Talk:Documents Status Updates: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
Randomanon (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
:::::::I can assure you nothing meaningful gets lost. The consolidation is to reduce repetition like "X page was updated" five times in a two week period. Looking back a month later, it's only necessary to see it once. Anyone can go to that page and see the track changes if they want to see what and when each individual change was made. The dates, as I mentioned, aren't the dates of when a change occurred, but rather when I chose to report them on this page. The reason I don't do something like "this past week" for instance is because I may not put in an update for several days or in the future, may not update it for a week or longer. So "this past week" can sound more recent than it really is, which is why a date of some sort is useful there. I'm not adverse to changing the way I do things, but I'm looking for something more concrete than "information is lost" (I know what's lost and explained why), such as a specific example that negatively effects you as a user. What I'm doing is a common practice with status reports to make them easier for people to read, e.g. new information is given in detail, historical information is summarized for a quick read. The longer a page/list gets, the more pages it grows, the less of it people are going to read. --[[User:Randomanon|randomanon]] 19:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC) | :::::::I can assure you nothing meaningful gets lost. The consolidation is to reduce repetition like "X page was updated" five times in a two week period. Looking back a month later, it's only necessary to see it once. Anyone can go to that page and see the track changes if they want to see what and when each individual change was made. The dates, as I mentioned, aren't the dates of when a change occurred, but rather when I chose to report them on this page. The reason I don't do something like "this past week" for instance is because I may not put in an update for several days or in the future, may not update it for a week or longer. So "this past week" can sound more recent than it really is, which is why a date of some sort is useful there. I'm not adverse to changing the way I do things, but I'm looking for something more concrete than "information is lost" (I know what's lost and explained why), such as a specific example that negatively effects you as a user. What I'm doing is a common practice with status reports to make them easier for people to read, e.g. new information is given in detail, historical information is summarized for a quick read. The longer a page/list gets, the more pages it grows, the less of it people are going to read. --[[User:Randomanon|randomanon]] 19:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
::::::::I admit I did not give it that much thought when I first mentioned it since I didn't think the request was something unreasonable (like exact timestamps for each entry). So my defense is somewhat lackluster. Personally, as a user, I can only give you a subjective answer: curiosity. I would have found it interesting to observe general trends in activity and how they change by month and date, which was something that this page could have tracked nicely with the way it was set up from the start, and a lot easier than going through the history of each page for every small edit. I can see what you mean with reducing repetition, but I think even that repetition has some value in seeing the volume of updates. <br> Ultimately, I guess it's a matter of personal preference on how to handle information, which is why I won't continue insisting too much. If we can't reach an agreement I don't mind dropping the issue. --[[User:Knon|Knon]] 22:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) | ::::::::I admit I did not give it that much thought when I first mentioned it since I didn't think the request was something unreasonable (like exact timestamps for each entry). So my defense is somewhat lackluster. Personally, as a user, I can only give you a subjective answer: curiosity. I would have found it interesting to observe general trends in activity and how they change by month and date, which was something that this page could have tracked nicely with the way it was set up from the start, and a lot easier than going through the history of each page for every small edit. I can see what you mean with reducing repetition, but I think even that repetition has some value in seeing the volume of updates. <br> Ultimately, I guess it's a matter of personal preference on how to handle information, which is why I won't continue insisting too much. If we can't reach an agreement I don't mind dropping the issue. --[[User:Knon|Knon]] 22:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
:::::::::Well, the discussion was useful in clarifying to me that people were thinking the dates meant the dates of the change and it isn't...it's just a page status update. So I made a disclaimer accordingly and explained how to access the detailed info for those who care. Leaving the entries the way you want would be easier for me. I'm actually making additional effort in summarizing older items, to make it easier for people to read through this page. In my experience, many people have limited attention spans on what they're willing to read. Sometimes I cannot help the length of certain pages, sometimes I see too much of a loss in reducing detail. But often, there are many ways where "less is more" in effectively communicating information to people. --[[User:Randomanon|randomanon]] 07:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 07:32, 12 January 2012
Could the individual dates be put back in instead of grouping everything under the same month? I'm thinking it might prove more informative in the long term. If space is the problem, maybe some alternative layout would work, or archiving the information into subpages every few months. --Knon 21:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Some of it is space, some of it is repetition (is it really necessary to know the page was updated 5 times in the last two weeks?). I prefer for people to glance through and see the relevant details in a concise, clear format. What are the benefits of maintaining individual entry archives? --randomanon 23:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I see this page first as a quick view on the newest updates, but also as something that would become a sort of timeline of activity. There's barely two months of updates right now, so everything is recent, but this won't be the case in a couple of months. So it would be a matter of knowing how the updates were distributed throughout the month. Having everything under November or December seems too general. I don't see how it would make it less concise or clear when it would only affect the past information, which should be known already if someone checks somewhat regularly. --Knon 05:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- It might turn out to be convenient someday. For formatting, something like this wouldn't take up much space: (the month is kind of redundant but makes it obvious it's a date) KM 06:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- === November 2011 ===
- 11/30 Created page of information and screenshots of a new Madoka mobile game featuring new magical girls.
- 11/29 Preview pic of Megami 2012-01 poster and summary translation of Urobuchi on the movie script.
- 11/23 Translation added on the OP to the Guidebook. Previous recent additions of Staff Discussions added over the last two weeks.
