David Gerard wrote: > 2009/11/15 William Pietri <[email protected]>: > > >> [...] I'm just saying >> that we don't have to speculate; we can run all the ones that don't seem >> blatantly counterproductive, and find out how well they do. Even better, >> we can automatically optimize which we show and how. [...] >> > > > It is not in fact that easy - because every slogan has to be > translated into a pile of languages (by volunteers), and every banner > has to be tested thoroughly in all translations (some this year broke > in IE6/7). So there really isn't that much room to move. Erik Moeller > posted about this on the wiki, explaining in detail what's going on, > but I can't find the link right now.
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting this approach for this year, but for future years. As others have pointed out, you could do this incrementally. If a slogan doesn't test well in its native language, there's no reason to go to the trouble of translating it. And even if it does, it may not be particularly translatable, so I think translating is something could be optional, based either on central expert judgment or the individual judgment of volunteer translators. As to browser testing, I think we should be able to abstract formats from content enough to make sure that the containers get tested thoroughly, while providing enough flexibility to those suggesting content. Quite a lot of people have the skills to come up with a clever line, a clever image, or a basic mix of the two, and those formats would be easy to constrain and browser test. That would leave out some of the more esoteric format possibilities, but I think that's ok; this would still be a step forward in terms of engaging the community and the wider public, and I suspect ad format innovation is anyhow not something where we want to be on the forefront. William _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
