[23:08:17] <awight>	 James_F: Typo in the topic, "wflabs.org"
[23:09:06] <James_F>	 awight: Not here?
[23:09:18] <awight>	 O_o
[23:09:21] <James_F>	 At least for me, the /topic points to https://wm-bot.wmflabs.org/logs/%23wikimedia-office/
[23:09:29] <awight>	 that's so weird.  sorry for the brainfail
[23:09:37] <James_F>	 No worries.
[23:09:56] <awight>	 I literally control-clicked from the terminal.
[23:11:09] <awight>	 [07:30:54] <duesen>	 awight: e.g. having something like a "judment summary" in the table, for display. To be clear, I'm not saying that's a must-have. I'm just saying it would not be great if that would have to be added later, instead of being part of the design from the start,.
[23:11:15] <awight>	 [07:32:45] <duesen>	 the first thing they'll as for is to see "j+" or "j-".
[23:11:31] <awight>	 [07:36:40] <awight>	 duesen: just noting that there are other types of judgment beyond "damaging", e.g. "content quality".  I don't think we want to pack anything more into the letter matrix in the sidebar, but I do agree that we might want this data to be available in the link table for filtering or highlighting.
[23:11:36] <awight>	 [07:37:25] <duesen>	 awight: yea, i agree. but people will ask for immediate access to that info. if you are ready to just tell them no, fine.
[23:12:11] <awight>	 harej: "no" is definitely an option here
[23:12:49] <awight>	 harej: sorry wrong room!
[23:13:10] <awight>	 continued brainfail