Jump to content

Help talk:Notifications

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rd232 (talk | contribs) at 17:01, 8 May 2013 (→‎Note: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


To learn how notifications work, visit this FAQ page. To customize your notifications, check your preferences. After your first notifications, please take this quick survey.

Is this crosswiki?

For example, if someone edits my user talk page on Commons or Wikitionary or Farsi Wikipedia, will I still be able to see the notification if I happen to be on English Wikipedia? If not, is this a planned feature? Sven Manguard Wha? 22:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: not yet, but it's definitely planned. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be awesome for people who work on multiple sites (like me). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I came here to look for this very thing. Awesome. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was in the initial scope, and hopefully it'll be something we can fit in - even if it's something as simple as "something's changed on your watchlist on [wiki]" or such. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for everyone, but it's more of the "you've got a message on [some other site]" notification that I'd want/need; I don't necessarily need watchlist notifications from, say, ptwiki or ko.wikisource. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha :). Worst-case scenario, I guess, would be to have Echo locally on each project and then have a global message that is triggered whenever any local echo message goes off on a non-"home" wiki, I guess. Does that make sense? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sounds good to me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@EVula: Makes sense, watchlist notifications are not in Echo, but will be a problem for mw:Flow. I think Jorm's idea is that Flow-like events like watchlist changes would be more like a stream than discrete events to be served in Echo -- tychay (tchay@wikimedia) (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Cross-wiki was taken out from the first Echo deployment because the projects would need to have global users first. When single-universal login is addressed by James and others, we can iterate Echo to serve cross-wiki notifications. (Note: cross-wiki will probably not show flyout content if you have cross-wiki notification, but instead you'd know the existence of an unread notification (on say meta) and the flyout would allow you to jump to that wiki -- tychay (tchay@wikimedia) (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For context, see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement. (Also, found this mention of me due to Notifications; yay success.) Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page mentions, ANI and interaction bans

Wikipedia:Notifications says it will notify you of mentions on other talk pages. How is it decided which namespaces it scans for mentions? Is it just Talk: and User talk: or would this be customisable?

Currently, WP:ANI requires that users be notified about threads created about them. If they were notified automatically if they were linked, this would reduce the need to leave them a "Hey, you're at ANI" post. Which is particularly useful as there are users with interaction bans, and telling someone that there's an ANI thread about them is technically interacting.

(Also, we should probably work out whether the new notification system affects how interaction bans are handled.) —Tom Morris (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Customisable, I believe :). And, yeah, ANI is actually the first use case I thought of! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. On the other hand Many people refer to me as "Worm", but I'd be a little worried if ever instance of someone typing "Worm" came up. One thing I'd be curious about is the criteria which would be used for notification, would the words "Worm That Turned" cause a notification or would it require a link to User:Worm That Turned? WormTT(talk) 10:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most probably; you can go to MediaWiki.org and check! It's live there now :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How soon can we get the Wikipedia namespace turned on? I think it would be really helpful for those of us who participate in many different discussions. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is on, Viriditas. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only for talk. Noticeboard discussions don't take place in talk. Viriditas (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It must be on because I received a user mention notification from a WP:RfA in the Wikipedia namespace. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 23:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to the exact thread, please? Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other talk page mentions

Could a feature that allows a user to add other users to a list so they could be notified if mention is made of a user on their list be developed and incorporated? Would this be desirable to anyone other than me? My76Strat (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the potential for wikihounding is a bit too great. —Theopolisme (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking precisely! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter

Can the newsletter be named "Notifications"? Then you could have "Notifications notifications", which would fit nicely with the name "Echo". ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1.--ragesoss (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+2 TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+3 AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+4 It's a Fox! (What did I break) 17:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting ability to turn off all notifications

Can it be made possible to turn off all notifications? I'm already notified three times about edits to my talk page and, as an admin, I'm unlikely to have my user rights change without a great deal of notification. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're going to be pleasantly surprised about the level of control you have over different notification types and how they're delivered. There isn't an "all off" switch, but you're going to have a lot of ability to have notifications delivered when and how you want them (or don't want them). Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 08:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt response, Steven. The FAQ seems to state that talk page & user rights notifications cannot be turned off: "Some notifications cannot be disabled, such as changes to your user rights or new talk page messages: these notifications are too important to be dismissed." -- is this inaccurate? Espresso Addict (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's accurate - but I'm confused as to how you're notified three times! I'm only aware of two mechanisms (email and The Orange Bar of Doom (tm)). So, Echo will replace the big orange bar, and email notifications if you already get those - it's not adding anything new. And, you can completely nix notifications by email for that kind of thing, too :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I hadn't realised it was replacing the Orange Bar of Doom & e-mail notifications, rather than augmenting them. (Three ways = watchlist, e-mail & OBoD.) Espresso Addict (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, gotcha :). Yep, it'll replace the both of them, but replacements will be like-for-like for each user. So, if you've got 'don't send me talkpage emails' as a setting, Echo will remember not to do the same. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to miss the OBOD, so more obvious than a little red box :-( NtheP (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we disable the notification for the user talk message? I'm obviously going to notice the orange message barn, and getting a notification and an orange bar is redundant. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So far, using #pt-notifications { visibility: hidden; } in my skin css file works on making it invisible. There is a resulting empty space though.--Rockfang (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Change it from visibility: hidden; to display:none; and that empty space should go away, too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Page link"

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49094

I noticed in my notifications preferences that there is a page link notification that is disabled by default. What is the page link notification? It might also be a good idea to create tooltips in the preferences to explain them. Ryan Vesey 20:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found it in the FAQ. Is there any reason it only notifies me if a page is linked in an article? I feel like it would be a great benefit if I was notified if someone was discussing a page I created. Ryan Vesey 20:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be pretty hard to define, though. Links to pages in the talk-related namespaces? Which would invariably include a lot of automated wikiproject listing, and such. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ryan Vesey, thanks for asking about the page link notification. This optional notification is sent when an article you created is linked from another article. Because this has the potential to be high volume, we disabled this notification by default for current users (but it is enabled for new users). If you decide to try it out, let us know how it works for you. In the meantime, here is the current requirement for this feature. Cheers :) Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ryan -- some kind of information about what these options do (all of them) -- is important to have on the Preferences screen. As a quick fix, a simple link to the FAQ would probably be sufficient. Most users wouldn't have any idea how to learn more about this screen -- wouldn't know the name "Echo" to search on, for instance. -Pete (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Pete. We agree with you. We already planned to add little question marks next to each notification type listed in preferences (Template:Bug), for the reasons you mention. But we were delayed in adding that feature, so it may not be available until next week. Hope that's OK ... Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't think next week is soon enough. If this feature is about helping people be aware of what is going on, that principle needs to be applied to the feature itself -- as soon as possible, when people first encounter it. -Pete (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who is nominal creator of a lot of articles, I think I'd personally be more in favour of notices for articles (not pages) on my watchlist. My watchlist serves as a list of articles I care about, which isn't something I can say for 2007 World Championship in Athletics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sceptre (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting page link notifications for pages that I "created" because I moved a page with the redirect option set. I've moved lots of pages that I have no interest in, hence I'm getting lots of useless notifications.... Could you please investigate making it possible not to receive page link notifications for redirects created as the result of a page move. Thanks. — Scott • talk 10:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grey line in the way of the tabs

Example of this problem as seen by User:Hassocks5489
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49926

Hello. I have a grey line in the way of the tabs (article, talk, edit, and so on), and it partially obscures them. Doesn't the notifications function work properly with monobook appearance?

