Jon, Specific to your question- What I was proposing was common tags because they provide a vocabulary for the user before he/she starts typing. As a fall back, if we can't do that we can resort to autocomplete.
There's data and context to this discussion.The idea has been altered from the feedback provided by Maryana, Kenan, Oliver & Steven. Its difficult to discuss design thinking on email. I'm happy to chat with you more about the use here and post a detailed summary to the list when you have time. Thanks VIbha On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Yuvi Panda <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:48 AM, Steven Walling <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The hard part is figuring > > out what edit summaries are so common that they should be canned. Since > > there are so many different kinds of edits, that's the difficult part. > > Indeed! Here's some research data from Oliver Keyes about the canned > summaries gadget that's on enwiki: > > ------- > > So, the research question; what does the usage of the default edit > summaries gadget look like? > > Using data for the last 60 days from enwiki, I investigated. > > Results > 371 distinct users who edited in that time period have the gadget > enabled. This is 0.1% of the editors who have edited in that time > period (224,946). 5,392 edits were made by these users that matched > the dropdown options, which is 0.05% of the total (9,145,360). One > counter to this is that most people are unaware of the tool's > existence, which is true, but edits were made in the last 60 days by > 2,338 people who have it enabled. In other words, only 15% of the > people who even have it enabled find an excuse to use it in 2 months. > > In terms of how this usage was distributed, I've attached two graphs. > One is the distribution of those edit summaries over users - in other > words, how many users were distinctly using each one. The other is the > distribution over edit frequency - how many times they were used, full > stop. > > Conclusions > As a researcher, I cannot find any evidence that this gadget is being > widely used, however widely it might or might not be installed. It is > sourceable to 0.05% of recent edits, at most (see 'caveats'), from > 0.1% of users. Accordingly, I recommend against treating it as a > feature for general release without a decent research plan for > following up on its usage and investigating how people react to it. > > If such a release (and plan) is desired, I'm happy (as Mobile's > Secondary) to be involved. It looks like an interesting project, even > if there isn't quantitative support for the idea of its utility. > > Caveats > This is only enwiki; retrieving substantive chunks of the revision > table is painful for global queries. If I had more time I could > probably have done it trivially. More importantly, the actual edit > summary strings are presumably localised on a per-language basis, and > so the query would have to be tweaked on a per-language basis - and > those strings live in a .JS file, which isn't easily accessible in an > automated fashion. > > > -- > Yuvi Panda T > http://yuvi.in/blog > > _______________________________________________ > Design mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design >
_______________________________________________ Mobile-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
