[16:58:28] Hey folks, I'll be kicking off the Snuggle demo in a few minutes. I've put the two most important links in the channel topic: http://stat1.wikimedia.org:8080 - http://enwp.org/WP:Snuggle [17:01:37] a wild halfak emerges :). Hey dude. [17:02:05] Hey Ironholds. [17:02:08] Are you ready to demo? [17:02:19] sure! are there new things since I saw it last? [17:02:31] Yes. Lots. [17:02:33] JohnLewis, as a devmonkey and also as an editor you'll want to pay attention to this session :) [17:02:44] halfak: with pleasure, then :). You poked #wikipedia-en? [17:02:50] You can now log in an categorize users. [17:02:51] Will do Oliver. [17:02:56] sweet! [17:04:28] Alright. Welcome everyone. [17:04:58] My goal here today is to introduce you to Snuggle and get your feedback so that I can figure out how to make it better. [17:05:18] The links you'll need are in the topic. http://stat1.wikimedia.org:8080 - http://enwp.org/WP:Snuggle [17:05:40] The first link brings you to an instance of the tool. The second brings you to the documentation and the sign-up list. [17:06:07] If you want to hear about new developments with the tool, make sure to get on that signup list so I know to ping you. [17:07:51] maybe WP:Snuggle shouldn't list the hangout link in the "links you *need* list [17:08:09] Anyway, the current version of the tool does not affect Wikipedia in any way. [17:08:28] Ahh. good point. I hope to only use the google hangout to do screen sharing in case we need it. [17:09:49] When you use the tool to categorize users, it will only have an effect within Snuggle for the time being. [17:10:03] btw this is a minor issue, but worth taking a look. here's how the icon looks to me: http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/4369/selection002ln.png [17:10:16] (firefox @ ubuntu 12.04) [17:10:41] Interesting. I specifically made that icon as a browser compatibility test. [17:10:56] The most recent firefox should be fine. Let me check that out quick. [17:11:30] Hmm... It looks fine to me. Could you provide me with a screenshot of the whole UI? [17:11:42] wait, I think I have minimum font size set up. just a sec [17:12:06] yep, looks fine now [17:12:10] sorry for the false alarm [17:12:16] but now it's a known issue :D [17:12:28] Not at all. I didn't know that minimum font sizes were a thing. [17:12:32] Thanks for pointing it out. [17:13:05] so... as a first time user... are we supposed to login before doing anyhting? [17:13:17] You can use most of the features without logging in. [17:13:27] Once you try to categorize a user, it should ask you to log in. [17:13:39] You can log in without going anywhere else in the interface. [17:13:44] cool [17:13:50] So, you're safe to wait and log in when you are ready. [17:14:26] how do I minimize a user's "box"? [17:14:46] Once you select a user, there will always be exactly one user selected. [17:14:59] You can minimize the current user by selecting another. [17:15:13] You can also use the Page Up and Page Down keys to navigate the list. [17:15:37] hmm. it might be a little daunting for new users of snuggle, wanting to reduce visual elements to get a sense of what to do first [17:15:47] That [17:15:52] 's a good point. [17:16:06] I expected there would be a way to unselect a user [17:17:09] halfak: While attempting to log is, I am being pestered with notices. [17:17:14] *log in [17:17:50] What are the notices saying? [17:18:25] 'You must be logged in to rate newcomers' [17:18:30] That is while logging in. [17:19:01] Hmm... Is there any chance you could join the google hangout and screenshare for me? [17:19:19] halfak, I think I got a bogus password failure before it let me in, but I'm not sure. [17:19:41] iPads done have Google Hangout on them. I can take an image though for you. [17:19:48] That would work. [17:19:56] JohnLewis: ^^^ [17:20:27] superm401: I'm not sure what you mean. Did the interface tell you your password was wrong, but also log you in. [17:21:06] halfak, no, I just think I may have entered it right the first time. [17:21:15] How are you logging people in? [17:22:05] I'm forwarding the creds to the Wikipedia API and storing the cookie. [17:22:13] I feel gross, but it looks like this is only way. [17:22:33] The creds are never stored. I just forward them on and then store the cookie that I get back from the Wikipedia API. [17:22:50] does the purple line above a user box (when we select it) mean anything? [17:23:20] Could you screenshare that. The