HandsomeFella (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fixed in Bug 47926
Hi HandsomeFella, I can't reproduce the gray line you mention in Monobook. Would you mind posting a bug ticket on Bugzilla and including a screenshot as an attachment? Thanks! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm having the same problem of HandsomeFella, and me too I use Monobook. For few seconds it apperas the "0" in that way : "DerBorg (0) Talk Preferences Watchlist Contributions Log out" ... After, the 0 is transformed in a long grey bar with a white 0 in the middle, and covers article, talk, edit, and so on. Thanks for attention. Regards. Today in the afternoon it wasn't. I've discovered it few minutes ago. --Dэя-Бøяg 23:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My problem about the "grey 0" was resolved, from this afternoon. --Dэя-Бøяg 19:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same problem + the watch tab is overlapping with the standard links and inaccessible.TMCk (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other tabs are barely accessible and unreadable. If I wouldn't know from memory...TMCk (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can any of you provide a screenshot? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't, unfortunately, as I'm at work; but just Just to confirm I am having the same issue. System spec: Windows XP, Internet Explorer 7, Monobook skin. It's causing quite a significant problem with the page layout. If it also applies on my home computer (IE10), I will upload a s/s when I get home tonight. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 08:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have managed to get a screenshot. See above. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A bit more info: the same sequence of events happens to me as described by DerBorg above: the (0) appears briefly before turning into a long grey bar. When in the Edit window, as I am when typing this, I notice that the (0) stays in place and the layout is therefore correct. For info: I have some custom Javascript in my Monobook.js (User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js and User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css) which turns wikilinks different colours according to various circumstances (e.g. pink for AfD, green for redirects, purple for Stub articles etc.); the change from (0) to the long grey bar happens at the exact moment the .js is activated (i.e. the moment when the links on whichever page I'm on turn green, purple, pink or whatever). Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm, on my home computer (Windows 7, Internet Explorer 10) the problem does not occur and there are no problems with the screen layout. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting the same thing (MonoBook, IE9, Vista) - it blocks the top of the tabs and glitches the top-right, separating my userpage from the other options (as shown in the screenshot.) --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We identified why this might happen in IE6 and IE7 and fixed it. I have no idea why this would happen in IE9 though (which should correctly handle inline-block styling). Kaldari (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: OK, I'm back at work the following day on the IE7 computer, and everything looks correct now. Thanks for fixing so quickly. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 07:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's changed to a white-on-grey box for just the number, not a huge bar like before. When I put my cursor over it, the box jumps infront of my username, and is then clickable. At least it's not a giant bar anymore! :) --Yellow1996 (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page changes

This seems to have got rid of the old "Your talk page has changed" message - is that correct? If so, is there any way to restore it? It was far more noticeable than a little (1) next to my user name. An optimist on the run!   22:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment, no. In my interface, at least, I find the use of red (very rare on WP) to be pretty prominent. We may, if there's a really substantial dislike of this format, introduce a full opt-out - but anything like that we do introduce will only be temporary. In the long term, this feature isn't going away. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't going away? What makes you sure about that? The money already spent on this? --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't engage with bad-faith questions; drop me a message on my talkpage when you can behave productively. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that discoverability of the red badge isn't the best. On a related note: I have a few notifications and getting back to the red badge after I scroll down is quite problematic. We may need to re-visit the conversation around some minimal amount of persistence for the top right navigation, so its always visible. Vibhabamba (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For my own use, I don't mind the notifications, but for new users who are being warned, the Orange bar needs to be returned. To be honest, I'd be happy if users who received a warning had a page-filling orange/red/flashing notification, so that way they'd be less likely to ignore it. But if new users were not noticing the orange bar before, they're certainly not going a small flag in the top right. Being told that you have a new message on your talk page should be bold and dramatic, not subtle. That is, the orange bar should be the default, and the notifications form should be the opt-in. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not expecting the new feature to "go away", but it should supplement the existing functionality, not replace it. An optimist on the run!   08:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I've commented below about the problems of getting contact with some new users already - perhaps OBOD could be kept for those new accounts recent enough to be monitored in the list of Edits by New Accounts, or less than however many months old. Peridon (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page notification isn't prominent enough, and from what I've read it looks like there is nothing to distinguish new messages from other non-urgent notifications. Peter James (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the new feature for some purposes, but those orange notifications are I think essential -- as an admin who receives a number of such talk p. messages a day I need to know about them in an absolutely unmistakable fashion immediately, and in dealing with a relatively inactive user, I need to be quite sure they will see my message as soon as they return to WP. I can adjust to noticing it myself however it is sent, but the new user problem is a really serious one for my work--and I think it would be for the work of anyone trying to help new users. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The more I use it, the more I even dislike it for myself, as DGG says. This new feature is going to have a very, very negative effect on good faith but misguided new users. Before, if a new user is breaking the rules in some way that matters, I could leave them a message and, at least sometimes, they'd see the orange bar and then a conversation would start. Now, I'm going to leave them messages/warnings, and there's nearly 100% certain not to see them, and then eventually they're going to be blocked for what seems like to them no reason at all. Only then will they find out that someone's been trying to talk to them. That's extremely harsh. The orange bar MUST come back, ideally immediately, at worst case, within a few days. Editor retention is allegedly one of the WMF's big things, right? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't go away!

So, I see I have notifications, I check my talk page... and then I still have notifications!! Can they go away please once I check my talk page (or whatever)? Red Slash 00:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These notifications are not clever enough to know when you've looked at the triggering page. If you click the red number, to expand the flyout, or visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Notifications it should make the ones that you have seen the notification display as read so the number will go away and they will show less prominently.
Do you want the number to go away, or do you want them to go from the list? They could be made to go and the list only show new/unread notifications if it turns out that's popular feedback. LWelling (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Red Slash Is it bothering you that old notifications continue to sit in the flyout even once you have seen them? We did try to give them a grey treatment so they look different than a new notification. Like Luke said, Clearing them completely so the flyout is empty once you have click on 'Mark as Read' is another option we had explored some time ago. My focus on the team was to design the interface and so the behavior, so your feedback is very important to me. Thanks Vibhabamba (talk) 07:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I want the notification to go away to any notice I have seen; just as the orange bar was smart enough to do so, so can this be. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear. Rivertorch (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Yes, please go away once I've seen them and don't keep having the same, read, red notifications popping up. Red Slash 00:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I came here to make just that request. At least let me manually clear notifications. —teb728 t c 09:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to turn this off

I've unchecked all the options in my preferences, and I've asked for no email notifications, but I'm still getting notifications via the number next to my name. Can this be turned off completely? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New messages on your user talk page can't be turned off since the orange message bar was removed. Ryan Vesey 01:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pity. The orange bar was much more noticeable, which is important for new users. I'm also not keen on having to go to a special page to view the messages so that the notifications go away. Can we not have an opt-in/out option for this? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See #Does the OBOD have to go? Personally, if it's not too difficult for the devs, I think it would be great to have an option to choose between echo notifications and the orange bar for talk page messages. I love the new notification system, but I'd prefer to keep the orange bar for talk page messages. Ryan Vesey 02:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Different strokes for different folks. I think the removal of the orange bar is the greatest thing ever. I hope I never see it again. Viriditas (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So far, using #pt-notifications { visibility: hidden; } in my skin css file works on making it invisible. There is a resulting empty space though.--Rockfang (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As said above, we can potentially introduce an opt-out if there's strong user demand for it - but any opt-out would be temporary. Eventually, Echo will be here for all users in some form. Right now I think we'd probably do better focusing on ways to make talkpage notes more prominent; does anyone have any suggestions on that front? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a threat? I think the community has to asked before the final introduction. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about - and I'm just spitballing here - a banner that appears at the top of every page a user sees until they visit their talkpage? It could be an eye-catching colour - orange, say - and could have a couple of useful links, like the user's talkpage and talkpage history. I know that's a bit of a left-field idea, but I'm sure it couldn't be that hard to code... Yunshui 雲‍水 13:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want this off my page - I do actually know what my watchlist is for. I also want the prominent orange Talk page post notification back like it used to be. Have you people seriously not learnt a single thing from the Watchlist War of a year ago? We were then promised that all future user interface changes will include an opt-out. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs?

