Open main menu

Extension talk:RevisionSlider

About this board

This is the feedback page for the RevisionSlider extension. Read about what we've learned about creating a RTL-accessible extension. Please report all RTL-related issues on this talk page!

identification par couleur des contributeurs

6
Summary by Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE)
Jpve (talkcontribs)

Bonjour. Je ne pense pas que cela existe, ni si c'est l'endroit pour en discuter (mes excuses sinon), mais serait il possible d'identifier les contributeurs en affectant une couleur à leur contribution un peu comme cela se fait avec etherpad. cela permettrait deux choses :

voir rapidement comment a évolué une de mes contributions pour éventuellement déceler rapidement une précision faite par un autre (bonne ou mauvaise)

pouvoir contacter facilement un contributeur pour discussion avant modification

Merci.

Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

I hope it's ok when I respond in English. A feature like this exists. It does not use colors, but highlights all contributions made by the same user. See phab:T136105. We investigated actual color-coding at one point, but found it is often not helpful, because most edits are made by different users. Most histories would show a beautiful rainbow that does not provide much information.

Jpve (talkcontribs)

my english is just bad. I think you speak about the color of the different contributors on the historic's page?

ce que je souhaite, c'est quand on a la version actuelle affichée (pas l'historique), pouvoir

soit mettre en couleur une phrase et afficher le contributeur de chaque couleur

soit afficher le contributeur quand on clique dessus

What i wish : on the current Page, each contribution thrue a colour to identify like https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etherpad

Entschuldigung und vielen Danke .

Jpve (talkcontribs)

I lost this extension! Where is he?

Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

I see. Thanks for the clarification! A feature like this is requested for a long time. See phab:T2639. Unfortunately, it's technically very hard to do, if not impossible. There are currently no plans to work on this. Sorry.

Jpve (talkcontribs)

Schade. Vielen Dank.

Reply to "identification par couleur des contributeurs"
73.253.126.162 (talkcontribs)

Running horizontal at the top of the page just takes up more of the already limited vertical space. Also, we're used to time "running vertically" from the history listing, so a tool with time running vertically fits in better with how our brains work!  :-)

81.19.3.130 (talkcontribs)

Myself, I do not see this as an issue. Horizontal line is clear and interaction with it (seems to me) simpler than it would be with a vertical line.

The functionality is superb, congrats Wikipedia team.

Reply to "Make it run vertical"

Suggestion : mark talkpage parallel edits

4
Danny lost (talkcontribs)

Very good addition, thanks.

Suggestion: add an icon above a bar, if there are edits on the Talk page from the same day. Or maybe, to refine better, edits from the same day by the same user. Or a counter of the number of Talk edits.

Issue: I do feel that the diff page respondes more than a little slowly, at least after loading several diffs in a row. But that's Firefox for you (v56, win10).

Christoph Jauera (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hey @Danny lost,

thanks for the feedback and the suggestion.

To get a better understanding on what you mean: So the idea would be, to show these icons/tags/numbers that relate to the talk page of an article on the RevisionSlider view of the actual article page right? Can you give an example on how this would help you in your work? :-) - That would be really great.

Thanks again,

Christoph

Danny lost (talkcontribs)

Yes, clues about the talk-page, in the article-RevisionSlider. On the one hand, most article changes are not accompanied by talk-page discussion. On the other hand, some cases of dense activity are the result of counterpart activity on the talk-page. The edit summary is not a reliable clue for whether there was a discussion, let alone what was said there. On active articles, going through the talk-page is a time consuming effort.

Let's say I visited an article in the past, and now on a second visit I see a lot has changed, some of it not for the better. I want to see what led to this and open the Slider. I can see when some sentence was removed, but not if someone gave a good reason for this. If there was a talk-page indication, I can jump to that discussion and see if this was the result of an edit war, a compromise, or maybe an undiscussed change. Maybe I'll learn that this is a repeating issue, that there are previous Admin decisions, and so on.

Christoph Jauera (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Cool, thanks for that detailed explanation. I created a Phabricator ticket so we have the feature request on our monitors and it could be considered in the future.

Reply to "Suggestion : mark talkpage parallel edits"
Semon (talkcontribs)

The RevisionSlider would be much more useful if you could filter, which changes are displayed: I am missing a filter by author: If you see some changes on a page which are not neutral for example. Then it would be useful to check which other changes were done by this author (and no: the history of the edits of this author helps only if the edits were not done over a long time frame).

Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

I'm afraid this request is a bit out of the scope of this project. RevisionSlider currently does not provide any filter. Instead, we are currently investigating possibilities to highlight edits, e.g. edits by a specific user. At the same time other teams are working on RecentChanges and Watchlist filters. Please check this out: Edit Review Improvements/New filters for edit review.

Reply to "Filter by Author missing"

Suggestion: Introduce milestones (or markers) to mark important events in article history

2
197.218.83.250 (talkcontribs)

Problem

As a user, I am unable to easily see significant disruptive or constructive changes have been made to an article.

As a reader, I unable to easily evaluate the history of a page to evaluate its potential bias.

Background

One of the main problems with the regular history is that everything is jumbled up. The history page simply lays out information without highlighting anything, and revision slider makes things somewhat worse because one can only see the summary after hovering. This means that it is hard to note if the article content was completely modified after years of existence, if it was suddenly blanked, or if it had considerable reverts.

Proposed solutions

Add some markers to denote some of these changes. Some of these can be detected using the automatic edit summary (Help:Automatic_edit_summaries), e.g.:

  • Red bar - whenever a newer revision is completely blank
  • Red bar - whenever a revision shows more than 70% of the content being removed
  • Orange bar - indicating a revert, if two adjacent revisions have the exact same sha1 hash

Other ideas include:

  • Highlight the most repeated revisions - by verifying a group of revisions that has the same content or sha1. This would be a possible indicator of revert or edit disagreements without even looking at all of them individually.
  • Highlight main contributor -show clusters of revisions done by major user. No matter what, a page created by a single user will always contain their biases, and is less likely to be reliable.
Christoph Jauera (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hey and thanks for the suggestion!

I created a Phabricator ticket with your Ideas so we can keep track of it and might consider it for future versions of the RevisonSlider. You can find the ticket here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T163366

Best,

Christoph

Reply to "Suggestion: Introduce milestones (or markers) to mark important events in article history"

It is now on English Wikipedia and it is great!

4
FeralOink (talkcontribs)

Today is the first time that the Revision Slider showed up when I was looking at a revision history on my home Wikipedia, en. It is great! It works perfectly. The instructions overlay was helpful although the tool is so well-designed that it is almost self-explanatory. The RevisionSlider is delightfully precise because of those nice end points in yellow and blue. The slider moves smoothly, and supports some of the accessibility features that I have enabled in my browser due to my minor vision issues.

This tool is actually better than those that I have seen for similar purposes offered on for-profit websites. The German Wikipedia developers and UI designers who created this tool did an EXCELLENT job! Thank you for taking care of us so well. I just noticed that you are taking care of ALL of, as this is a RTL accessible extension!

Birgit Müller (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @FeralOink, thank you so much for your great and detailed comment! This is really encouraging feedback :-)

Have a nice day! Birgit

GeoffCapp (talkcontribs)

Today was the first time I noticed it. Usually new features just get in the way, or make me want to turn them off, but this is the best addition I've seen to any website in a very long time! Gets out of the way when I want it to, and very easy to use when it's open. my thanks to all involved for their hard work.

Birgit Müller (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @GeoffCapp, many thanks for your amazing feedback! This means a lot to us :-)

Suggestion: support sense of absolute time

3
BlaueBlüte (talkcontribs)
related: Suggestion: Introduce milestones (or markers) to mark important event in article history
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T136104

Some first-glance orientation on the time axis with regard to absolute time would be helpful. This could be provided in the form of, for example,

  • labeling the visible range with start and end date
  • time intervals shaded differently and and labeled in some unobtrusive form (since edit frequencies vary across pages, the intervals used would probably have to adapt somehow, e.g., weeks, months, or years):
IKhitron (talkcontribs)

+10 for the last point.

Christoph Jauera (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hey @BlaueBlüte,

thanks for the feedback and suggestion. On Phabricator we've already got a ticket that deals with time related scales in the RevisionSlider. I left a comment there, so that we consider your feedback when looking into the issue.

Best,

Christoph

Reply to "Suggestion: support sense of absolute time"

mouse-over Info boxes

3
Summary by Addshore

This should now be deployed and thus fixed!