box should have a border surrounding it. [17:23:33] hmmm [17:23:42] I'll screenshare [17:23:51] Eeek. I just tried in Firefox and I think I see what you mean [17:24:41] If you look inside the quick reference ("Help" in the upper right) I have a screenshot of what a selected user should look like. [17:24:57] I'll file that as a bug and figure out why FF isn't participating in a proper outline, [17:25:24] Damn router. [17:25:58] halfak, a lot of things are missing title tooltips. [17:26:33] Ahh that's a good point. I could add them to all of the metadata items at least. [17:26:38] halfak: Check your chat, sent it. [17:26:39] superm401: +1 [17:26:48] Including the thread icon and the tiny rectangles [17:27:28] //nick JohnLewis [17:27:39] JohnLewis_: Not sure what you are talking about. My IRC client could be misbehaving. [17:27:45] instead of the drobdown menu, navbox-style P-T-C links (with tooltips) would be nicer I think [17:27:55] no interface elements appearing/disappearing [17:28:16] p-t-c links are evil, they should be on demand only [17:28:23] superm401: Good point on the tooltips. It never occurred to me that I could clue you in on what namespace and whether the revision was reverted. [17:28:36] halfak, the colors are too close together. Yes, Article and Talk namespaces are related (I assume that's why they're close), but I still want to easily visually distinguish. [17:28:37] P-T-C? [17:28:38] For clarity, PTC = User (P)age, User (T)alk, User (C)contributions [17:28:46] Same goes for User and User talk colors. [17:29:12] Hi Danny_B :) [17:29:19] hello [17:29:22] why evil? [17:29:47] halfak, I don't see the red dot documented. does it mean reverted (just a guess)? [17:29:56] superm401: +1 [17:30:04] For the colors, I'm limited because there are a lot of namespaces to represent. If I add differentiation to a few namespaces, I lose it in others. [17:30:32] i apologize, ignore me, please. i misread your post. i thought you're talking about links in navboxes (template, edit, history - or whatever is there) [17:30:33] Hmm, maybe there's an alternative, like cross-hatching background,t that could work. [17:30:54] we have those on demand by gadget [17:31:08] which is the correct solution [17:31:13] halfak, when I click the revisions drop down, I see talk, article, etc., and counts for each. It would be nice if the counts linked to their Special:Contributions, filtered to that namespace. [17:31:14] Superm401. I like that. I'll look into it. [17:31:20] Danny_B no, I meant instead of the current dropdown menu [17:31:24] with user liks [17:31:25] *links [17:31:55] Waldir: as i said, just ignore me, pls. it's misunderstanding [17:32:02] sure :) [17:32:55] halfak, like the cross-hatching, the links, or both? [17:32:59] halfak: what do you think about replacing the menu as I suggested (or somehow else)? [17:33:12] Both [17:33:17] (Sorry, frantically taking notes. [17:33:22] lol [17:34:39] Waldir, when you say "Navbox style" do you mean that the links should just be visible without having to click the drop-down or is there more to it? [17:35:06] basically, yes. I assumed you didn't want to take up space for the username itself [17:35:30] That's do-able. [17:35:42] so I thought of the navbox-style links in the top rigt of the boxes which are small and mostly unintrusive [17:35:48] but there may be other solutions [17:36:08] Could you link me to an example? [17:36:15] even just keeping the white background + arrow visible when the username isn't hovered may help [17:36:54] sorry I meant top left :) [17:36:58] I gotcha. I was mimicking gmail's with the hover for drop down. [17:37:02] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Navbox#Parameter_list [17:37:16] for navboxes its "VTE" [17:37:33] View/Talk/Edit [17:37:37] Waldir: that's what i was talking about actually ;-) [17:38:18] Ahh... I see. [17:38:19] Danny_B: I kinda figured but I didn't get the evil part. I assumed it wasnt relevant for this discussion so I didn't pursue the discussion :) [17:38:47] so I might do something like "user - talk - contribs" as the first item in the metadata area? [17:40:05] well, I thought about one-letter links with tooltips, so it wouldn't take up so much space [17:40:20] but when you mean metadata area, it's when the box is expanded? that might make sense [17:40:50] Yes. When it is expanded with "Registered" and "Views" [17:41:12] halfak: agreed [17:41:16] makes more sense like that [17:41:53] halfak, this requires