm in bed on my BlackBerry Curve 9330/6.0.0.706 and don't have access to the details at the moment, but I would be happy to share what they send me in about 10 hours when I get the my computer at work — T13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 01:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Technical 13 is correct; PartTimeGnome, see Fabrice's comment immediately above :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

When I try to look at my feedback watchlist, I get the message "Article Feedback page not enabled for this page." I'm guessing/hoping this is due to the current maintenance activity, and not an indication that I need to do something opt in to the feedback watchlist. --Orlady (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Should just be maintenance, yep; I'll post a notice when the new code is up, and if it reoccurs after then we can look for the problem :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"Article Feedback page not enabled for this page"

Continuing the above subthread, I'm getting the above message now and have been for some time -- not sure how long but seems to me it's been a few weeks. I have a vague recollection I might have changed some preferences a while ago but not sure on that either. More info: Actually, after clicking (from Watchlist) "Feedback from my watched pages", I see a page full of feedback, but after a split second it's all replaced by this "not enabled" thing. Ideas? EEng (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi EEng, sorry for this inconvenience. This message is caused by the fact that we had to disable the Article Feedback v5 tool completely on English Wikipedia to complete the feedback data conversion and solve database cache issues, as described below. We now expect to re-enable AFT5 on En-wiki next Tuesday, if all goes well. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity... was I supposed to know that somehow? EEng (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I sent out a notification to all AFT5 users - although I think my bot may have balked at your page for some reason; my apologies :(. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

How did your bot identify AFT5 users? I also did not receive a notification (hence my surprise when it broke). If the bot was only looking at people who have submitted or moderated feedback, it won't have seen me. I just read the feedback and implement any good ideas I see.

It would probably have been better to leave a holding message on the various special pages associated with AFT5, so passive users like me would know what's going on. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 23:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I was about to predict that I can't be the only person whose time was wasted trying to figure out what's going on, and... so it seems. Why couldn't the Article Feedback page not enabled message be something that actually says what's going on? EEng (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to both of you - yeah, I pulled the logs from the database and used that to identify usernames. The message is automated and (I think) built into the software, so to update it to reflect changing circumstances would itself require deployments. The message also appears on articles which, well, don't have AFT5 at all, even when it's enabled, which would cause some confusion. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to press, but I'm not talking about articles, but the Feedback from my watched pages link on my watchlist. A certain amount of my time, and others' time (not just here, but at another noticeboard which then pointed me here), was spent trying to figure out what's going on. And I'm sure lots of others are frustratedly (if that's a word) checking their Preferences and so on to see if they checked some wrong box there, so that at 10 minutes * 10,000 editors = quite a lot of wasted editor time. I realize -- trust me -- the complexity of managing this kind of software effort, particularly the way in which early design decisions bind one uncomfortably downstream, but in the end that's not a very good excuse. It shouldn't be very hard to make it so we click Feedback from my watched pages and get some kind of message saying "Feedback temporarily disabled -- see [this page]", and if it is very hard, I'd like to hear that attention is being given to make it not-so-hard should similar circumstances arise in future.

Anyway, I'm still fundamentally puzzled. As mentioned above I do see the page of feedback for a split second before it's replaced by that message. Maybe that feedback suggests some useful change I could be making to an article (though, sad to say, it's been my experience that this seldom if ever has been the case, which makes all this wasted time that much more tragic). Why can't I be allowed to see it?

It's Saturday and you're probably working the weekend "up to your ass in alligators", as they say. But still, inquiring minds want to know.

EEng (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Then I'm as confused as you are :/. I'll poke the devs and see why on earth that is the error message. Seems rather odd. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 Release Update 2

I am happy to report that we deployed an updated version of Article feedback v5 on the German Wikipedia this week, with many of the new features described above. The release went well and the tool is now being tested by German community members. You can see these new features in action on this central feedback page, where feedback from about 13,000 German Wikipedia articles is being collected. (If you would like to test the new features on the German Wikipedia, please restrict your posts and moderations to this minor article). If you prefer to test in English on our prototype site, visit this testing page. We've updated our help pages on MediaWiki to describe all the new features that are being deployed.

Next, we plan to deploy Article feedback v5 on both the English and French Wikipedias next Tuesday, March 26. Unfortunately, the English Wikipedia release had to be delayed so we could complete the feedback data conversion (now done) -- as well as disable the 'feedback from watched pages' feature (which is causing serious database cache issues). Note that AFT5 will only be enabled on an opt-in basis on the English Wikipedia, as requested by the community in last month's RfC; but a number of editors have already started to re-enable AFT5 for articles they are watching, and we hope the tool will continue to help them and others improve Wikipedia based on reader feedback in coming months.

