Talk:Edit Review Improvements/New filters for edit review

About this board

This page is about New Filters for Edit Review filtering tools and interface. These are now standard on Recent Changes and the Watchlist.

New filters for edit review are in maintenance mode. Major bugs will be fixed but no improvements are scheduled for now.

Leave feedback in any language.

How to provide feedback

  • Do you have that bug when you are not logged-in?
  • Explain how to reproduce the bug (step by step)
  • Tell us what is your configuration (browser version, scripts you use, etc.)
  • Say on what page it is happening (Recent Changes, Watchlist, etc.)

Also see the FAQ.

Want to opt-out?

Check on your preferences on the wikis you are active on:

"Saved filters" box is too narrow. So, nearly useless for irregular users of new filters

4
Summary last edited by 94rain 04:34, 9 September 2019 1 year ago
Timeshifter (talkcontribs)

I enabled the new filters after a long absence to see if it was of any use for me. The added tooltips and descriptions are helpful.

But my own descriptions of saved filter sets were nearly incomprehensible to me.

Because the "Saved filters" box is too narrow.

Trizek (WMF) (talkcontribs)

If you hover the links of your saved filters, you will see the whole description.

Timeshifter (talkcontribs)

That helps a tiny bit, but the box needs to be much wider. I want much longer descriptions so that I can quickly scan the list and pick the sets I like.

What developers need to understand is that many editors, if not most, desire SPEED. All changes to the watchlist should be made with that in mind.

Trizek (WMF) (talkcontribs)

More than a wider box that would not fit all cases, the best idea would be to remove overlap. I've created a ticket to track that.

Änderungen durch einen bestimmten Bot von der Beobachtungsliste nehmen

2
Andreas Schwarzkopf (talkcontribs)

Wie kann ich das machen?

Trizek (WMF) (talkcontribs)

[übersetzt mit einer Übersetzungsmaschine]

Im Moment ist es nicht möglich, Bearbeitungen zu filtern, die von einem bestimmten Konto (Benutzer oder Bot) oder von einer bestimmten IP vorgenommen wurden.

At the moment, it is not possible to filter edits done by a specific account (user or bot), or by a given IP.

Reply to "Änderungen durch einen bestimmten Bot von der Beobachtungsliste nehmen"

Impressively SUCKY "diff" tools

2
73.157.234.34 (talkcontribs)

Unintuitive in the extreme

No idea how the filters are supposed to work

Changes page shows a mass of changes that are unlinked to -- no idea what they even refer to

Trizek (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Being rude won't help there.

Reply to "Impressively SUCKY "diff" tools"

What are the default filters? Or is default to show all contributions? If so, many editors will give up on using their watchlist

14
Timeshifter (talkcontribs)

What are the default filters? Or is default to show all contributions (no active filters)? I see no "default" button for a pre-selected list of active filters chosen by the wiki admins. If default is to show all contributions, then I believe many editors will stop using their watchlist very much, if at all.

Anyone with a lot of categories on their watchlist may give up as I almost did before someone selected some filters for me. See my other thread. The filters are baffling, even to longtime editors. The "all contributions" watchlist shows all the many files added and removed from those watchlisted categories. That makes the watchlist very long and almost useless. One can't find the important stuff buried among the files being added and removed.

A pre-selected fallback list of active filters might keep many editors from abandoning their watchlist over time. There needs to be a filter to show all revisions, except for revisions for talk pages. The filter should set talk pages to latest revision. Otherwise the same active talk pages will show up on every day of the watchlist. I like seeing all revisions (for most things), but had to turn it off due to talk pages filling up my watchlist.

Trizek (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Default filters are the ones people got when they opened the watchlist the first time on the old configuration. You see all contributions.

You can redefined default filters by clearing all of them (trash bin icon), which will give you access to the "restaure default filters". It is possible to define a different set of filters for your wiki, after a community consensus.

You can personally set your favorite set of filters, by saving a preset and defining by default.

You can exclude some namespaces, for instance talk pages (click on "namespace", then select one or multiple namespaces, then click on "excluding namespaces"). That selection can be saved for you as well, so that you can switch to it anytime.