Is it possible for the notifications to include diffs? Ryan Vesey 02:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Those of us who have long talk pages we don't archive as frequently as we should (and I don't want to read any argument to that point right now) like the link to the diff rather than the talk page, as people don't always post to it at the very bottom. If it was possible with the OBoD, it should certainly be possible with Echo.

And let me state for the record that I am very comfortable with this; it's not too different from what's used on, say, Quora and other sites today, seems to have more flexibility and functionality, is less intrusive. I think the real verdict will be rendered by newer editors, and those yet to start editing, who will not be blinded by the way things used to be. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There need to be diff links. It's a small change but makes a huge difference. The same goes for in the email notification: the old talkpage emails had a diff link whereas this one is rather sparse and barebones - easy to read, there was too much text in the old ones, but a diff link would be great. By a similar token, I'll also add that if you get a notification about more than one editor it doesn't look like both are linked...? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Diff links are absolutely needed to make it easy to understand what change has happened - whether it's a user mention on a large page with potentially large sections, or a page link, etc. Rd232 talk 22:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Annoyance

On Win8+IE10 with the stock monobook theme in the header (where the watchlist, contribution, and other links are) it takes about a half second to load from "(#)" (where # is the number of notifications) to the icon form on every page load. This is slightly annoying when you want to make a fast click on your watchlist or whatnot. I'm guessing there's a bottleneck in the javascript or something? Ryan Norton 02:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I thought turning on compat mode would fix it but instead after the load it shows the icon color across the whole page horizontally, messing up the entire header layout. Ryan Norton 02:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep; that's a known bug we're tracking now :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a bugzilla number you can link here or is it just internal for now? Also, part of the problem appears that it doesn't calculate and make the proper layout size and then has an after-page-load hook to do the real work which then changes the header/toolbar layout. After-page-load layout changes are generally reserved for the main content space. (P.S. Thank you for the fast response times) Ryan Norton 17:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Win Vista (I know...) with FF20 and vector, it also takes about a half second to load from "(#)" (where # is the number of notifications) to the icon form on every page load. This is quite annoying when I want to make a quick click on my watchlist and what-have-you. Technical 13 (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent Innovation

I love this new innovation. A really helpful tool. Thank you all. Melbourne3163 (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Notifications is the core framework to increase awareness for editors. We are glad we got some stuff right. Vibhabamba (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick way to show I've "read" a notification

The current notice doesn't "GO" unless I've clicked on the link. I'd want a "Read them all" button and/or an option to "read" a notification once I click on it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I had 15 notifications earlier today and I'm almost positive they went away as soon as I clicked the number next to my name. Ryan Vesey 05:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still have two notifications after clicking the number and clicking the links multiple times. A "Read them all" button would be useful. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For real? I just did a test where I gave myself 2 notifications. I clicked the number next to my name and they went to 0 instantly. Perhaps it only happens when there's more notifications than the dropdown can handle. Ryan Vesey 05:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's strange. Anonymous, could you give us some more details? It certainly should be going away :/. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood. The number does go to 0, but I was wondering if there was a way to actually remove read notifications. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 06:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) Hi there, My role on this project was the user experience, so I want to understand what your expectation around this interaction. We have been exploring some Dismiss/ Remove/ Unsubscribe from this category feature but we weren't able to get it in for this release. Is there the desire to have an empty flyout (the panel from the top right that carries the notices) when you 'Mark All as read' OR Do you think you would want to dismiss a notification one at a time to remove it from the flyout so you can selectively remove content? Thanks, this information will be useful for the next iteration on the project. Vibhabamba (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what exactly you mean, but I believe Anonymouse would like the ability to completely empty Special:Notifications. Ryan Vesey 07:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think that being able to remove each notification individually would be even more useful because I would be able to tell which notifications I have "dealt with".
For example, I used my bot account to send a message to my talk page. I removed the message because it was a test. But now the notification is still stuck in the list of notifications. I would like to be able to remove it since I already read and responded to that message. That's just my expectation; I'm not sure about other users. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 08:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that, if I've seen a notification especially "someone wrote on your talk page", I'd like to be able to delete that notification. After all what possible reason could I have for keeping it, if I've visited by talk page? I really have no desire to go onto the notifications page and see every notification I've been sent in the last year. If you really think this Google+/Facebook type interface is necessary then give it the same flexibility including delete, suppress, mark as read/unread, order by type as well as date. NtheP (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I'd also like is some flexiblity with the notifications. Like the ability to delete some of the notifications, and leave the rest, or even something like "Mark as unread" which would not set the number of notifications back to 0, but leave the marked notifications intact incase I decide to deal with a particlarly time-consuming reply later. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be powerful. For years I've avoided going to my talkpage because I didn't want the message to go away but I didn't want to respond just yet. A "mark unread" feature would be hugely beneficial, especially as now multiple different notifications can be listed it would be helpful for establishing some sort of workflow. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pagelink notices

Don't you think pagelink notices should... er... link to the pages in question?? Currently all I get is a Whatlinkshere link from the triggering page link. C'mon, this is too obvious to call the feature "beta" - it's alpha. Rd232 talk 05:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to say this. That's an oversight. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also no distinction between template links and links in the article wikitext. Being able to deactivate the feature for certain pages (high-traffic ones that will pop up all the time) is years away, fine. But this needs doing sooner (and preferably with a preference to not notify template links). Rd232 talk 05:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, is that why I just got notification telling me that "Steven Speilberg was linked from Puck (A Midsummer Night's Dream)"? Neither of those pages are on my watchlist, but maybe a template is? Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was vandalism. OK, that's just weird. Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I added the resolved tag as it appears someone added links to notifications after this comment was made. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: I think those links only show up on the version at Special:Notifications, not the notifications shown in the flyout from the red badge. Feel free to file a bug if you would like the actual pages linked from both places. Kaldari (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orange bar, prominent talk-page notifications

Does the OBOD have to go?

