Forum:Feedback system

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Feedback system
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 16 June 2010 by Calebchiam.

While reading Forum:Changes_to_quest_articles, I realized, in general, that our readers may or may not approve of such changes to our wiki.

I've noticed that we don't have any kind of feedback system for the changes we make to the site. Surely people will have an opinion on the kind of changes we make to everything on this site; policies, infoboxes and what they contain, our logo, our skin, among others.

It seems that the only kind of feedback system we have for our unregistered or inactive-in-the-community users is an occasional poll on the front page. For example, as I type this, there is a current poll asking our readers what we, as Wikians, should focus on most in our editing.

Yes, viewers are allowed to simply head to the Yew Grove and add an Oppose or Support comment to a thread discussion changes, but not everyone knows how to do that. I bet half of our readers don't know about the Yew Grove, and even if they do add their vote, it might not even be considered toward the final decision of change or no change.

I'm not too sure as I've been inactive for quite a while, but isn't there still a rule that IPs are not allowed to vote on YG threads? If so, only people with accounts are allowed to have a vote? Nvm.

Thus, I propose some kind of system where a typical reader can just click "Edit this page" and add their opinion on recent major changes to the wiki; a recently passed policy, a new logo, a new skin, etc, etc, etc.

RuneScape:Feedback sounds like a nice place for this.

Now, I'm not sure how we would go about creating this system, but it could be as simple as creating ==Sections== on the page, with each one having the recent major change along with it's discussion (Forum:____ or something similar, in most cases).

With this, I'm sure we could get a better idea on what ALL of the community thinks of our site -- not just the people with accounts who post on the Yew Grove.

It seems this would be much more effective than a simple, very general poll on the front page.

Obviously if this is implemented we'll have some flamers, some vandals, some trolls, but we'll deal with them. I think it's better for people to have an opportunity to vote + and opportunity to troll than to have no opportunity to speak at all.

Discuss.

Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 06:29, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Neutral - I'm not sure why people would go to this page but not to the YG. Also, IPs are allowed to vote in the YG. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:29, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - If you can't figure out how to edit the yew grove, then you won't be able to edit and add your opinion...they are essentially the same unless I am missing something. HaloTalk 21:33, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - One of the points I tried to make was that the Yew Grove is for threads proposing major changes to the wiki. The Yew Grove is not for such small things such as saying "Like" or "Dislike" in regards to a recent change. Such simple feedback like that doesn't deserve a Yew Grove article. Picture it, "Forum:I like this new change to the policies", for example.

And what will that poster have to be told? "The Yew Grove is not the place for these types of things."

Ok, so where is? Insert original proposal here. Wink Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 21:42, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