a bit longer discussion (we can follow up later), but I think the process and language should accord more with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith [17:42:18] "See the full documentation" shouldn't be the first line in the help box! Not in the same style as regular text at least. [17:42:32] E.g. "possibly disruptive" instead of bad-faith. I don't want people to say, "well, they're categorized bad-faith in snuggle, so forget them" [17:42:49] Because some people are going to be borderline, especially on their first few edits. [17:42:50] Maybe it could be styled differently (italics? smaller?) and rephrased ("Full documentation available ") [17:43:57] superm401: +1 again :) [17:44:26] superm401: agreed. on the AGF. I was assuming that Snugglers might apply their best judgement about when it was appropriate to label users "Bad-faith", but I'm open to some changes if you think it will make more sense. [17:45:12] halfak, yeah, for one thing, I don't think you should be categorizing someone who literally made two edits period. [17:45:22] I added the "ambiguous" category based on some discussion to handle the cases where the snuggler thought it was too late to be sure whether they were acting in good or bad-faith. [17:45:29] There should be a minimum of 5 or maybe more before you can truly categorize. [17:45:39] It turns out you can learn a lot from those first two edits -- at least on the good-faith side of things. [17:45:40] Also, are the cats shared, or specific to the user? [17:45:50] halfak, look at my first two, they're pretty stupid. [17:45:52] Many users are blocked before they make 5 edits. [17:46:02] Cats are shared. [17:46:08] halfak, true, but others are definitely borderline, and not everyone will categorize correclty. [17:46:09] lol [17:46:43] And I'm not saying no one should be blocked before 5, just that you can't always categorize reliably. [17:46:58] Indeed. I don't want to enforce what "right categorization" is just yet though. Instead, I want to figure out the categories that make sense. It sounds like the categories I have don't really make sense. [17:47:16] E.g. I just saw on Snuggle someone adding a porn actress to a list of alumni. [17:47:26] It might be that categories are not the right way to look at the problem. [17:47:31] Were they a PR/spammer person for the porn company, or just an interested reader/fellow alumnus? [17:47:39] superm201, that sounds ambiguous to me. [17:47:47] Right, too early to say. [17:48:04] But since the cats are shared, someone else good still tag them bad-faith. [17:48:13] Does it feel unnatural to put that user in the "ambiguous" category? [17:48:35] No, that's what I did, I just wonder if other people will be appropriately hesistant to categorize too early. [17:48:47] Again, you're right. However, you can see the history of user's categorizations. [17:49:09] That is useful. Now, does 3RR apply? :) [17:49:17] LOL good question! [17:49:33] In a related note, you have a JS bug in the cat history: [17:49:41] I was considering implementing some sort of disagreement handling, but I'm not sure what it will look like. [17:49:43]

07:34, 19 Dec 2012bad-faithundefined

[17:49:50] Note undefined. [17:49:53] Oh yes. That was before I made people log in. [17:50:07] Sorry I forgot to mention. The authentication functionality has only been active for 4 days. [17:50:16] Right, but it's on the list not to link to User:undefined, right? :) [17:50:34] You're right. I need to put something more reasonable there. [17:50:39] Thanks for the reminder. [17:50:44] Take a look at that page, too. :) [17:51:05] LOL [17:51:08] :P [17:51:14] How appropriate [17:51:17] halfak, there should be a clear division between the user contribs graph and the talk page message icons. a line at least. [17:52:27] Interesting. I'm not sure I understand the problem though. Is your suggestion based on aesthetics or did you get confused by the lack of separation? [17:52:33] on second thought, I'll send you a screenshot showing what confused me [17:52:38] halfak, how about an optional "and fewer than X edits"? [17:52:39] Sounds good. [17:53:10] superm401. Good question. I couldn't imagine a use-case, but that is definitely something I *could* support. [17:53:17] Because I see people with 340, and at that point (good or bad) we're well into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_template_the_regulars [17:53:42] In other words, editors with hundreds of editors aren't