Well, does it? Some users (myself included) have gotten used to the reassuring orange-y rectangle that has graced our screens for what feels like a small eternity. It'd be a shame to say goodbye just because Oliver and his clan decided to shake things up a bit. ;) All kidding aside, I wonder if it would be possible to incorporate some sort of "big notification for certain events" checkbox in the Echo preferences (so, theoretically I could check that box next to "talk page message" and then get a faux-OBOD whenever those events occurred...like the checkbox currently works for email). Is this at all possible, if only for us reluctantees? Theopolisme (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's probably worth considering :). I did have some reservations about removing the OBOD - for every other type of activity Echo surfaces, it's an improvement. For talkpage messages (which are dang important) it's not. I imagine if there are substantial concerns we can talk through different ways of resolving them - this could be one of them! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is simply that now, talk page messages "matter" in the UI the exact same as...getting a new article you created linked to from another one? Just something to consider, especially from the new editor standpoint. Theopolisme (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Theopolisme you bring up a critical point here. I would like to introduce myself since I'm relatively new. I designed the interface for Echo. The lack of scannability, filters & persistence for the Talk page messages is one we will need to address like Oliver mentioned. Some of the options we considered were 1. A separate badge for Talk messages, even though this will eventually be handled by another project around discussions called Flow. 2. An interim filter/ toggle within the flyout and the archive page that lets the user toggle between All notifications and Talk page Notifications only. Vibhabamba (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
might it have been a good idea to actually testy some of these things prior to release, or at least discuss them with the community? DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to request that the orange bar stay, or at least that we have the option to choose it for talk-page messages, rather than the new notifications. The bar is much more noticeable. I also think it's problematic to remove the bar from new users; the little numbers next to the name are easily missed, and people don't always add an email address to their preferences. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The truth is we need a way to differentiate unimportant notices (new Signpost issue), important notices (edit reverted), and vital notices (ANI mentions). The OBOD can't tell the first of these from the last – and Echo can't tell any of them apart. -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support having an option to retain OBOD. Also, make the default setting for any user as "enabled" TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also support retention of the orange bar, please, if at all possible. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 08:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Support for retention of the orange bar. To be honest, I was puzzled at first about references to the orange bar - I didn't recall the message having any background colour, and I had to check on another Wiki. To me, that shows how effective it was, that the message is more memorable than the colour. An optimist on the run!   09:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm spartacus! err, wait, wrong thing... I also Support an option for retaining the OBOD. — -dainomite   09:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong support for retaining OBOD. It's hard enough to get new editors to look at their talk pages as it is. If all they get is a little number at the top (or wherever it goes on Vector), they aren't going to know what it's for. OBOD is in the face obvious. As for me, I missed four messages before I noticed it and worked out what it was for. I can see it as useful for the 'other page' notifications - which are useful and a step in the right direction. (I don't always complain...) I see it as a giant step backwards in terms of communicating with newbies (and experienced editors who are busy) for talk page messages. Peridon (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for retaining OBOD (which, on my user page was always purple)
  • The miniscule teeny tiny red pipe notification is only as workable as an editor's vision. Visually challenged editors will not be able to see it due to size, and/or that combined with color. Some human beings cannot see variations of the red spectrum.
  • Too easy to get in the habit of ignoring it. How long before any editor develops a habit of ignoring the new red pipe and eventually forgets to even notice it's there?
— Maile (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How did you get a purple one? Peridon (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that Maile66 uses the modern skin, which is infinitely superior (except for my note below noting Echo doesn't work thus far on modern. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, an answer to why mine was purple while everyone else saw orange. However, since you pointed that out, I switched to monoskin just to see how the notification "blip" looks. No improvement. Different location on the page, but it's still just something that could be easily missed. Quite frankly, even if it was fantastic button on monobook, complete with flashing lights and accompanying music worthy of an approaching emperor, it still wouldn't be enticing enough to make me leave modern skin.— Maile (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong support for retaining OBOD Werieth (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for retention I've already missed two messages today because the new interface doesn't catch my attention in the same way; if I hadn't seen them on my watchlist I still wouldn't know they were there. Admins are expected to respond promptly to questions; how are we meant to do that if we don't know they've been asked? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, one of the things I like best about Modern is that the OBOD was a smooth, calm purple. Not jarring or angry, but relaxed. Compared to that, I find this big honking red button in a different font from the rest of my p-personal menu exceptionally attention-getting. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for retaining OBOD I don't think we should fix what isn't broken. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible support for retaining it, and in order to make sure of reaching new users, it should be on by default. Iwouldn't have any objection to a preferences option for not listing it on one's own pages (though I would certainly leave mine on). As an admin working with problematic articles by new users, I frequently need to communicate in a unmistakable fashion with a new or relatively new user about a problem, and I know by experience they will not normally check their talk page routinely, the way most experienced users do. I want to know for certain that if they log in again, or edit again, they will infallibly see my notice. I was appalled yesterday to find this had stopped--I assumed whatever would be done would be in addition to existing features. Naïve of me, to be sure--I should have learned from the past that those who develop things here rarely think of the implications. This is not their fault--it is impossible for an individual to do this, but what is not impossible is to notify clearly, loudly, and unmistakably just what features are being removed before it happens. I hope it will not prove also impossible to get the developers to listen to what seems to be the unanimous feedback here. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for retaining OBOD I do alot of repetitive tasks, including CSD, and the OBOD helps me to respond to talkpage posts right away, when I would otherwise go on with what I'm doing without checking anything for long periods. INeverCry 19:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save the OBOD: I was going to start this thread, but someone else already has. While I like the "mentions" aspect of, well, mentions, the OBOD is much more visible. It's what we all know and love. Can't we keep it and enable it as we wish? The new notifications are too small, not as eye catching, and categorize too many things in one little notification feature. While I support notifications, I would love to use the OBOD for talk page notifications...perhaps more! MJ94 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think OBOD needs to be turned back on, at least until ECHO can supports diff links. I also had not thought about the impact this is going to have on new users until I read this thread. New users need a MUCH more prominent notification than a silly little red square. SpinningSpark 23:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support returning OBOD (at least as an option) I appreciate the color of the notifications square, but it just doesn't catch my middle-aged eye as well. Thanks for your efforts and all the best, Miniapolis 02:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A little red notification in the top right corner isn't the first thing that I look for when checking Wikipedia for a new notification. The OBOD was front and center and easier to see. Devin (talk)
  • Support for the return of the Orange Bar "Of Death" (love that). That is the one thing I don't like about Echo. Everything else is wonderful, but it's so much more fun to see the big orange bar than the little red square tell me I have a talk page message. Not only that, but the big, bright orange bar kept others, especially new users prone to make accidental mistakes and get notified about them, the ability to understand not only that they got a talk page message but that they made a mistake. Now they might miss the tiny red box. Also, a user who continued doing the wrong thing after being warned couldn't say they didn't see a big bright orange bar telling them they had a talk page message, but they can easily say such a thing about a tiny red box now. In summation: OBOD was great; but Echo is still awesome. Greengreengreenred 03:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support returning OBOD with an option to let experienced users disable it by preference. The little red blot is not sufficiently obvious to new users that they have a potentially important message. This interface change should not have been sprung on us without discussion! —teb728 t c 20:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the return of the OBOD The Orange Box of Doom/Death/Despair/Destiny/Dread/Dreariness must be put back. The first time I logged in after notifications were put into motion, I was working for almost 10 minutes before I first saw the notifications from the new system. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 05:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you nuts?

Seriously, are you nuts? I've only just noticed that Echo kills the Orange Bar for talkpage notices. Until now I was under the impression that Echo, being still very much under development, would supplement existing systems, including the Orange Bar. Did no-one think

  1. yes, this is a major interface change which we should really ask people about.
  2. hm, asking people is too much trouble. Let's just make sure we don't get rid of existing key features.
  3. hm, let's at least give people LOTS OF CLEAR WARNING.