Thanks for your patience during this complex, multi-site deployment. We'll post another update after we deploy the new features on the English and French Wikipedias next week. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Will the feedback watchlist be re-enabled at some point, or are the database cache issues unresolvable? – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 22:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It will be, and they're not :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello PartTimeGnome, I am sorry to say that it doesn't look like we will be able to re-enable the feedback watchlist feature any time soon. The many database queries required to support this feature would require some form of personal cache for each user; at this point, we have not found a practical solution for continuously updating such a personal cache. So I'm afraid this feature will no longer be available when we re-deploy the tool on English Wikipedia, at least not in the near-term. But we will keep looking for solutions, as we fully understand the importance of this feature. Thanks for your understanding. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 Release Update 3

We are very sorry for the delay in getting the AFT5 tool back up on the English Wikipedia. The issue that is holding us up is outside of our direct control, and related to a site-wide data migration from our old data center in Florida to the new one in Virginia -- which impacts many other applications as well. Our operations and platform teams have just now come up with a solution to this issue. So we will try again to re-deploy the tool in our next deployment window, hopefully this coming Tuesday. We will post on this talk page as soon as the tool is back up. On a more positive note, we released the updated Article Feedback v5 tool on the French Wikipedia a couple weeks ago, for evaluation by their community on this small sample of articles. We would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who made this release possible, especially community volunteer Benoît Evelin -- as well as Denis Barthel, se4598 and TMg for the German release. We are very grateful to them and many others for their invaluable contributions -- and for their detailed feedback on this testing discussion page, which is helping us improve the tool for everyone. Stay tuned for our next update. Thanks again for your patience and understanding about the English re-deployment delays. Rest assured that this is as frustrating for us as it is for you, but we will get through it ... Onward! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Feedback and Audit

Hi, is there anyway to retrieve historic feedback from the Cararact page. I helped with a recent overhaul and am trying to compare feedback before and after as part of clinical audit within my hospital department. Thanks Aspheric (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Does the Cataract page no longer have AFT5? If so, we're going to release it as a data dump (hopefully) soon. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It used to be top right on the talk page, ( a little bubble would come up ). I've tried changing browsers but can't find it any more. Are there any other pages I can use as a test to see if it's just a problem with my computer ? Aspheric (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aspheric. We're sorry that you are not able to see historic reader feedback for the Cataract page at this time. This issue should be easy to resolve, once we deploy the new version of the tool next week. At that time, you should be able to access that feedback again, in one of two ways: 1) if your article already had the 'Article_feedback_5' category, you should be able to access the feedback again by clicking on the 'View reader feedback' link at the top right of the article talk page, as you did before; 2) if you can't see that link, simply add the 'Article_Feedback_5' category to re-enable the feedback tool on that page, and you should be all set. Please check this AFT5 talk page on Wednesday to confirm that the new version of the tool has been deployed, then try one of these methods again. Sorry for this temporary inconvenience ;o) Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, i'm afraid that the feedback tool still isn't working. How exactly do I add the 'Article Feedback 5' category to the page ? Thanks Aspheric (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

As the section at the bottom explains, the tool is not currently deployed. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

opt-in working

Hello! Is the opt-in option working? I'm not seeing the feedback form on the article I tried to include (Roddy Doyle) or on any of the other pages it's supposed to be included on. I tried purging, no dice. Thx, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 19:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep; see two sections above. To add new features we had to take AFT5 down briefly - unfortunately some problems with the deployment means that this will not be completed until *knocks wood* Thursday. Terribly sorry for the disruption :(. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for not reading closely. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 19:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

That's alright; sorry for the delays! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Status

Is it working now? Not working? Only working for pages listed in the cat? When I visit pages that are listed in Category:Article Feedback 5, I find pages like Modafinil, but I do not find a feedback box at the end of the article, and I do not find a link to feedback on the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

At the moment it's down; we're hoping that we can release today and have it work (crossing our fingers!). Whether it does or doesn't, I'll send out a newsletter telling people what's happening at our end and what they can expect. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Another update

Hey all. I'm sorry to say that some bugs have resulted in us still not being able to deploy the latest version to en-wiki - although one advantage is that, because it's functioning on the German and French Wikipedias, the eventual release here will contain fixes for several newly-detected bugs without us having to bother you with them :P. At the moment, we're talking about several weeks of wait, I'm afraid - although the fix itself is not complex, it's dependent on Platform freeing up time to make and deploy it, and they're currently rather busy. I'll let you know when I have more news. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Opt-in Version Now on English Wikipedia

New moderation tools and filters.

Moderation tools close-up.

At long last, I'm happy to say that we just released an updated version of Article Feedback (AFT5) on the English Wikipedia today.

This new version of AFT5 is now available on an opt-in basis to editors who would like to get reader feedback for articles they watch, as recommended in the recent community RfC.

How to get feedback for your articles
To enable feedback on your articles, simply add this 'Article_Feedback_5' category on those pages -- and the AFT feedback form will appear at the bottom of the articles. To view more feedback, visit the Central Feedback page -- or check out this list of pages where editors have already enabled the Article Feedback tool (click on the feedback link at the top of their article talk pages).