always perfect. [17:53:47] Ahh. Yeah that is a good point. [17:53:52] halfak: http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/9365/selection003fn.png [17:53:54] But if they're not blocked indefinitely we need to deal with them one on one. [17:54:39] Ahh yeah, waldir, you found a bit of cool/lame visualization. The user you are looking at in that screenshot has only been around for 29 days. [17:54:46] So the last day bar is empty. [17:54:59] If you look in the good-faith list, you can see a lot of users with less than 30 days of activity. [17:55:06] halfak: also, the graph should probably not extend all the way to the top in the expanded view (makes sense in the compact view, of course) [17:55:07] Was that confusing? [17:55:48] ok, definitely [17:55:57] the graph should be white for the full 30 days [17:55:59] halfak, since you said "It might be that categories are not the right way to look at the problem.", this is a bigger idea but: [17:56:05] What about not sharing the cats at all? [17:56:19] So you could keep your own list without publically tagging people or edit wars. [17:56:30] Or you could leave it up to the editor whether to use the public or private list. [17:58:06] Ahh! One of the features I'd like to implement is a private "following" list. [17:58:27] That way you can keep track of newcomers you took an interest in, privately. [17:59:06] It would be nice if it were optionally synced with your watchlist too (i.e. follow == watch of user page). [17:59:11] I could implement the private categorization, but I'm not sure I understand the use. How would you use a private categorization of "good-faith" or "bad-faith"? [17:59:32] That could be done too. [18:00:38] Just to follow-up, make sure I help the good ones, and the temporarily blocked disruptive users don't go back to disruption when it expires. [18:01:18] Same reason I currently watch user pages (which also automatically allows watching their talk) [18:01:48] I gotcha. I might ping you again for ideas when I get down to implementing that functionality. This sounds really crucial for working between Snuggle and Wikipedia. [18:02:30] Bear in mind I'm not as active as I used to be, so I hope you're getting feedback from the people doing the real daily grind. [18:02:41] I'm trying my best :) [18:02:45] halfak: did you keep a log of this chat? [18:03:12] Isn't wikimedia-office publicly logged? [18:03:59] closing the hangout crashed my browser --' [18:04:02] halfak, it's not linked in the topic, if it is. [18:04:25] I'll email you the log when it's over if you want, but I was late joining. [18:04:40] No worries. I just made a copy just in case. [18:04:51] Alright folks, it's time for me to head. [18:05:09] halfak: I was asking about the log when I crashed, because I made two suggestions that went unanswered [18:05:12] I'll keep the link to Snuggle alive and push updates that are (at least mostly) working to it. [18:05:30] Oh I might have just added them to my notes. [18:05:39] Waldir: ^^ [18:06:07] Was it about the graph whiteness? [18:06:12] ok, just to make sure, it's about the contribs graph showing all 30 days, yes [18:06:22] and about the first line in the help dialog [18:06:44] Yes. I saw both of those and plan to try to fix them. Thanks! [18:06:51] also while I'm at it, I think it would make more sense to place the login link in the top right [18:06:59] it's more usual I believe [18:07:03] OK. Really leaving this time. Thanks again everyone. [18:07:14] *noted* [18:07:17] :) [18:07:18] bye [18:07:38] halfak, good talking to you. Thanks. [19:04:32] hello everybody- I missed the Snuggle demo [19:04:42] I mistranslated the timezones [19:05:50] Vacation9: that's okay :).I think the staffer responsible has wandered off, unfortunately :( [19:06:18] aww :( [19:06:26] I notified Epoch on his talk [19:06:41] I thought it was at 2:00 my time somehow [19:06:46] but it was at 1 [19:10:24] Vacation9: If it helps, I think someone in this channel would be more than happy to email you the log of the discussion. [19:11:16] that would help and be much appreciated. [19:11:51] Would anybody be willing to email me the discussion log of the WP:Snuggle demo? [19:12:08] Vacation9: happy to! [19:12:14] PM me your email address, if I don't already have it? [19:12:29] ^ Good job Oliver, I would have emailed them but damn router. [19:18:29] Vacation9: now in your inbox :) [19:18:43] JohnLewis: no prob :) [19:18:45] thank you! :) [19:23:48] no problem :D