Honestly, between this and the mobile development saga, I think my WP:DEVMEMO idea is more needed than ever. (Also some of this pain would be reduced with cross-wiki watchlists....) Rd232 talk 05:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a show of hands of people who actually like the orange bar? I mean, sure, we're going to have that same, small group of people who hate and despise every interface change and who are probably still bitching about monobook, but seriously, the orange bar? The most horrible interface mod ever created? Please, just let it die. Viriditas (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
−1 TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People always seem to complain there wasn't notice even when there was, if they personally were surprised by a change. To the credit of Oliver and others who built this feature, there were several days of watchlist notices, Village Pump technical posts, and multiple Signpost mentions (1, 2) of this as a major new feature under development. That list only covers about what was mentioned on-wiki here, and doesn't include the multiple IRC office hours devoted to the feature, monthly progress reports about Foundation engineering delivered via blog, wiki pages, and mailing lists, the public specifications on MediaWiki.org which have been available for months, or the public Editor Engagement mailing list which gives weekly updates about every software development effort on this team. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 06:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't count because you didn't give us a chance to bite your head off for spamming by leaving talk page notices.</sarcasm> Ryan Vesey 06:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no Steven, you don't get to treat me like an ignorant moron because WMF failed to adequately document and advertise a major interface change. Echo/Notifications coming? Yes, lots of notice of that. And I've even used it a bit on mediawiki.org. A couple of days ago, when it was due to go live on 25 April, I read most of the documentation. And still until it was mentioned and confirmed on this page I was totally clueless that the Orange Bar was going to disappear. Is the Orange Bar perfect? No, but it's long-established, and you're replacing it with something which in important respects is materially worse (for now), because it makes talkpage messages much less prominent, and certainly very different. In short, your response merely proves that you really don't get the communication problem here. Rd232 talk 07:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The design issue was mentioned in January 2012: mw:Talk:Echo_(Notifications)#You_have_new_messages_bar_10999. Yes, that's well over a year ago. Rd232 talk 11:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shows hands Regardless of whether or not who likes or dislikes the orange bar (You certainly dislike it, and I certainly like it) we must think of the utility it has. Its fairly obvious many users are very comfortable with having the OBOD, which replaced by a small red box is not a good thing. Whats more important is that there are many new users and IPs who would pay attention to think a lot more if there was a flashing orange bar across the page. We've already got plenty of problems with users not seeing their talk page. If the OBOD goes, all they see is a red link listing dozens of reverts and one tiny warning to block, which would be missed very easily. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, but I think IPs still get the OBOD since they don't get notifications. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 08:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion below, #IP notifications. Rd232 talk 10:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I am a big fan of the OBOD as it is a large bright notification that cannot be easily missed. and should not have been removed. Werieth (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holding hand up I don't like getting OBOD, but I find it useful (except for Signpost's arrival and bots signing things for people). I think it essential for new editors. Getting them to listen to what we're saying is bad enough - with this tiny thing they're not even going to know that we are telling them something. How can we claim to have warned them about something if they don't even know they've got a talk page? (Does happen...) If it's being kept for IPs, why can't it be applied to editors with less than an agreed number of weeks, or edits, with a helpful little bot posting on their talk page to tell them to start looking for little red things instead when they've been here that long? (With an orange banner to tell them of the bot message, of course...) Peridon (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another hand shown. Many new users do not understand about talk pages, (and some even manage to miss the orange bar!) They certainly will not notice the small red blob on the top line. The right solution would be to bring back the orange bar, ON by default, with an option for experienced users to turn it OFF if they choose (which I, for one, would not do.) JohnCD (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hand raise - there are several threads on this page requesting the same thing. Is it possible to amalgamate them? Perhaps an RfC could be raised. (Sorry, I'm rather busy at present or I'd do it myself.) An optimist on the run!   13:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think 'bring back' OBOD is a very understandable, but somewhat oversimplified response to this development. I would say: Please make talk page notifications more 'noticeable'. This is per the common concept that direct user messages should be more distinct than environment messages. If this cannot be speedily done, consider bringing back the Orange bar for a while in addition to the notification indicator. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, the Orange Bar isn't irreplaceable (though for something so long established, replacement will always take a bit of getting used to). There's two clear issues: (a) direct user messages need to have due prominence (and not be piled in with much less important event messages) and (b) a transition to a new interface needs to be done as smoothly as possible. Both aspects have been badly mishandled here. Rd232 talk 14:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hand raise. I like it for myself, and as mentioned below, it's essential for IPs. Make it default with opt-out, since there's no point in forcing registered users to have it if they don't want it. Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hand raise—separate from the IP issue, which is getting fixed (?) below, I personally like the orange bar, and it would be good to have something more noticeable. Ignatzmice•talk 14:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment as Ignatz and Rd232, JohnCD and others working with new editors have said, it's the new users for whom this is essential. Sure , there are other ways of doing it, but the OBOD worked. If someone wants to propose something equally effective, let them propose it--and I mean propose it, not implement it site-wide and then see if there are objections. (this is not the first time a transition to a new interface element has been done wrong, and if we are going to have an rfc, it should be about how the users can recapture control of the public-facing parts of the project. It is possible to do better than this--some changes have gone well, but it's clear we need either some formal way or a major informal cultural change that will make it clear we expect to be consulted, and to have things adequate trialed. ) DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds great in theory, but in practice it doesn't work. You can't design features by consensus, and those that do end up failing. The notifications system is a vast improvement over what we have and it is the way forward. For various reasons, the community is intransigently conservative in their approach, and they are neither open to new ideas nor welcoming to new features. If they allow the site to remain static and unchanging, it will eventually be passed like BlackBerry in the slow lane. An RfC isn't the solution, since we don't need consensus—we need design expertise and experience and leadership. There is a reason that all great art is at first attacked and despised and then, years later, acclaimed and celebrated. Unless you are open to new things (and for various physiological reasons, most people over the age of 30 are not) and are willing to give them a chance, you probably shouldn't have a say in any new technology that the site implements. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh or insensitive, but it's based on past experience. I mean, look what happens when you let Homer Simpson design a car. Do you tell your dentist how to do his job, or your doctor or your attorney? We expect professional designers to do their job, and to listen to our feedback, but I do not accept a design by consensus rationale as that will always fail. When it comes to feature design, we will always need people who are willing to take risks, experiment with new ideas, and to incorporate feedback from the community, and that's the best we can expect. Can you imagine if your medical procedures or your water treatment facility was determined by the consensus of the unskilled public? Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont tell the dentist to do his job, but neither does he do anything to make me unable to do my job properly. We dont dislike change- As a matter of fact, most of us love Echo, but hate only how OBOD was handled. What we do dislike is the way it was handled - OBOD was replaced without any proper warning or a possibilty of retention for those who want it, and its replacement fails miserably in fitting into its shows. Echo is disastrously inefficient in showing diffs, which are a must for most of us who would not want to scroll through pages of history. It also fails to be noticeable enough for anyone, and as Yunshui pointed out, comes in the way of us giving messages for us the priority it deserves. Whats worst about it is the way it was handled after these issues were pointed out - We still are yet to hear anything cohesive from the WMF except sarcasm and are nowhere near getting an "interim" solution while these issues are apparently beind "sorted out". TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this. Echo looks great, from what I've seen it do so far—but the orange bar (that wasn't really "doom"ful) worked much better for talk-page changes. Ignatzmice•talk 04:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas, leaving it to the professionals requires that they have some understanding of the function of what they are re-designing. For communicating with new users, replacement of the conspicuous orange bar by a small red blob is like finding that the doctor has amputated your foot because it had an ingrowing toenail and he didn't think it looked nice: "Oh, you used to use it for walking on? No, you can't have it back, feet are not the way forward, but we'll see whether we can think of some kind of prosthesis... " JohnCD (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Veriditas, I do not go in the dental chair, say "Do whatever you please," and open my mouth. And if it is not right, I certainly let her know and expect her to work on fixing it until I am satisfied. What she can reasonably expect from me is to limit my wants to the grounds of what is possible. I certainly expect her not to take risks with unproven procedures, or experiment on me without my consent.
And on WP, I do not go around saying that people under thirty are most of them inherently reckless. Some are, and the ones who are, shouldn't be programming the site. Any over-thirty people who aren't willing to try new things aren't here on WP in the first place. Why do you think I joined 7 years ago? I was even willing to join Citizendium at the same time--not all new things work out. DGG ( talk ) 14:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation issues

Some docs that need updating:

Probably others too. Rd232 talk 10:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update