New features
The Article Feedback tool now includes many new features, which we developed earlier this year, to reduce the editor workload and surface more useful feedback. Here are some of the key features we're introducing in this version:

• Better feedback filters: surface good feedback, hide useless comments.
This feature now provides new filters on the feedback page, as requested by community members. The 'Featured' filter is shown by default and only list posts marked as 'useful' or 'helpful' by moderators. The 'Unreviewed' filter lists all posts that have not yet been moderated. These separate filters surface the best feedback in the default view, and make it harder for a casual user to see feedback that has not yet been moderated. If you are an editor, click on 'More filters' and check out some of the other filters to see comments which have already been reviewed (such as 'Resolved', 'No action needed' or 'Inappropriate').

• Simpler moderation tools for editors: moderating feedback is now easier and faster.
Based on community feedback, we've streamlined the moderation tools, to help you review new feedback more effectively. To try out this new feature, click on the 'Unreviewed' filter on the feedback page: the new moderation tools on the right now make it very easy to mark comments as 'useful', 'resolved', 'no action needed' or 'inappropriate', with a single click. In the interest of time, you are no longer required to add a note for each moderation (but can do so by clicking on 'Add note'). If you change your mind, simply click 'Undo', then select an other moderation tool. Moderated feedback is then moved into the appropriate queue, which editors can view under 'More filters'.

• Separate reader tools: encourages readers to moderate with their own tools.
To simplify the user interface for editors, all the tools you need are now included in the moderation panel on the right. Readers have their own set of tools, which let them mark comments as 'helpful' or 'unhelpful', or 'flag' abusive comments. These reader tools are now only shown to anonymous users (and new editors), below each feedback post. This lets them pre-moderate comments on their own, to reduce the workload for editors: for example, inappropriate feedback can be removed quickly, if flagged by multiple users.

• Discuss on talk page: share useful feedback with editors on talk page.
This feature makes it easy to promote a feedback post to the article talk page, so that editors can discuss it in the same place where they already have conversations about article improvements. To test this feature, click on the 'Discuss on talk page' link for any feedback post that has been marked as useful and which you think deserves to be brought to the attention of other editors. For feedback that is not deemed useful, we provide another tool, 'Contact this user', which lets you post a comment on the user page of the reader who posted the comment. This feature is intended as the first step towards a tighter talk page integration that could be continued in future releases.

In coming weeks, we plan to introduce a few more features, such as:
• Feedback link on articles: shows up if there is useful feedback for your article.
• Auto-archive comments: remove comments that are not moderated after a while.

To learn more about these features, check out these two pages:
• Testing page: helpful tips on how to test the new tool.
• Editor help page: frequently-asked questions about this tool.

Besides these new features, we have completely overhauled the back-end database for this tool, so that it can scale up to support millions of comments per month for all the wiki projects who want to use it. This is one of the reasons why it took us so long to re-enable the tool on the English Wikipedia, where we had to update all earlier comments to the new data format. We apologize for that long delay, which was also due to side-effects from our recent migration to a new data center for Wikipedia.

Please let us know what you think of this updated version. If you encounter any technical issues, you are welcome to file a bug report here on Bugzilla.

Next steps
We are now wrapping up development for this project, and will collect community responses for the next few months before building any more features. But your recommendations will be invaluable when we are ready to start work on the next version -- based on upcoming community votes on the French and German Wikipedias later this year. We'd also like to take this opportunity to thank all the community members on the German and French Wikipedias, who worked beyond the call of duty to help us test and improve this tool, so we could redeploy it in much better shape on the English Wikipedia.

For now, we hope that you will find these new features useful. Our goal for this release was to surface the best feedback from our readers, while making it easier for you to moderate their comments, so you can focus on improving your articles.

Thanks again for your patience and helpful recommendations throughout this development process. Onward! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Where to gather current feedback?

The "Discuss on talk page" feature is grand. I think that addresses many of the concerns of people who thought it was premature to roll this out. A remaining area of concern is with the way commenters were prompted: it would be nice to include a flexible way for communities to alter the template that the AFT textarea is filled with. For instance, we could try a template that asks for a relevant citation.

I hope another public discussion about how this is working - including a summary of its progress on the German and French wikipedias - is started in the coming month. – SJ + 00:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Iirc the template exists in the MediaWiki namespace. On the German and French projects - there is a public discussion about how things are working there, on the French and German wikipedias :). It's been going for several months now. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Feedback from my watched pages?