I will still have to say oppose. I believe the yew grove does provide an accurate view of what the community thinks. HaloTalk 21:46, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
It isn't as simple as a RSW viewer heading to the YG and giving their opinion. A reader won't know about a change until after it's happened, and after it's Yew Grove thread has been closed and archived. You can't post on an archived thread, and thus, the viewer will have to create a whole new thread for what may be a simple "I lieks it =D!", while at the same time crowding the Grove with unnecessary threads. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 21:50, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
They can just post on it while it's open? Almost every thread is left open for 2 weeks or more, and they don't need to say they like it. One person's opinion won't override consensus. HaloTalk 21:52, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
And what if they don't know that a certain change is being planned on this open thread? Example: President Obama and his cabinet start brainstorming ideas for a new law regarding the legality of marijuana. During this discussion, only his cabinet his cabinet would know about the discussion and the planning. However, when the law is passed by Congress, the discussion is done and over with, and the law is then to be followed by all American citizens. How could any of the citizens contribute to this discussion if they don't know about it? Again, this is a totally made up example. Just making sure.
I'm close to 100% positive regular, everyday RSW viewers don't check the Yew Grove. People without an account most of the time only use the wiki for quick information or help in RuneScape. They don't use it to keep up with the changes in the wiki or the discussions going on about them. If this were true, we would see many many more IP contributors to the Yew Grove. But we don't. I've very, very, very rarely ever seen an IP contribute to a discussion.
See what I'm getting at here? People can't contribute to a discussion if they don't know about it. What you mentioned wasn't what I was trying to propose in the first place. I was trying to propose a system or page that allowed people to give feedback after a change has been made. Not during the discussion.
I hate the new skill. Do I go running into Jagex Headquarters looking for the meeting room in which they planned most of it, where I would then attempt to go back in time to give my opinion, or would I click to the RuneScape Official Forums where I could post my feedback, suggestions, rants and the such? The latter.
Hope I made my point in an understandable way. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 02:39, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... What happened to Special:ProblemReports? Hello71 02:30, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Invalid. Special:ProblemReports is used to fix errors in an article such as spam, vandalism, bugs, coding, and others of the sort. This is not feedback, this is simply reporting what's wrong with the page, content-wise. I'm proposing a system where anyone and everyone can easily tell the community whether they like or dislike a recent major change (with reasoning, this would be even better). Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 02:39, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
Also, I think Special:ProblemReports is more often used for articles only, especially mainspace. You can't really report an error with the default wiki skin or logo. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 02:42, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Not all of our users know where the YG is or how to edit it or raise issues, or might just read the content. We should provide an area for users like that to voice opinion on recent changes to the wiki as decided upon in the grove. We can add a link to such a page (RuneScape:Feedback?) in the sidebar and/or at the bottom of the page (e.g. on this page, between the category bar and the adds, where various other links are for sharing and problem reporting). I like the idea of sections for each major change with links to the relevant discussions and some sort of bullet point list of users' opinions of it; we could also use a poll with various standard options (Do you like the changes to blah blah blah? - Yes, much better - Kinda - Wasn't that bad before - Hate it, change it back! - No opinion - There's a change?, etc). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 16:34, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Those all sound like great ideas, thanks for the support Lol I'm sure we'll expand on this more when we have more supporters of the general idea. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 19:22, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Gaz   Swizz Talk   Events!   18:09, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Something that should be added to the original proposal - Do we want to be a site where we don't listen to our community, where we don't listen to feedback, where people may be frustrated with us and we won't even know it? Or do we want to be a more caring, open site, where we listen to feedback on our recent changes to the site, so we can be more favorable by the RuneScape community overall? I personally choose the latter, but I'll leave it up to you to decide. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 19:22, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above. Ajraddatz Talk 22:13, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - What you are proposing would duplicate the Yew Grove. There is absolutely no reason to have two places for people to discuss the exact same thing. You say that people might not know what the Yew Grove is or how to use it..well, if they know how to add Support or Oppose to a page then how do you expect them to figure this one out? Rather than doing this, why not simple promote the Yew Grove more? Would that not solve the problem if the place where our community holds the bulk of its discussions were to be used by more people? We could create a simple tutorial for anyone that doesn't know how and I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to advertise the Yew Grove more. It seems like this proposal is making the solution a lot harder than it needs to be. Andrew talk 01:50, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Another question I just thought of..with your proposed system, how would we determine community consensus? There would be a bunch of supports and opposes and big paragraphs on the Yew Grove and a bunch of "I like this idea" or "I don't like this idea" on a page where we are supposed to baby those who we don't think are capable of using the Yew Grove. Like I said, promote the Yew Grove and write a short tutorial..there's no need to make things more complicated than they need to be. Andrew talk 01:53, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't my intention to propose a duplicate of the Yew Grove, in fact, quite far from that. I proposed a page where anyone could simply and quickly say "Yes, I like this change, reason" or "No, I don't like this, reason". The Yew Grove is a place to propose major changes, additions, deletions, or other modifications. A feedback system would be so much smaller than that. They are two different things with two different purposes. They are not the exact same thing, and people would not be discussing the exact same things. You've misunderstood.
We wouldn't need to determine consensus as there wouldn't be any major proposals or discussions. Like I said, the Yew Grove is quite different and, in fact, opposite from what I have in mind.
How do you figure that we'd be "babying" them? I've clearly said that the feedback system would have a totally different purpose than the Yew Grove's. I'm not proposing a tutorial for the Yew Grove, nor am I proposing this because I think people are incapable of using it. I am proposing a page where people could quickly give their opinions on major changes, and request minor/simple changes to the major changes. By "minor changes" I mean things like "Could we please change Template:X's background color to a darker color? The current one rather hurts my eyes". Things like that either do not require community consensus, or very little. I doubt anyone would object to changing the color of a template's background, and if they do, then they could quickly talk it over with the proposer and/or the changer. Things like that would require common sense and courtesy, not consensus. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 05:11, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
Something that minor that doesn't even require community consensus wouldn't even need opinions like that..we might as well make another requests page then >.< Andrew talk 00:19, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose If it is the same system that is set up on the Mafia wars wiki..it is a disaster. Full of trolls, spam and the like. I think it is a terrible system that make the wiki look more like a forum then what it is designed to be. All the pages have talk pages which essentially are used to talk about the item (not the article). If it is not like what is on the MF wiki...then I would have to see it first. 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 17:42, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

No, those are called article comments, and are completely different. Ajraddatz Talk 18:20, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up..that is a mess 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 18:21, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
Your welcome; and I agree, moderating article comments could be a full time job :S Ajraddatz Talk 18:23, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - This would be a great idea, but Atlandy has a very good point. There is a previous example of (what sounds like) a similar system, that turned out poorly. I agree that the wiki should not be one giant forum, regardless of how community-based it is. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 12:24, May 26, 2010 (UTC) 

Atlandy was confuzzled, he was talking about article comments. We're not. Ajraddatz Talk 18:20, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
P.S. How exactly did the MafiaWars Wiki implement such a comment system? It looks very similar to the Blogs extension (something rejected by this wiki multiple times), is it related in any way? I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 12:24, May 26, 2010 (UTC) 
Article comments are a pretty new feature released by Wikia a couple of months ago. Article comments are essentially blog comments on articles, and even use the same user rights as blog comments. Because IPs can easily comment, it does result in lots of vandalism, etc, etc, etc. Ajraddatz Talk 18:22, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to implement a Feedback system. C.ChiamTalk 03:34, June 16, 2010 (UTC)