  • Hey all; sorry for the problems with this - here's an update on what we're doing:
    On the IP issue, this is being actively discussed and patched - hopefully it'll be fixed with some sense of urgency.
    On the prominence of the OBOD, I've just started a thread on ways to make the talkpage note more prominent. The issue of reducing prominence for talkpage notices was something I brought up, and so we have done some mental prep for making a design change. What I'd suggest, however, is that the full orange bar is likely to be a substantial clash and change (it basically means taking talkpage messages out of Echo - which would totally work for this problem, but I'm convinced there's a better fix we can all think of). What I'd really appreciate is this: if anyone has any ideas for ways to increase prominence for talkpage messages other than the OBOD, please provide them here; I'll throw them at the Product team and hopefully we can find a solution that works for everyone. If none of the ideas any of us think of pan out, we can talk about the OBOD. Is that okay? Thank you, everyone, for your restraint thus far; I appreciate it must be very frustrating. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A bigger notification button, at the very least. This current button is a third of the size of Facebook's — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea :). Adding to the list! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My idea is to give me a big orange bar that is extremely noticeable so that there is no question about whether or not someone who is actively making edits might have missed it...and so that I won't happen to miss a notification if I'm not specifically looking for it between each edit. Thanks. --Onorem♠Dil 15:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See "other than the OBOD". Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it have to be "other than the OBOD"? Fine. Give me a Red Bar of Death...everyone's happy now. --Onorem♠Dil 15:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the suggestion "bring back the OBOD" is already on the table, which means you're not really adding to the conversation by providing it (ditto "Red Bar of Death", albeit for different reasons). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"If none of the ideas any of us think of pan out, we can talk about the OBOD. Is that okay?" - That is not on the table. That is on the backburner. I'm a big fan of adding options. I don't understand why you'd take them away. --Onorem♠Dil 15:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I do think I'm adding to the conversation by adding my agreement that removing the bar was a bad idea. I want it back. Saying so adds to the conversation. If only one person says it, it's simply going to be ignored. It needs to be said more than once. --Onorem♠Dil 15:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a user and a developer, I would say that anything that gives people the tendency to nickname something the OBoD is something to get rid of ASAP. Seriously, if you want an OBoD, code a nice little JS to turn your own notifications into a nice personal OBoD, but including an OBoD should not be a future design strategy. As I stated before, I'm not opposed to bringing it back temporarily in order to fix the short term visibility issue, but that thing needs to go in the long term. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Until today, I'd never seen anyone ever call it that. I shouldn't have to code for myself something that already existed and was removed for no reason. --Onorem♠Dil 15:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry DJ, but that's a pathetic argument. Just because a few people give it a derogatory nickname doesn't mean the rest of us don't like it. Make it an optional extra - opt in, or opt out, I don't care either way. An optimist on the run!   15:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's an opinion. As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia is already an option maze and we shouldn't add more to it, just to cater to a few users. We should fix the problems and don't get stuck in old ideas simply because they are what we are used to. How many websites do you know to throw an orange bar in your face when someone is talking to you, other than MediaWiki ? It's an outdated concept from 2003 when we simply couldn't do any better. Echo isn't better YET, but it should be better and as soon as Echo is better, we need to get rid of that Orange bar, without a 'i wan't to be in 2003'-option. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest, what websites are you comparing WP with? I can't off-hand think of any that have the same need for users to promptly read messages to them. Rd232 talk 16:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd consider my talk page to be the equivalent of a private message system on a forum or the like. And in the forums I tend to visit, the notice that I have new messages is always obvious and in my face. Either a big red bar (Fark) or a pop-up message. I find that on sites that prefer subtle notifications (such as Twitter), I can visit many times over several days and never see that I have a direct message. Even on the Facebook notification format that obviously inspired this, I rarely notice the new messages on the website. I notice that I have new messages because it pops up on my phone. Resolute 01:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would seriously suggest taking talkpage notifications out of Echo immediately. That fixes the problem with both IPs and "where's my Orange Bar" for both occasional users and regulars, and reintegration in a way that everyone is happy with can then be discussed and implemented at leisure, on a separate page (this talkpage covering all issues is not a good place for detailed discussion of alternative designs). Rd232 talk 15:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable as an interim solution; I'll propose it :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about coloring the entire "menu bar" area ([username] [Talk] ... [Log out]) when there's an active notice, rather than relying on a small box? So if I had a new message, the background of that entire area of my screen would go red, or orange, or whatever. I think for many of us, the top right of the screen isn't an area our eyes spend much time on when we're using WP, so we may need a more significant kick in the pants to notice things there than we would elsewhere. Another idea I heard on IRC (I think from user:Nick?): make the fly-out automatic for [logged-out users|newbies|non-confirmed accounts], rather than expecting them to notice and click to see what's going on. A big ol' box opening up at the top of your screen is much more noticeable than a little red speck. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not make the orange bar an option in one's Preferences? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also reasonable, although I'd worry that if we create the option incoming users will play around with it - it's not just 'legacy' users we're hitting. Still worth bringing up, though :). Really what we need to do is increase the prominence of Echo, at least for talkpage messages, otherwise we've built something inferior to what it replaced. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why it would be a problem for incoming users to play around with it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, all, I've created a cookie-based user script at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js to try and replicate some of the OBOD functionality. Obviously it's not as good as the real thing, but it's not totally awful. Let me know if there are any bugs y'all find. (Obviously, it requires cookies to be enabled in your browser.) Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that's I very cool script. Thanks so much Writ Keeper! The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 15:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One of the things I hate about the technical side of WP is when a developer says something like "Seriously, if you want an OBoD, code a nice little JS". Oh yeh? Some people can do that - and they're probably doing it. Don't get me wrong - I used to program in COBOL but I changed my line of work and became a Apple Mac user instead of a PC coder. I've never had to learn JS or the current 'in' things. I would think that the number of regular editors who can just turn out a little JS thing in a couple of minutes is rather small compared to those who can't. Peridon (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the counterpoint to that is that it only takes one person to make the script; once they have, anyone of any level of technical ability can install and use it. (Of course, there's the question of how do you let people know that you've made the script; I know that spamming my orange bar script in different messages across multiple threads as I did made me feel uncomfortable.) But it's not a very good idea for the official developer to rely on JS widgets for important UI components like this; I know that my implementation of the orange bar is much less optimal than the normal one, and I hope to get rid of it when the orange bar is re-enabled. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think my personal preference would be to take talk page notifications out of Echo and maintain the orange message bar. An alternative would be to create a special flyout for talk page messages that automatically flies out. It couldn't be the current flyout which is far too intrusive. Ryan Vesey 17:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like Ryan's idea of a permanent flyout that cannot be dismissed implicitly, only explicitly. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 17:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please restore the orange bar for talk page messages. Why remove something that works so well.... --Enric Naval (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Can someone explain to me why talk p. messages cannot at least temporarily invoke the OBOD as well as the new system? I'm not a programmer, but it seems intuitively unreasonable that both could be triggered. (for talk p. messages--not the other notifications--I don't think anyone is asking for that). DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why can't we make a permanent flyout in the new notifications system that spans the width of the entire article and is, albeit optionally, orange or another prominent color? I think that this would probably alleviate everyone's concerns as briefly summarized by DGG, especially if this span was not as easily dismissible as normal notifications as suggested by Ryan. — RandomDSdevel (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. Really? I just got a notification that Cluebat III archived my freakin' talkpage. It's a bot marking the archiving process as minor. That means Echo shouldn't notifying me.—cyberpower ChatOffline 10:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Give me my orange bar back