I logged out, cleared my cache, logged back in, and still don't see the "Feedback from my watched pages" link directly on my Watchlist page. Is this a bug or has this feature been removed? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello GoingBatty, I am afraid we had to disable the feedback watchlist feature, for technical reasons. The many database queries needed to support this feature do not scale well across millions of comments and were slowing down our servers. We know how important this feature is, and will keep looking for ways to re-enable it in coming months, when we have more development resources. Thanks for your understanding during this limited testing period. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

So they way we find out if there's feedback on pages in which we have a special interest is... how? EEng (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If an article is in Category:Article Feedback 5 (e.g. Stephen King), then the top of the corresponding talk page has a link that says "View reader feedback", which takes you to Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Stephen King. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoingBatty (talk • contribs) 16:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi EEng. Indeed, if an article already has the 'Article_Feedback_5' or 'Article_Feedback_5_Additional_Articles' categories, a link at the top of its talk page will take you to the corresponding feedback page, as GoingBatty said. If an article doesn't have any AFT5 category, there will be no link on the talk page, but it may still have some feedback collected before the AFT5 tool was disabled; you can access that feedback at this URL: 'Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/<article_name>' (you are also welcome to re-enable feedback for that article by adding an AFT5 category). Starting next week, we plan to display a more prominent feedback link on article pages, that will show up below the title, if there is featured feedback for articles that have the AFT category. I hope this helps. Please let us know if you have any more questions or comments. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't help, and yes I have some comments. The idea that an editor must visit an article to know whether there's feedback is completely absurd. The fact that you can post the above with a straight face (so to speak) and without apology shows that this team is completely disconnected from the way editors work.

It was bad enough that one had to click a special "Feedback for my watched changes" link -- the existence of feedbach should just show up on the watchlist like everything else. Why didn't you just have feedback go onto the Talk page, or a special subpage of Talk (as suggested here) so it shows up in the watchlist? When I said (in that same post) that "All this accessory apparatus storing feedback in some mysterious place seems unnecessary" I thought I was merely pointing out a suboptimal-in-retrospect design choice, not stumbling on a nest of incompetents.

I pray someone can help me see this in some other way, but it's hard to conceive of what other explanation there could be. What a colossal waste of resources! The rest of us are volunteers but you're paid to know what you're doing. I have a mind to bring this up at a higher level within WMF.

The first thing I would discuss in such a communication is the extent to which your next post here shows any glimmer of comprehension of how seriously fucked up this situation is.

EEng (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

EEng, please try to remain civil. Do you have any idea the sheer volume of feedback some articles get? Having it posted to the talkpage would swiftly overwhelm the talkpage - ditto having it appear in the watchlist. Having it posted to a sub-page of the talkpage, one that consists merely of a normal, sandbox-like wiki page, would make moderation incredibly hard, particularly on high-volume articles. Fabrice's comment makes clear that we are actively looking for better ways to make feedback accessible - coming back and slamming him for that seems like it's probably not going to help. I have no problem with people taking issue with our design choices; I find it offensive, however, that you would immediately jump to "they can't have considered these problems, what idiots".

Feel free to bring it up "at a higher level within WMF". I would suggest that when you do so, you try to be more polite about it. I take no issue with people going "you screwed this up", but I'm confused as to why you think the way you're phrasing things above is helping. Do you think people are more or less likely to listen to you if you refer to them as a "nest of incompetents"? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

For articles that have feedback but are not in one of the AF5 categories, should we have a bot add the AF5 category, so te existing feedback is easier to get to? GoingBatty (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, GoingBatty. We definitely want to provide a better solution to make you aware when there is feedback for your articles. We would rather avoid having a bot add the category to tens of thousands of articles right now, but are exploring a simpler solution which would show the feedback links on all articles that have feedback. Our proposal is to show the feedback link on the talk page for all articles that have feedback, even if the category has not been added for that article. We would also do the same for the upcoming feedback link on article pages, showing it for all articles that have featured feedback. This may not be a perfect solution, but at least would make it easier for editors to see if there is feedback for articles they work on. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that the AF5 tool has been re-enabled. It remains unfortunate that there is no easy way of tracking Article Feedback on Articles that I have given, or received feedback though. Is that correct, that neither use case is possible at the current time? I wasn't sure. Second question: What is the proper procedure for feedback that is positive, but has no substantive content? Since the AF5 tool prompts with "Did you find what you were looking for?", some users will say, "Yes! It is perfect!" or "Found what I needed" or even just "Thank you." Does the tool collect that information and aggregate it? Is there any action item required when I review articles with feedback, and see those entries? Thank you! --FeralOink (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi FeralOink: Yes, you've guessed it — there is no easy way to check whether feedback has been posted to any articles you're keeping an eye on. Right now, you have to go to each and every article, and check the feedback link from the article's talk page. Not ideal, by any stretch of the imagination! The software boffins are reportedly trying to come up with a better system; hopefully they'll find one soon! As to your second question, the proper procedure for positive feedback that includes no substantive suggestion for improvement is to mark it as "No action needed". It will still show up in the list, so those who've been working on the article will see the "pat on the back". MeegsC (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, MeegsC! You confirmed what I suspected for my first question, and answered my second question in full. I like the Article Feedback Tool. I hope it will be useful and sufficiently cost-effective that it survives. --FeralOink (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Unintuitive opacity change

