Guild Wars Wiki talk:Feedback organization/Archive 5

ANet page in the feedback space
Hey guys, as per this discussion with Emily, there's some thought being put into a possible new page in the feedback space on which devs would pose direct questions to the community. They're still working out exactly how they might use it, but in the mean time I thought we could start brainstorming how best to organize it.

I was thinking a single page with a button similar to our suggestion creation button, but instead it creates a new section on the same page, and the subject of the new section links to the corresponding new section in the discussion page. We then ask the devs to put the question on the article page, and the community to comment in the corresponding section on the discussion page. I don't know, maybe that's too complicated, but that's just my initial thoughts. ( Satanael |  talk ) 04:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something more along the lines of the Ask a question pages, with a brief instruction header followed by an add new section link? One thing for the instruction header should be to make it clear that it's for Anet to ask the community questions, not the other way around (i.e. only Anet employees should start new sections). - Tanetris 05:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would agree that it should be something very simple; like a normal dev's talk page just directed at multiple people at once. No need for complicated mechanisms; and I would prefer to disallow crossposting. poke | talk 06:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is pretty much what I was thinking anyway, I was just going about it in a more complicated way. So yeah, KISS and all that. But I was thinking since these questions are liable to touch off rather lengthy sets of discussions, wouldn't it be better if the discussion for each question was on the discusion page? Also, I noticed ask a question page Tan linked has a bunch of rules at the beginning, would we need something similar here? I can't think of any rules right now other than "don't ask ANet a question", but maybe I'm not thinking of some rules that should be used? ( Satanael |  talk ) 14:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For this, I'm not sure if KISS is a good idea, because if they're anything like the current dev pages, there's going to be an answer or two, then endless discussion that may or may not even be related to the answer or the original question. What if a new category was created (Dev Questions) with a subcategory for each question (the feasibility may depend on how many questions are going to be asked, I'm thinking it's going to be a small number). Then a registered user (KISS way would allow IPs to post, remember) could create a feedback page answering that question. Thus, any and all discussion is relegated to that suggestions talk page, and the dev can ignore or read it at their discretion. Plus, it would be much easier to read multiple "answers" from the dev's perspective. -- FreedomBound [[Image:User_Freedom_Bound_Sig.png|19px]] 14:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree that these discussions are likely to get lengthy and should probably have a new page for each. What about a question creation box (only usable by admin group since all anet staff now have admin privileges, and then a list of those questions like how the suggestions are listed on the user feedback pages? Then people could go to the question and just add their comments. Lock the main page to only admin edits so people aren't trying to add stuff.... Just my thoughts anyway. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  14:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, multiple pages is a bad idea; that will just lead to confusion. It's much easier to have one single page and archive that if necessary. Multiple pages are okay when dealing with something where multiple sections/topics are likely, but it isn't given on how this should work. And splitting it into multiple doesn't make reading easier, it just splits it but in no way reduces the amount of text. poke | talk 14:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That argument makes little sense, given how the feedback namespace is currently structured. Just look at Shadow Form, and how many "individual pages" there are for that one skill. When the Devs want to look for answers to their question, all they would have to do is go to the category page, each individual's answer would be in a subcategory according to their question, and they could go and read each answer, without having to wade through four paragraphs (or more) of arguments for/against, or off on some other tangent to find each "answer" in the topic. On a separate point, these could easily have an expiration, meaning that after X days (could be defined by the dev asking the question), comments would be closed, responses deleted (or archived in some fashion), subcategory removed, etc. -- FreedomBound [[Image:User_Freedom_Bound_Sig.png|19px]] 14:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer we stick to a single page as much as possible. If a particular section gets overly lengthy, we can split that off to a subpage (or move off-topicness elsewhere). - Tanetris 14:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really imagine they are going to be asking the general community more than one or two questions at a time. Cannot questions and answers be archived when ANet are happy with the answers? You could do this practically exactly the same as Regina's and Linsey's journals. Main page with questions, walls of text on talk. Splitting it to multiple pages will not reduce the godawful spam. Misery  15:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It won't reduce it, but it will move it out of view of the devs, so they can quickly see the answers, rather than having to wade through all the "godawful spam". Moving the off-topicness would be a possibility, but wouldn't that require more work? -- FreedomBound [[Image:User_Freedom_Bound_Sig.png|19px]] 15:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The devs would still have to wade through it, the spam would just be spread over one page per question instead of all on one page. It's moving stuff around. Misery  15:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The devs could just ignore the talk pages on the suggestion/answer pages, that's where the spam would be. -- FreedomBound [[Image:User_Freedom_Bound_Sig.png|19px]] 15:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FB, I think you're confused. You're mixing up how to split usage of main/talk page and splitting each question to it's own page. --JonTheMon 15:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) If they ignore the answers, they get nothing from the whole thing. They will have to go through all related comments if they want to gather information from a bigger player base. And they probably know from the fansites (that exist for a longer while for feedback gathering) that there will be a lot of spam. So if they want to use the wiki for such things, they have to live with it. poke | talk 15:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what we need to know to decide on whether splitting is appropriate is find out how often they intend to use this system. If it is for a question or two at a time, a single page will work fine. If they intend to ask multiple questions at once, splitting is probably smarter. Misery  15:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Jon, I think maybe everyone else is confused. :) What I'm saying is that the "answers" become suggestion pages, with a top category of "Anet Questions", and a subcategory of "Question A from Linsey". That way, similar to how the feedback space works now, everyone can present their own answer, with their own discussion on the talk page of that discussion. How the questions are presented to the wiki community is not something I'm trying to address. The questions themselves could all be on one page. -- FreedomBound  15:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, splitting answers is bad. Splitting questions on to individual pages, and then having the discussion about each on the associated talk page is what I'm thinking. You do not want different answers on different pages, as that doesn't foster discussion and compromise. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  15:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * x3 Whether to go with one page for all questions or a page for each is probably something we can't really answer just yet, because it will depend a lot on how this is used, both by ANet and the community. I mean, if Emily comes back and says, "yeah we're gonna do this idea, but everything is going to be run through Regina, like the devs come up with a solid question that will serve a bunch of them, and then Regina will post the question and handle responses." Then something like Misery's journal organization would make a lot of sense.