178.12.147.53 (talkcontribs)

The mouse-over Info boxes partly hide i.e. the flagging-form. Please consider showing them beyond the slide, not above, because it might be easier to mouse-out.

Addshore (talkcontribs)

Hi! by 'Info boxes' do you mean the tool tips that appear when you hover over a revision in the slider? These display the summary, user, date etc.

As a result of working on https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T141071 the tool tips will be displayed underneath the slider.

This should be deployed to dewiki on Wednesday the 3rd of August!

TheTokl (talkcontribs)

This is right: so for example if you want to "sight" (is this the English word for "sichten" (de)?) an article, this is very irritating and it steals your time.

Reply to "mouse-over Info boxes"
Omotecho (talkcontribs)

Great tool to review changes to my translation/edits. No more hussle going back and forth between tabs. Appreciate very much to have editors move between eds and save time/energy and this smoothly.

Birgit Müller (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Thank you for the great feedback, this means a lot to us :-)

This post was hidden by Addshore (history)
Reply to "Works well on ja Mediawiki"
Jazzy Prinker (talkcontribs)

Well, this is great. Just one thing: how to move the yellow and blue knobs is not clearly elucidated in the "usage" section and the tutorial message that appears along the Slider. It took me a while to decipher that. So please can you write it in a better way? Thanks ~~~~

Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Thanks for your feedback, @Jazzy Prinker! We'll look into that. It would be great if you could add what kind of information is lacking or which expressions make the text hard to understand. Thanks! -- ~~~~

Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talkcontribs)
108.105.15.13 (talkcontribs)

@Johanna Strodt (WMDE) Not him, but I can chime in here. I am commenting as more of a user than a commenter and editor, so apologies if I am missing something RE wikipedia feedback customs. First, I want to just say that wow, this feature is totally amazing and extremely helpful. Thank you so much to you and your team for making it, and to the german wikipedia-ers for requesting it. I do agree with @Jazzy Prinker though. In fact, I only realized the yellow and blue sliders did anything at all until I came here and saw that post. After seeing this post, I went back and found the tutorial, and saw that there was some info listed about it that I had skipped over. It seems like that one is on me, I should have just read the instructions more carefully, since that feature was in fact clearly explained. But, since both he and I ran into that issue, maybe something about the wording or the explanation could be changed to make it a bit more apparent how it all works. For example, instead of a small call-out box explaining how the revision history button works, you might instead point to the actual sliders on the page that the user is on, and point them to the actual ones that exist--something like: these sliders here, see these? they let you do such and such.

Additionally, regarding the tutorial: I wish there were more info about this thing on the tutorial itself. Even if that's just a link. Something like: To learn more about the revision slider, and how to use it, click here (then a link to some more in depth tutorial). I am glad I came to the feedback page. I learned much more about everything here. And, I did ultimately find all the info I needed, but only after arriving here. I imagine most users won't go through the hassle of all that and might just get lost or confused and give up.

Then, one final comment as long as I am posting this. This comment is in fact the reason why I came to the feedback page in the first place. It might not belong here in this section, feel free to move this around or edit it or whatever if it's better in a different or separate spot. The biggest issue to me is how to access the revision slider! It's kind of buried. This is the way I accessed it as a wikipedia user: I went to a wikipedia page on a political issue and that I expected would get edits all the time for political reasons in addition to the usual reasons. I read the main page, then wanted to check some of the revisions that got made earlier in time. I clicked on one of the older revisions sort of at random to see how things looked at some different time. Then, AFTER clicking that, that's when the "view revisions interactively" box and button showed up on the screen for the first time. So getting to it required me to click three separate times and the third click I very rarely do (i.e., the one where I actually click to see one of the earlier revisions). I think that is probably a pretty common way to use wikipedia, and I image there are many other users in the same boat.

From my own perspective, I would have loved using that slider from the very beginning--why bother jumping through all the hassle of looking at the contribution page (which is just a jumble and not easy to understand at all) when I can instead jump directly to the interactive revision page. Just for the purposes of providing a specific recommendation instead of just criticism, I think something that might be helpful to address this issue would be to include a link or to more clearly provide information about the interactive revision page on the wikipedia page I'm on, and how to access it.

Thanks again! This is one of the best additions to wikipedia in a very long time! I love it!

Reply to "Usage tutorial"
Return to "RevisionSlider" page.