On the Special:ArticleFeedbackv5 page, there's an interface on the right to take action on comments ('Useful', 'Resolved', 'Undo', etc.) but the opacity change is a bit weird: the icon is faded out when hovered upon (or over the associated text). This is a bit unsettling: Traditionally, on web sites, when a change in opacity occurs, it's the other way around: elements are originally faded out, and they become opaque and more visible when hovered upon. I think it would make sense to reverse the current behavior here, to be in line with the traditional behavior. guillom 14:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right. However, I think the current solution is a very good compromise. Reversing the opacity would make the symbols look ugly. I suggest a color change instead. Or even simpler: Change the hover state from opacity: 0.4 to opacity: 0.2. This will make it more clear. Pau? --TMg 12:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

With a lower opacity there is a risk of the actions looking as disabled (in part because of the gray background). I would propose a transition from opacity:0.9 (initial state) to opacity: 1 (hover state). It is a subtle highlighting but since links are already underlined when hovering this may be enough. Icons will be looking a 10% lighter than what they used to, but cannot be misunderstood as disabled. Pginer (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Text for IP comments

• There is an inconsistency between feedback posted from an IPv4 address and from an IPv6 address. The former is presented like so: "63.76.20.66 did not find what they were looking for", while the latter reads: "A reader did not find what they were looking for. Posted anonymously from 2602:306:c474:a8b0:d09f:1940:8ec." I don't see a reason to have a different presentation and text for IPv6; in my opinion, the text should be the same.
• Also, I'd avoid using the term "anonymously"; IPs are far from anonymous, and actually reveal more than a username.
• Last, in the case of the IPv4 text, it feels weird to read that "[An IP address] did not find what they were looking for". An IP address isn't a person. An IP address isn't looking for anything; one of the person using that IP address is. It's like saying "101 Market Street didn't find what they were looking for".

For all these reasons, I'd recommend using this text in both cases (IPv4 and IPv6): "A reader did not find what they were looking for. Posted from [IP address]."

guillom 14:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Archived comments?

In the "user's manual", it talks about the system automatically archiving comments after some period of time (based on the number of unreviewed comments that have accrued), and then mentions that editors have the ability to review automatically archived comments and sort them as per "regular" comments. But I can't see how to get to those archived comments. I notice that scores of the comments on Golden-crowned Sparrow have disappeared in the past two days, so I'm assuming they were "archived". Any suggestions? MeegsC (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried checking under 'hidden'? I think that's the (non-optimal) solution we came up with. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

HI MeegsC, we have not yet turned on the 'auto-archive' feature, but expect to do so next week. For now, check the filters under 'More', as suggested by Okeyes (WMF). Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Integrate with Notifications?

Have you considered integrating with Wikipedia:Notifications? For example, giving an option to receive a notification when someone gives feedback for an article you created? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep; it's on the Notifications to-do list :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Watching feedback?

Hi, is there a way to watch the feedback received in the pages I'm watching using AFT5? If there is a way I can't find it. I guess editors are not supposed to remember to click manually "View reader feedback" periodically on those pages? Other than this, I love this feature. Thank you!--QuimGil (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi QuimGil, thanks for your inquiry and kind words about AFT5. Unfortunately, we had to disable the 'feedback from your watchlist' feature, for technical reasons. The many database queries needed to support this feature do not scale well across millions of comments and were slowing down our servers. We know how important it is to be able to see feedback about pages you care about all in one place -- and will keep looking for an alternative way to support this use case. One possibility would be to give you the option to get notifications when feedback is posted for a page you started (or when feedback is found useful for pages on your watchlist). Would that solution be helpful to you? Thanks for your understanding during this testing period, when our development resources are very limited. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There are about 200 pages in en.wiki that I watch and I'm willing to help improving. I haven't created any of them, so the features for pages I have created are of little use for selfish me in this context (but I see their point and I welcome them). Getting a notification for feedback found useful in a page that I follow is also good, of course. But here is the problem: in order to evaluate a piece of feedback as useful you need to be aware that it has landed in the first place. I am the typical editor that would assess promptly feedback received in the pages I watch, in order to raise the attention of others. But if that implies that I have to remember what pages in my watchlist have AFT5 enabled and check them manually every now and then... well that won't work.--QuimGil (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with QuimGil on this point. If no-one knows that feedback has been given it is wasting the user's time. I don't have time to go through a hundred or so pages every few days just in case someone has left feedback, when the usual answer is no, and the usual feedback is not useful. A watchlist facility is an essential part of a useful feedback system. In fact from an engineering point of view, a measurement is not feedback until it is connected to the control system where it has an effect on the system. This is a crippled feedback system. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Improvements to "View reader feedback" in Talk pages

As far as I can see the "View reader feedback »" link is static and always present when AFT5 is enabled. Some ideas:

• Activate the link only when there is feedback. It is quite frustrating to click every now and then only to see that nobody has left any feedback yet.
• Show me how many comments are there / since my last visit. This would be ideal. "View reader feedback (15, 7 new)" or something.
• Are there items requiring an action? Let's highlight this, then. 1 comment with action required matters more than 17 comments requiring no action.