That is all. Thanks. --Onorem♠Dil 14:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See #Update above :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why re-adding the OBOD (as an opt-out) would require taking talk page notifications out of Echo? Why can't it do both, for those that want it to? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it in the sense that, if Echo becomes opt-in then (once we've settled the interaction issues around toggling between them) Echo has essentially stopped dealing with talkpage messages. It can do both - but it seems clear that if we make Echo opt-in for this feature, it will probably remain forever opt-in :/. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have no problems at all with making Echo opt-out instead of opt-in; in fact, I don't even care if there is no opt out. Someone could probably write a javascript thingy if they really really hate the little square. I just want to make the OBOD opt-out. So everyone gets Echo, and everyone also gets the OBOD, unless they opt out. It sounds like you're saying if you opt in to the OBOD, you have to opt out of Echo. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, opt-out of Echo for talkpage messages, and then we have this conversation all over again in N months when we disable the opt. I'd note Rd's suggestion a few sections above to remove talkpage messages from Echo until we've got a proper solution; I'm going to propose that to the team, because I think it's totally worthwhile. In terms of what the solution is, any ideas for 'things that would increase prominence but are not OBOD-y' would be most appreciated :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a meatball:ForestFire; I'm not sure where to comment anymore, so I'll keep doing it here I guess. Rd's idea for now seems a good one, but I just want a clear answer to this: is it technically impossible to have talk page notifications included both in Echo and in something like the OBOD, or is it just what those in charge of this new interface want? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More the latter, I think - but I'd add the caveat that I am most certainly not a dev. I write in R and Python. MediaWiki makes my eyes hurt. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented there. My request stands. Please give me my orange bar back. --Onorem♠Dil 15:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Could you explain why the orange bar is the only acceptable option to you? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. Give me an annoyingly obvious visual notification that there is a message. You can format it however you'd like, but I don't want a tiny notification that can easily be missed. Seeing as the orange bar has worked for years, that seems like a good option. I don't want the new option to be less noticeable in any way. The 'only' plus I see to this is that the people who still think the fake new messages bar is funny will have to finally come up with a new joke. Could you explain to me why the orange bar is not acceptable? --Onorem♠Dil 15:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's more helpful; I agree that increasing prominence is paramount. The orange bar itself takes up almost too much room, and doesn't fit within the wider workflow for notifications, which are the issues. Having said that, I am in total agreement that the notifications workflow needs to do a lot better at making talkpage messages prominent - otherwise we've effectively replaced something with a more inferior alternative. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any way to have the orange bar along with the new system? After all, I think the bar was more noticeable than the new method (although I can't say for sure as I have yet to get any new notifications under the present system). AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We're discussing ways to resolve it - see #Update above. It may or may not be possible to have both, but I'd suggest what we should focus on is "ways to make it more prominent that are not the orange bar", noting that we always have the orange bar as a backup if we can't think of any. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are parallels here with the move to the Vector skin, aren't there? This is a bit like switching everyone from Monobook to Vector, instead of introducing Vector as an additional option and letting people stick with Monobook if they want. It ought to be possible for Echo to do an Orange Bar for talkpage notifications just as the current system does (but integrated into Echo to ensure it all links up with notifications going to zero, etc). If it's one of a number of design options given to users, then everyone can be accommodated, and in particular newer designs can be the default. Rd232 talk 15:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's a parallel - what we seem to disagree on is whether the way the Vector rollout was handled is a Good Thing. Now, personally, I use monobook everywhere; I can't stand Vector. I find that it hides editor-centric features that are, to me, very important, in favour of providing a reader-centric view. But a bit of me feels like the switch meant we avoided having difficult conversations about Vector, and it suffered as a result. I don't want the same to happen to Echo, for example. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, all, I've created a cookie-based user script at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js to try and replicate some of the OBOD functionality. Obviously it's not as good as the real thing, but it's not totally awful. Let me know if there are any bugs y'all find. (Obviously, it requires cookies to be enabled in your browser.) Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; perhaps we should hire you as a developer in place of the current ones. The situation with Vector is a great example of what we should have done here — we changed the default without disabling the old version. Why can't we do the same here? Nyttend (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the old skins makes every new feature for MediaWiki take twice as long to develop. There's a reason other websites don't keep old features - it builds up technical debt until it is impossible to deploy any new feature to the site, which is basically what's been happening to MediaWiki over the past several years. Kaldari (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between at some point abandoning support for some little-used old skins after a couple of years of something better being well-established and used by most, and suddenly switching it for everyone, even before it's had time to get bedded in. Seriously: if old skins are an issue, then consider abandoning support for them (begin by taking them out of preferences, so you can only access them some special way, like putting a line in your common.js). Doing it gradually and with plenty of notice and clearly better alternatives is OK, whereas doing it suddenly, without clear notice and not clearly better alternative is not. Rd232 talk 20:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, I wouldn't be so blasé about this. Removing skins with <1% usage has taken months to work out logistically. Monobook usage is so high that it doesn't even enter into that conversation. The way the Vector rollout was handled meant that it was never improved to the point where Monobook could be replaced for the vast majority of our power users. Supporting Monobook as a requirement is a technical debt that we'll never likely get rid of. -- tychay (tchay@wikimedia) (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the main issue in the "bring back OBOD" discussion is the prominence of echo notifications doesn't approach OBOD prominence, and maybe special prominence when it contains a talk page notification. Would be nice if that were addressed right in Echo to make it useful instead of turning Echo into the "notification stream of crap I don't care about" which would certainly happen if we made it optional. (BTW, statistically OBOD only has a 50% clickthrough for IP users, so while visually ugly, it isn't that prominent) -- tychay (tchay@wikimedia) (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting - suggesting that messages, at least for IPs, need to be more prominent, not much less. And if WMF was willing to take talkpage notifications out of Echo temporarily whilst a new design is worked out in collaboration with the community, that would be useful data for discussion. As it is, it seems we must humbly await whatever it is that will be bestowed upon us. Rd232 talk 15:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a better explanation of how they collected their data? I like having the new messages bar. I almost never clicked on it directly to look at my new messages. I almost always go to the history from my watchlist when it pops up...and just because people don't care enough to click doesn't mean it isn't prominent. --Onorem♠Dil 22:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want the orange bar?

Adding an RfC. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reading TheDJ's latest comment above, I almost get the feeling that those who want the orange bar are going to be treated like they don't count. He argues that creating an option to allow users to have the orange bar would be catering to a few users and his statement that "we need to get rid of that Orange bar, without a 'i wan't to be in 2003'-option" indicates that the wishes of orange bar proponents are being ignored. It almost sounds to me like the message is that they should be allowed to change things without our input because they know better and they don't want their website to look outdated. However, it seems to me that if the editors want an orange bar, they should get an orange bar. After all, they're the ones for whom the notifications system is being designed. So, the question becomes: do we want to have the option of retaining the orange bar? Because if we do, our wishes should be honored. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC) (to clarify: I am not saying that the orange bar has to be the only option. I merely wanted it to be one of the options. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 20:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I don't understand how TheDJ's comment has any implication as to what'll happen to proponents of the orange bar; TheDJ is not associated with the Echo development team any more than you are. Let me be clear as to our perspective on Echo, and on the orange bar:
  • We need a way of surfacing notifications to the community. At the moment, this mostly doesn't happen, so we've built echo to solve for that. One of the areas where notifications do happen, however, is in relation to talkpage messages; those are currently surfaced very prominently via the orange bar. Conceptually, it makes a lot of sense to build talkpage messages into Echo - having notifications split over lots of different avenues is what's happening now, and if we don't solve for that we haven't built very useful software - but I have repeatedly noted to the product team that at the moment, our solution is actually worse than the existing features when it comes to talkpage messages, even if it's better for everything else.
  • So the solution is: find a better way, a more prominent way, of surfacing talkpage messages. This could certainly be the orange bar: that's an option available to us. But, riddle me this - is anyone who wants the orange bar actually wanting it because its attribute of "being an orange bar" is paramount to how they work, or because its prominence - how apparent it makes talkpage messages - is paramount to how they'd work? I strongly suspect it's the latter, and comments both below and above ("yes, or something equally as visible", for example) seem to go in the same direction.
  • Finding a way to make this work is of paramount importance to us; it's worth noting that with most of the developers (and all of the designers) living on PST, they've only just woken up. Once they've got into the office and had a chance to talk/think about this, I'd hope they'd have at least mock-ups for a solution later today. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's no problem. I'm used to it. As much as as Wikipedians are used to be blamed for any piece of bad content that is on Wikipedia. People like to think in monoliths. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver, on your second bullet point -- from where I sit, it is absolutely about it being an orange bar. I think we are disconnecting here: you seem to be focused on whether or not the new system is an improvement. But my concern isn't about whether we are getting to a better place, but how we get there.

Removing the orange bar (as it has functioned for some time) without warning is a problem because there are tens of thousands of people in a learning process with Wikipedia, whose learning process is being disrupted by changing the feature without warning or explanation.

