On 8 Dec 2016 3:50 p.m., "Comet styles" wrote:
Spamming to ask for donations so that they don't spam again until
December 2017 (Y)
There's plenty of room for constructive criticism, but this is not it. Your
weaken your point by resorting to attacks. Please be more constructive in
your posts.
D
Spamming to ask for donations so that they don't spam again until
December 2017 (Y)
On 12/2/16, Pine W wrote:
> OK, thanks for the info. I'll be interested to read a summary of the
> campaign when WMF is in a position to create one, which I'm guessing might
> be in January or February.
>
> I coul
OK, thanks for the info. I'll be interested to read a summary of the
campaign when WMF is in a position to create one, which I'm guessing might
be in January or February.
I could ask more questions, but I think that I'd better retreat back into
my digital cave. I have a UI project calling my name!
More than it represents a feasible concept that can be significantly
improved upon. Reducing it's footprint, improving the look and feel so that
it reduces its impact on the page.
With regards to user appeals with photos:
1) They are notoriously difficult to be successful. We spent a whole year
tr
Hi Seddon,
By "And in this instance although the test was successful, we had decided
that
although a winner, it was the lessons to take away that were more
important. From there we hope to arrive at a banner that draws from the
success but is delivered in a way that is easier on the eye." are you
So for a stub article the original banner was a little overbearing in
relation to the content but a substantial part of that was related to that
banners particular dynamics that we weren't too fond of ourselves and
looking to improve.
Seddon
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Gnangarra wrote:
> Pe
Hey Pine,
Communicating about testing is something we need to work out how to
improve. One of the issues is the sheer volume of content we are dealing
with. During these early days our banner team is running about 7 tests a
day, and we have already tested 66 banners and counting. That doesn't
incl
Personally I think the inline banners are invasive to the content, unlike
side bar or top of page banners which dont interfere with the delivery of
content, the page layout or potentially imply association with the topic. I
also recognise that mobile presentation is already degraded to suit the
dev
I've been thinking about these inline ads since I first encountered one,
which I believe was either yesterday or today. I'm uncomfortable with the
idea of inline ads, but they seem to be clearly delineated from article
content, and as far as I can tell there is simply no easy way to do on-wiki
fund
Hey Geni,
So this is a style of banner that we have used on mobile over the last
year. We have previously had good feedback about the mobile version with
people feeling it was less obtrusive to the reader experience. This banner
that you saw was one of our first attempts at seeing whether transfer
Screenshot of what I mean:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inline_donor_bannerbass.png
Inline ads are generally considered to be something that gets into
scummy advertising territory (for example even adblock plus's rather
questionable Acceptable Ad policy doesn't accept them).
On a rel
11 matches
Mail list logo