--QuimGil (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a bug, it's being fixed. (2) would require substantial architecture changes; I want to make clear here that AFT5 is pretty much 'done'. It's not something we're dedicating serious resourcing to; we're fixing bugs, but not looking into the development of substantial features. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Feedback link

A few days I noticed we had a feedback link on all talk pages. This took me a while to work this out as I spent time looking for the category on the page ... (This could be a good idea; I was considering a template based on {{Old peer review}} to place on articles that had feedback, but I was considering turning off article feedback.) However, now I can't see the link on any talk page. Edgepedia (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup, it seems to have vanished, after working well for a short while. Any news?Lacunae (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Edgepedia and Lacunae, sorry for this inconvenience. We had to pull back the feedback link on the talk page last week, due to a bug. It is now back, along with a separate article feedback link, as described in the update below. We hope these links will work for you now. Enjoy ... Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Article feedback update

Feedback link on article pages

Hi folks, here's a quick update on what we've been working on for the Article Feedback project in recent weeks.

Here are some of the revisions we deployed on the English, French and German Wikipedias this week:

• New feedback links on the article and on the talk page, with slightly different behaviors:
  • talk page link: shown to anyone, when there is any feedback for articles that have the AFT category (this was temporarily removed, so we could fix a bug)
  • article page link: shown to editors only, when there is 'featured' feedback for that article (read the full specification)
• Updated article feedback form with new privacy statement letting anonymous users know they will be identified with their IP addresses (Template:Bug)

Most of these revisions were made based on community feedback and we would love to hear if they work for you. If you come across any bugs, please report them here, or post them on Bugzilla.

We're now focusing on these final features, most of which were also requested by community members:

• Enable or disable feedback on a page (see feature requirement)
• Auto-archive unreviewed comments (see feature requirement)
• Final UI tweaks on the feedback page (less visual clutter in the header, clearer labels)
• Updated metrics dashboards (with new moderation actions)

Last but not least, we are also considering a new 'feedback notification' that would let you know when new feedback is added on pages you watch or started, as discussed in the above section.

These final features should be deployed in the next few weeks, as soon as we get them code-reviewed and tested. Once these features have been released, we will wait for the results of the community votes on the French and German Wikipedias before considering further development on this project. We hope you find these new features helpful, and will post another update here once they are all deployed.

Thanks again to all the community members who helped us create this new editor engagement tool. We are very grateful for all your help, and look forward to releasing this tool more widely on projects that want it in coming months. Onward! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Can't find mark helpful

So, I was reviewing some feedback, and I see a useless post. I want to mark it unhelpful. I already marked it unsuitable, but I want to find the helpful/non-helpful button. I can't find it anywhere! It says that it's at the bottom of the page in the help, but it does not show up. Could anyone help me? Darrman (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The help page is outdated; I'll add that to my to-do list :/. Unsuitable == unhelpful. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

A quick way to enable or disable feedback on your pages

Click 'Request feedback' to enable reader comments

Hi everyone. I'm happy to say we just deployed a new way to enable or disable feedback on any page.

With this new enable/disable tool, editors can quickly request feedback when they are looking for reader suggestions on articles -- or disable feedback if there are already too many comments to process.

This new feature supports the following use cases:

• Enable feedback from the article page
• Disable feedback from the feedback page
• Re-enable feedback from the feedback page

These tools are outlined below, and described in more detail in these feature requirements.

• Enable feedback from the article page
  

Editors who want reader suggestions for their pages can enable feedback for articles without any comments by clicking on a "Request feedback" link in the toolbox section of the left sidebar (see screenshot to the right). This will cause the feedback form to appear at the bottom of that page, inviting reader comments.

• Disable feedback from the feedback page
  

Click the 'cog' icon to disable feedback

Editors who want to disable feedback for any article can quickly do this on the feedback page, by clicking on the new 'cog' icon at the top right of the page, then clicking on "Disable feedback on this page" (see thumbnail).

• Re-enable feedback from the feedback page
  

Click 'Enable feedback' to get more reader comments

Editors who want to re-enable feedback for any article can quickly do this on the feedback page as well, by clicking on the "Enable feedback" button at the top of the page (see thumbnail). Note that if you are an administrator, the button will say 'Change Protection' and will display the Protect article tool, where you can enable (or disable) feedback for different user groups in the Article Feedback panel.

Please use this tool responsibly and only enable feedback if you plan to monitor it periodically, to avoid increasing the moderation workload for other editors. To learn more about the enable/disable tool, check our feature requirements.

This new feature was deployed yesterday on the English, French and German Wikipedias, along with some UI tweaks to simplify the feedback page. It was developed by Matthias Mullie and designed by Pau Giner -- in close collaboration with TMg and other German Wikipedia community members, to whom we are deeply grateful.