Timeshifter (talkcontribs)

I have been talking about the Commons watchlist. I suggest that "Restore default filters" be supplemented and improved with 2 options that are always visible:

  • "Restore my saved default filters".
  • "Restore the Commons default filters".

What do you mean by "old configuration"? Are you talking about checking the box for the setting, "Hide the improved version of the watchlist":

I don't want to totally exclude the talk pages on the Commons from my watchlist. I only want to see the last revision of talk pages.

Trizek (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Default Commons filters are the ones you get when you access your watchlist the first time, if you haven't changed them. If you wish to define another set of filters as default, you can save them as "Commons default filters". Then you can switch between "Restore my saved default filters" and "Commons default filters".

By old configuration, I mean the one you get by selecting "Hide the improved version of the watchlist" on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist.

To get the last revision of talk pages exclusively, you combine two filters: the one for talk pages and the one for "latest revision". You can go further and filter multiple kind of talk pages, differentiating them using highlights (here yellow for Talk: and green for File talk:).

Timeshifter (talkcontribs)

Thanks. I saved the first-time watchlist filters.

Both of the talk page filter combinations ended up with empty watchlists. I looked back 14 days too. So they are not allowing talk pages at all on the watchlist.

Trizek (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Empty results mean that there is no changes on talk pages you watch for those combinations. I don't have changes on my volunteer's account watchlist either.

You can test those combinations on RecentChanges to be sure they're working. Just change "Watchlist" by "RecentChanges" in the URL:

Timeshifter (talkcontribs)

OK. Some talk pages on my watchlist are Commons talk, template talk, category talk.

Are there any generic talk filters?

Kaartic (talkcontribs)

> Are there any generic talk filters?

I suppose there isn't a direct Generic talk filter. But, I think you could use the "Exclude selected" option and do some magic with it. For example the linked set of filters would show you all the RecentChanges to the talk pages in en.wikipedia. That's done by excluding all the corresponding article namespaces.

Trizek (WMF) (talkcontribs)

@Timeshifter, you're looking for a global filter for all talk pages?

Timeshifter (talkcontribs)

Yes, I am looking for a way to see all talk pages changes in my watchlist. But I only want to see the latest revisions for talk pages.

Timeshifter (talkcontribs)
Trizek (WMF) (talkcontribs)

That would be visible through time.

Kipala (talkcontribs)

How do I get rid of this? And why is it on my page? Did I agree???

There is a setting which is lousy, does not show my contributions any more. When I take off the shown choices (whatsoever these mean) I can see my own edits but also see all the database edits which I do not want to see.I recognize no way of saving a choice - and it is not clear if the filter filters in or out. So take that thing away! ~~~~

Reply to "What are the default filters? Or is default to show all contributions? If so, many editors will give up on using their watchlist"

add/remove categories is a great filter!

3
Valereee (talkcontribs)

I've been wondering how to discover whether a page was added to categories, that's really a help!

Trizek (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Thank you!

183.82.109.138 (talkcontribs)

Thank you

Reply to "add/remove categories is a great filter!"

Is there a way to block out user creation logs?

2
CupcakePerson13 (talkcontribs)

If there is, how do you use it, and if there is not one yet, I think it would be useful and should be around.

Trizek (WMF) (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Is there a way to block out user creation logs?"
BabbaQ (talkcontribs)

I do like the tool. It is ok. But I feel like it would be better if there was setting that was standard and that those settings were highlighted as Standard. To make it easier for all editors so they do not have to Set and guess what settings to use to make the edit list standard.


Wargo (talkcontribs)

What do you mean by word "standard"?

BabbaQ (talkcontribs)

The four original settings that are the "Standard" should be highlighted in my opinion. I mean Latest revision, Page edits, Page creations, and Logged actions.

Matěj Suchánek (talkcontribs)

For everybody, "standard" is different (for me, it isn't Latest revision and it is Human (not bot)). When you have chosen those "standard" filters, click the bookmark, call it "Standard" and "Set as default".