- 11/01 Example
- I guess I'm still not seeing how it would benefit a wiki user to see more detailed entries. The intent of this page is an easy way for someone who doesn't visit the wiki often to catch up with changes with the document pages, with a minimal amount of effort. It really won't matter to a user if a particular change happened on Dec 12th vs. early December etc. Recent changes suffices for someone who wants to know exactly what was done on what date. I should point out too that the date of the entry is often not when the event occurs. For example, there may be updates Jan 1 and Jan 4. Jan 4 may include changes that actually occurred on 2nd and 3rd as well as the 4th. So the dates given are inexact to begin with...which is why I wouldn't get too attached to them. --randomanon 07:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's because the information is initially sorted by days that it feels like some of it gets lost when the list is condensed. KM makes a good suggestion of a way in which it could be formatted - and I don't think seeing a pair of numbers at the beginning will bother anyone reading the list. If individual dates don't matter at all, then an "Updates in the past week:" might work just as well for the casual visitor. --Knon 08:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I can assure you nothing meaningful gets lost. The consolidation is to reduce repetition like "X page was updated" five times in a two week period. Looking back a month later, it's only necessary to see it once. Anyone can go to that page and see the track changes if they want to see what and when each individual change was made. The dates, as I mentioned, aren't the dates of when a change occurred, but rather when I chose to report them on this page. The reason I don't do something like "this past week" for instance is because I may not put in an update for several days or in the future, may not update it for a week or longer. So "this past week" can sound more recent than it really is, which is why a date of some sort is useful there. I'm not adverse to changing the way I do things, but I'm looking for something more concrete than "information is lost" (I know what's lost and explained why), such as a specific example that negatively effects you as a user. What I'm doing is a common practice with status reports to make them easier for people to read, e.g. new information is given in detail, historical information is summarized for a quick read. The longer a page/list gets, the more pages it grows, the less of it people are going to read. --randomanon 19:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I admit I did not give it that much thought when I first mentioned it since I didn't think the request was something unreasonable (like exact timestamps for each entry). So my defense is somewhat lackluster. Personally, as a user, I can only give you a subjective answer: curiosity. I would have found it interesting to observe general trends in activity and how they change by month and date, which was something that this page could have tracked nicely with the way it was set up from the start, and a lot easier than going through the history of each page for every small edit. I can see what you mean with reducing repetition, but I think even that repetition has some value in seeing the volume of updates.
Ultimately, I guess it's a matter of personal preference on how to handle information, which is why I won't continue insisting too much. If we can't reach an agreement I don't mind dropping the issue. --Knon 22:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)- Well, the discussion was useful in clarifying to me that people were thinking the dates meant the dates of the change and it isn't...it's just a page status update. So I made a disclaimer accordingly and explained how to access the detailed info for those who care. Leaving the entries the way you want would be easier for me. I'm actually making additional effort in summarizing older items, to make it easier for people to read through this page. In my experience, many people have limited attention spans on what they're willing to read. Sometimes I cannot help the length of certain pages, sometimes I see too much of a loss in reducing detail. But often, there are many ways where "less is more" in effectively communicating information to people. --randomanon 07:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I admit I did not give it that much thought when I first mentioned it since I didn't think the request was something unreasonable (like exact timestamps for each entry). So my defense is somewhat lackluster. Personally, as a user, I can only give you a subjective answer: curiosity. I would have found it interesting to observe general trends in activity and how they change by month and date, which was something that this page could have tracked nicely with the way it was set up from the start, and a lot easier than going through the history of each page for every small edit. I can see what you mean with reducing repetition, but I think even that repetition has some value in seeing the volume of updates.
- I can assure you nothing meaningful gets lost. The consolidation is to reduce repetition like "X page was updated" five times in a two week period. Looking back a month later, it's only necessary to see it once. Anyone can go to that page and see the track changes if they want to see what and when each individual change was made. The dates, as I mentioned, aren't the dates of when a change occurred, but rather when I chose to report them on this page. The reason I don't do something like "this past week" for instance is because I may not put in an update for several days or in the future, may not update it for a week or longer. So "this past week" can sound more recent than it really is, which is why a date of some sort is useful there. I'm not adverse to changing the way I do things, but I'm looking for something more concrete than "information is lost" (I know what's lost and explained why), such as a specific example that negatively effects you as a user. What I'm doing is a common practice with status reports to make them easier for people to read, e.g. new information is given in detail, historical information is summarized for a quick read. The longer a page/list gets, the more pages it grows, the less of it people are going to read. --randomanon 19:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's because the information is initially sorted by days that it feels like some of it gets lost when the list is condensed. KM makes a good suggestion of a way in which it could be formatted - and I don't think seeing a pair of numbers at the beginning will bother anyone reading the list. If individual dates don't matter at all, then an "Updates in the past week:" might work just as well for the casual visitor. --Knon 08:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I see this page first as a quick view on the newest updates, but also as something that would become a sort of timeline of activity. There's barely two months of updates right now, so everything is recent, but this won't be the case in a couple of months. So it would be a matter of knowing how the updates were distributed throughout the month. Having everything under November or December seems too general. I don't see how it would make it less concise or clear when it would only affect the past information, which should be known already if someone checks somewhat regularly. --Knon 05:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)