Please let us know how this tool works for you. If you come across any bugs, please report them here, or post them on Bugzilla. Enjoy! ... Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

@Fabrice Florin (WMF): - Thanks for providing this information. I'm glad the team is working to improve the article feedback mechanism. Could you please clarify what you mean when you say "their articles"? Do you mean editors can only enable feedback for articles they've created, or editors can enable feedback for ANY article, or something else?

Also, does this make Category:Article Feedback 5 obsolete? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not limited to articles you created, of course. The idea is: If you want to work on an article (no matter who created it) and you want feedback, then you can easily enable or disable the tool (for unregistered users) without adding or removing categories. The new feature will make the categories obsolete some day but currently they still work. --TMg 10:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, @GoingBatty:. As TMg said, you can enable or disable feedback on any article for which you would like reader suggestions, even if you did not create the article (I tweaked the update above to make that clearer). The AFT categories will continue to work, but we encourage folks to start using this new tool instead, for consistency. Also, we would like to remind folks to use this tool responsibly and only enable feedback if you plan to monitor it periodically -- to avoid increasing the moderation workload for other editors. Hope this tool will make it easier for you to improve articles based on reader feedback. Cheers. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Where can I see how often the AFT5 is activated/how many articles allow feedback, over time, especially since opt-in by registered users is possible? Is there a log (link)? Looking at the Article Feedback v5 dashboard, I see more feedback posts since June 8, but these seem to come almost exclusively from registered users? Shouldn't the dashboards [1], [2] also show the number of articles with feedback activated? --Atlasowa (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful if there was a log of when feedback was enabled or disabled on a page. Is that in the works? Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Category merger proposed

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 9#Category:Article Feedback 5 Additional Articles.  Sandstein  10:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, thanks for letting us know about this proposal to merge the two AFT categories. I wanted to let you know that these AFT5 categories may not be needed much longer, as the new 'Enable/disable tool' is now our recommended feature for enabling feedback for articles (instead of adding AFT5 categories) -- and we have already already enabled feedback for all pages that had one of these categories. The only purpose these AFT5 categories now serve is to offer a list of articles that have feedback enabled, but our developer Matthias Mullie is looking to provide a separate list of feedback-enabled pages. Once that page is available, I don't know of any reasons why we should keep the categories. So if you can wait another week or two, we can save you some work and all make a more informed decision about both categories at that time. Thanks again! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'll mention this in the merger discussion and recommend that the discussion not be closed until then.  Sandstein  08:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Code available

Hi, is there any way I could take a look at the JavaScript (or whatever language was used) code for the feedback box which appears at the bottom of pages? Regards, Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chatter) @ 21:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if it's there, but the main MediaWiki page for it is here :) Charmlet (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I've already looked at all that; it's not there. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (constabulary) @ 15:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

links to the git repo live here. Generally-speaking, all code for MW extensions can be found on the pertinent Extension:-prefixed page on mediawiki.org. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Feature idea: forwarding to another article

Several of the feedback items I found were good suggestions, but were more appropriate for a different article. Would it be a good idea to add someway to forward a suggestion to a different article? It could be noted what the original article was for posterity. A good example is the article wiki, which gets all sorts of inappropriate feedback, but in many cases (like United States, which I recently cleaned out) the suggestion is good for a sub-article because it is too detailed for the main one. -- Beland (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Updating queue counts

When I click "Refresh lists" at the bottom of the page, the counts next to "Featured" and "Unreviewed" don't update. The only way to update them is to refresh the page, which loses the sort order I selected. This is mildly annoying because I am using the counts as a motivator, targeting reduction to a specific number. -- Beland (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Need for feedback to be more specific

Feedback like "More information please" is a waste of time for the user, who thinks he is doing something useful, and the editor, who gets no actionable information. If there is a message to the user who clicks on "No" in the feedback request which ask them to be as specific as possible, we might get a lot more useful feedback.

• If the answer to "Did you find what you were looking for?" is "No" the obvious next question is "What were you looking for?" • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Quitting the feedback window

There should also be an obvious way to quit from the feedback system without giving feedback for those who realize that they don't actually know what to say, so they can do so without wasting more time and probably putting in something irrelevant or abusive just to get out of the system, and maybe never attempting to give feedback again.

• I eventually found the little back link mark (<), which is inadequate. It is not obvious either in purpose or that it exists. The feedback system is aimed primarily at users who are NOT skilled editors, so everything in it MUST be clear, simple and unambiguous.
• Try a red button in the RH lower corner labelled Quit feedback for nice and clear and user friendly. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Protection tool and information issues?