 * On the other hand if they open it up so any dev can post any question that pops into their head ("What do people use skill X for?"; "If I changed ranger hench ai to do this, would that help?"; "What can we do to fix Tombs?"; etc.), then it's conceivable we'll have a bunch of questions come in a relatively short amount of time. In which case, community involvement will matter a lot. I mean, I assume there will be a lot of interest from the community, but if every question sparks a 300KB discussion, then multiple pages per question may make sense just from a sheer size-of-page point of view. Whereas if some questions get answered pretty simply while others spark long conversations, then we might still be able to keep it all on one page.


 * For now, I think we should assume we will be able to keep it all on one page, but recognize that switching to a multi-page system may be necessary in the future, depending on usage. ( Satanael |  talk ) 15:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * x2Look at the suggestions for Locust's Fury, as an example. Right now, there are 5 different suggestions from different users, all with active discussion pages, so if the dev's had asked "what should we do with locust's fury", imagine how long the answers would be, and imagine trying to find the answers if each suggestion was buried in a wall of text representing the total of all the talk page discussions. -- FreedomBound [[Image:User_Freedom_Bound_Sig.png|19px]] 15:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't compare this with user suggestions. This will be the devs asking the community for input on a single topic. If 10 people have 10 different opinions, that's fine, but they should all be part of the single discussion. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  15:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ^ agreed. ( Satanael |  talk ) 15:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How is that not the same thing that the feedback space is meant to represent? -- <font color="#0104C6">FreedomBound [[Image:User_Freedom_Bound_Sig.png|19px]] 15:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The user feedback sections are for suggestions and ideas individual users come up with. Just imagine everybody who posts on Linsey's talk page on some new topic would create an own personal suggestion for that with an additional talk page where people can comment on. That would make the whole system explode.
 * Also we don't want every user to say "this is my idea" but to have users work together to get something that works for more than just a single user. That is why there is a talk page for the user feedback pages; and that is why the number of suggestions just for Shadow Form (for example) is telling me that they didn't understand it correctly.
 * However this is something that the community as a whole should be able to answer, not individual persons with their individual ideas. Also I don't believe we will see questions like the examples you gave here. poke | talk 17:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. One more question, then I'm done. How will the licensing work, considering that feedback now is restricted to registered users (IPs can't create a feedback space for themselves)? <font color="Black">-- <font color="#0104C6">FreedomBound [[Image:User_Freedom_Bound_Sig.png|19px]] 17:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Licensing won't be affected at all. The only restriction on IP users is that they cannot create a feedback portal or new feedback pages. They can discuss on talk pages as much as they like. <font color="#A55858">Misery  17:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Sorry, though, one more thought: What if the process worked somewhat similar to requesting an extension for the wiki, i.e. the discussion is internal, then a consensus based decision is brought to the attention of the developer asking the question? That way, they could still see the discussion if they wanted to, but the "final answer" is on the page, while the discussion is on the talk page? This could still all occur on one page, of course. <font color="Black">-- <font color="#0104C6">FreedomBound [[Image:User_Freedom_Bound_Sig.png|19px]] 17:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There will never ever be a final answer to any question. I am mildly confident of that. <font color="#A55858">Misery  17:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The only part of feedback that is restricted to registered users is suggestions. Everyone in the community can provide feedback on game updates, bug reports, etc. These Dev questions would be like that. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  17:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, the joys of wiki... Anyway, I'm sure the devs would appreciate a somewhat timely response. We limit time periods for discussion on things like bureaucrat elections, RFA's and the like, this wouldn't have to be different. <font color="Black">-- <font color="#0104C6">FreedomBound [[Image:User_Freedom_Bound_Sig.png|19px]] 17:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sure the devs will stop the discussion when they have gathered enough information; and also discussions tend to die out rather quickly so they won't go on forever anyway. Also as Misery said, I doubt there will be ever a final "answer" for a topic. And I don't believe the whole thing will work like a Q&A for players at all. I think it will be more like the devs asking for discussion on a specific topic and they listen (and take part) in the discussion. poke | talk 19:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)