Trizek (WMF) (talkcontribs)
Trackinfo (talkcontribs)

I am reluctant to trust a filter to detect. We have bots but we have to have humans watch for vandalism in subjects they know and care about to keep noticing the things that fly under that radar. However, I like the categories you choose. I would like a way I can note I have looked at something in the watchlist, quickly, 1 keystroke. That would also be helpful to see that others have looked at the same new edits and have not objected. Of course on some hot articles, I'd like to consider the source (the POV) of the editor approving of the edits.

Trizek (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Most filters are not looking for objective contents. They are taking things as they are in the data base, like:

  • is this edit made by a user who registered less than 4 days ago?
  • is this edit made on mobile?
  • is it an edit made on the Talk: namespace
  • etc.

The only exception are the predictions filters, that are based on ORES, our artificial intelligence. Like any artificial intelligence, it is based on human expertise but can have some limited false positives.

There is a way to know if an edit has already been checked, using the Review status filters. They are available only to users with appropriate rights on wikis that have implemented RC Patrol.

Reply to "I like it, but"
Shisma (talkcontribs)

Is there a way to see only pages that have been deleted?

Trizek (WMF) (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Filter for page deletions?"

Useful but a little confusing

2
Axlrosen (talkcontribs)

Thanks for asking for feedback! I’m sure that this can be very useful, but I found it confusing to use.

  • I have played around with it for a while, and I still don’t have a good mental model. Does this filter things in or out? Are the checkboxes ANDed or ORed together? If Bot is not checked and Human is not checked, then I see all edits; but if I check Bot, then I stop seeing Human edits. This is not a consistent mental model.
  • Prefixing items with “Show” or “Hide” or “Show only” or something would help a lot.
  • The subtitles are inconsistent. Most of them (like “Edits made by human editors”) tell me what checking the box will show me. That makes sense. But some are different, like “Highly accurate at finding almost all problem-free edits”. This seems to be telling me about the algorithm used to implement this checkbox. That’s not what I would expect, and it’s hard for me to interpret. How about “Show only edits identified as very likely problem-free by a highly accurate algorithm” or something?
  • It appears that these predictions filters are not “spanning” or whatever. For me, I got 4 edits under “very likely good” and zero under the rest, but if I checked none of them, I have 13 edits. The names “very likely good, may have problems, likely have problems, very likely have problems” led me down the garden path; I assumed that every edit has a single “sketchiness” rating, and each checkbox shows me one section of that number space. If that’s not the case, I suggest that this naming scheme is more misleading than helpful.
  • While I’ve been trying to understand how this system works, I’ve been thwarted by the fact that the filter checkboxes cover up the edits that they control. It’s great that clicking on them changes my results live, but that’s actually not very useful because I can barely see.

In the end, I just checked Human and left it at that.

Trizek (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Thank you for your feedback Axlrosen.

First, you have to know that New filters for edit review are in maintenance mode. Major bugs will be fixed but no improvements are scheduled for now.

  • Using a filters within groups broaden the search (OR) ; between groups, it narrows down the search (AND) (help). A group with no checkbox selected displays all edits within this group (uncheck Bot and Human). If you select one filter within a given group, you only have the edits you decided to have (Bots). Basically, what you select is what you display, narrowing-on your selection.
  • Given my last sentence, I assume that prefixing would be to suggest users to select things?
  • Good catch concerning this inconsistency. I can't promise that we will make the change in the near term future, but if it is well documented it may be straight forward. Would you list all inconsistent subtitles, and suggest a possible change for them?
  • Predictions filters are supposed to overlap on others. However, depending on your selection, you may have a very narrow selection. I think the example you give me falls under this case.
  • Would you prefer to have an "apply" button?
Reply to "Useful but a little confusing"
Shyamal (talkcontribs)

Sorry but I am not able to find an intuitive way to suppress edits by bots. Perhaps there is a help page that the filters UI can link to.

Matěj Suchánek (talkcontribs)

In "Automated contributions", choose "Human (not bot)".

Return to "Edit Review Improvements/New filters for edit review" page.