I have edited Kermit Gosnell. I went to see the feedback, and was told (as an administrator) that it was locked down for feedback, and a "change Protection" button is shown. Issues that may exist:

1. Page offers a header ("feedback is disabled") and a button to "change protection" but no protection log is displayed. I'd expect it to show admins the protection log by default here, beneath the "feedback is disabled" header, for ease. (We don't show the protection log for articles themselves, but I think on the feedback page it's more useful to show it).
2. Protection log does not obviously show what protection was applied, and any details. The log doesn't even mention feedback protection being applied at all, although apparently it should be doing so, so it's difficult to see how to check the protection settings which have been applied to the page's feedback in the past.
3. There's no policy related to page protection (disabling) feedback, or when, or how long. This page appears to be indef feedback blocked (it's July now) and I'm fairly sure that was inappropriate or unexpected duration. But protection policy is silent on this, and on when it may or may not be enacted or removed, the feedback page is silent about a reader's recourse when feedback is disabled (eg "what to do with feedback they believe valid, or to request re-enabling of feedback), and there is no link to relevant policy or guidance from the "feedback is disabled" or "change protection" section.
4. Afterthought - do special pages that report long-term protection also include long-term feedback protection?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

FT2, I don't think the feedback is protected; AFT is just disabled on that page, because it's now opt-in and I don't see the AFT category in it. Feedback is currently not accessible for any page (even those which opted in) because only Special:ArticleFeedbackv5 is working, so I suppose it's on the way of being completely removed shortly.

As for logs, I filed bugzilla:44377 some time ago. --Nemo 12:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This talk page

From monthly report: «we plan to make AFT5 available to other wiki projects in coming weeks, as outlined in the release plan. For tips on how to use Article feedback, visit the testing page, and let us know what you think on this talk page». Considering that AFT is dead and buried on en.wiki, it sounds very silly to keep maintaining the "central" discussion about it on en.wiki; please move to mediawiki.org as soon as possible. --Nemo 12:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"reader comments" link on article

Thanks for the hard work on this tool! I like the focus on increasing feedback and converting non-editors to editors. I do have one minor concern... as a newer editor, I was initially confused by the placement and wording of the comment link ("[x] reader comment(s)", right at the top). It looks somewhat like the comment links you see nowadays on news articles, which typically link to forum-style interfaces where readers argue about the underlying topic. Perhaps the phrasing could be clearer, like "article feedback and suggestions".

Also, since this is meta content about the article, wouldn't it be better left to the Talk page? One idea would be to convert each Reader Comment into a new Section of the talk page, to which editors could directly respond as usual. This would seamlessly merge the "editor" and "non-editor" commenting functionalities, rather than maintaining them separately.

My apologies if this feedback is redundant with prior discussions, as I'm just jumping in now. Proxyma (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

FAQ

This may have been raised before, but I'm seeing a high frequency of posts that either ask for more pictures on TV series (i.e. copyright material). Would it be helpful to have a per article FAQ, same as we can on the talk page? Edgepedia (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there any way to turn off feedback through a template, or for a class of pages?

The Article Feedback things began appearing on individual nominations of WP:Featured picture candidates - a type of page for which questions like "Did you find what you were looking for?" aren't useful, and for which all feedback should be on the page itself. Can I add a category or the like to one of the FPC templates to keep this from appearing?

Also, any chance of prominently linking to the actual documentation from WP:Article Feedback? It's incredibly hard even to find this page, let alone one that would answer my questions Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC) ɱ̍

According to Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Feedback response guidelines#Disabling feedback, you can disable feedback 3 ways:

• Protecting AFT on that page (admins only)
• Removing Category:Article_Feedback_5
• Adding Category:Article Feedback Blacklist

--Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

On some articles feedback can be turned on using 'Enable feedback' in the toolbox in the list on the left hand side of the screen, and off on the feedback page by clicking the cog in the right hand corner and then disable feedback. Could someone who understands why this works on some articles and not others update the documentation? Edgepedia (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Why can't I do anything to this feedback?

I addressed the issue in this feedback. I tried to mark it as such, but I notice all of the controls for this piece of feedback are missing. I see them for the other feedback on that article. What's going on? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Re-enabled on all pages

With gerrit:72496, approved on July 9, AFTv5 was re-enabled on all pages of en.wiki. To add feedback, the user has to click "Enable feedback" in the sidebar's toolbox; after clicking, AFT displays at the bottom of the page and the toolbox link turns into two links "Add your feedback" and "View feedback". The otherwise uncomprehensible July status report links the list of pages where AFT is used, which is necessary now that the categories are no longer complete. --Nemo 09:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Article feedback log cannot be filtered properly

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T46377

When using the "Article Feedback Activity Log," if an IP is entered in the "Performer" box, or if anything is entered in the "Target" box, no results will be shown, even if a log entry that matches that criteria exists. Example: Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Common_snapping_turtle/0501a580dd51cc146adc842b2b77e796 is not visible in the log if 207.118.242.184 is entered in the Performer box, or if Common snapping turtle is entered in the Target box. The log entry exists, though, and can be viewed at [3]. The only filtering that does work is that entering the name of a user account in the "Performer" box works properly. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)