I don't think the orange bar has to live forever, but it does have to be preserved while a thoughtful transition is executed. -Pete (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that socialisation was not handled particularly well; the E2 should certainly have done a lot more work socialising the more prominent changes, and also addressing the rather obvious problem with switching from such a large notification to such a small one, even with informed (albeit probably begrudging) consent from the community. I don't think we're in disagreement on the second point; "it is familiar" is a different attribute from "it is orange" :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was more worried about engineering risks, like disruption of service because we were replacing talk page notificatiosn and people might have them dropped or some other degradation in Quality of Service. I still feel that had that happenned, it'd have been far worse than this ;-) - tychay (tchay@wikimedia) (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
E2? -Pete (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Editor Engagement team, that built Echo. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -Pete (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

  1. Personally, I see no reason why the orange bar should not be an option. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, or something equally as visible. 'Raising the prominence' doesn't describe enough how much they're willing to change from just having the tiny red box next to my user name. It should at least be an option. --Onorem♠Dil 16:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much everyone who isn't me, on the team, works and lives on Pacific Standard Time. It doesn't describe it enough because the people qualified to make this decision are all asleep :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oliver, I'm confused by this -- can you clarify? -Pete (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I'm confused ;p. Onorem objected to the fact that we had not described enough how willing we were to change the feature, as it stands now. My reply was that the Echo development team, minus myself and one of our developers, lives in San Francisco. It is currently 9:42am in San Francisco, and before now has been, well, less than that. The team has not yet had a chance to describe how willing we are to change the feature, because the team was not awake. I cannot make judgment calls on product direction on my own. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading comprehension error on my end -- now resolved with caffeine intake. -Pete (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't things be rolled out when people are awake to respond to them. I guess I'm not sure exactly what time this launched. My 'raising the prominence' was actually commenting on the statement made by Eloquence. Once again, I still don't understand why you have to take something away to introduce something new. If I opt-out of Echo, will I get my bar back? (I'm assuming that's tied to fixing the unacceptable lack of notification for IP users. Did you really not test this idea with anyone who wasn't logged in?) --Onorem♠Dil 16:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly, which is why we launched it at about 1pm PST, giving several hours for problems to become obvious. I note that this issue was raised during that time period - we just (obviously) didn't have time to address it so late in the day. There is, I'd note, currently no opt-out for Echo. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I didn't notice it last night. (That's kind of a theme now. /tongueincheek) If I opt-out of every option for notification, I just get nothing? Do you know yet what the notification for IPs is going to look like? --Onorem♠Dil 16:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, I'd like to have the orange bar back, "on" by default, with a clear path to turning it off if and when a user is happy with using the new notification system instead. This seems like a no-brainer. Removing a core feature like the orange notification bar shouldn't be done suddenly. -Pete (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lets unbreak the system and {{trout}} the dev who decided that killing the OBoD was a good idea. The visibility and impact of the OBoD is needed especially for new users and issues on their talk pages. Werieth (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Of course. A tiny [1] in the upper right corner is not a noticeable form of notification. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Duhh. We need to question Eloquence's willingness to participate in a consensus-built encyclopedia project, since he's basically said up above "We don't care what you want — you don't get it back". Nyttend (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Definitely. And as a default for new accounts. A bot can tell them how to stop it after they've been here long enough to be trusted to check their notifications. Peridon (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yes, per my comments on the above section. — Maile (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes, definitely as I've stated several times before. An optimist on the run!   17:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. While I have no problems with this system (save one minor issue I'll discuss elsewhere, if I can't find whether someone else has raised it), I think we should allow people to keep the old system in preferences, much as we allow them to keep older skins. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Yes, or something as least as conspicuous, as the default for IPs and newbies. No objection to an option for experienced users to turn it off. JohnCD (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Yes I consider talk page messages to be very important, and I would like a less subtle notification of them. -- tariqabjotu 17:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. As JohnCD says, if not the old system something at least as conspicuous. Tiderolls 17:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes A prominent notification of a new post on my Talk page is essential because Talk page notification is orders of magnitude more important than all the other stuff. The rest of the "notifications" are irrelevant irritations - my Watchlist is perfectly adequate "notification" for everything else. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yes I much preferred it, find it easier to miss the tiny Facebook-style notifications badge. I wasn't aware of this change until it was rolled out; talk about a solution in search of a problem. --John (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. +1 It's hard to overstate my Yes. And please explicitly tell the rest of us the net time you plan a change nearly as big as this. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. +1 I want a bar at the top of my screen every time someone posts on my talk page. I want it big and orange and I want it to instill a feeling of Doom in my heart if I don't click on the link in it to find out why it was there. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Yes, or something equally visible, as a turnoff-able option. I have non-standard colour vision, and a tiny little badge in a colour that most(?) people may see as a strong visual cue but I don't, isn't a functional replacement for a bright persistent bar that won't go away until I visit my talk page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This is a seriously important point - this change violates WP:Accessibility. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yup. And I already provided that input in the surveymoneky. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. +1 Yes, I agree with TheOriginalSoni, that it's hard to overstate how important it is to give some notice to the editors next time a change nearly as big as this is planned. Please bring back the Orange bar somehow. - tucoxn\talk 20:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Definitely. I like it; lots of other people like it; give us warning next time. (As a side note, I don't know if the IP-fix has also restored the bar for non-confirmed users; if not, that has to happen ASAP as well.) Ignatzmice•talk 20:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Yes It's hard enough to get new users to read their messages - they certainly will not see this one. Hey ho - more blocking will be the order of the day.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. +1 To me, I support thus wanting to have it badly. I choose orange because actually red and orange are sensitive to your brain; it can actually contribute caution (or urgent) to your brain. 𝕁𝕠𝕣𝕕𝕒𝕟𝕂𝕪𝕤𝕖𝕣22 (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. +1 I already stated why I would like one elsewhere but Technical 13 expresses it very well. — -dainomite   22:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. +1 The orange bar works. It works for me, it works for new users, it works for pretty much everybody. If you have something that works, then don't break it. Jheald (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. As much as I dislike the Facebookification of Wikipedia and want the Orange bar back, I do need the developers for other feature requests, so this is more of a feature request then a complaint. MBisanz talk 22:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy <expletive deleted> do I hate "Flow" in that article.— -dainomite   07:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If he thinks we're all going to post little photos to go with our posts, I'm afraid he's barking. Up the wrong tree, that is. Talk pages aren't putting new editors off. It's things like trying to find where the hell you are in an edit window so you can actually do something. Soimething like Facebook and Twitter is OK for Facebook and Twitter. Why can't we stick to the encyclopaedia way and leave social media dumbing down (of finished results - not the edit window trouble) to social media? Peridon (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Yes and, considering the impact on communicating with new users, I think, unlkie MBisanz, that this is the highest priority thing for the developers to do (unless the wehile site goes down, or something of that magnitude). Considering the extraordinarily great preponderance of yeses, the time to do it is before tomorrow. Even if it means reverting the entire change, it should be done, and then the good other features added back selectively DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Yes. Reposting what I wrote elsewhere: With the orange bar, we knew it was a new user talk-page post, and a diff was offered to the last change, so we could get there with one click. Now, we see the little number has changed, but don't know why. One click tells us it's the user talk page. A second click takes us to the page. We then have to scroll down to find the new post or posts. The orange bar is particularly important for new users, who might otherwise not notice that people are speaking to them. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Yes, as a matter of urgency. AGK [•] 00:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Obviously. MER-C 00:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Absolutely. The Echo interface would have been a good supplement to the very obvious OBOD and giving the users the ability to use one, the other, or both should have been a no-brainer. Personally, I want the obvious notification. Resolute 00:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Yes, at least until diffs are available in Echo AND yes, until new users/IPs get a more prominent notification BY DEFAULT AND yes, until regular users can turn on the prominent notification as an option. SpinningSpark 00:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. +1 Yes - Now and forever. The OB should be an opt-out option, not removed by fiat. BRING IT BACK! (...please?) Manning (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Yes per AutomaticStrikeout and Technical 13. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. +1 Yes, please. Miniapolis 02:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Sort of. I dislike the orange bar but would prefer to see a much more prominent talk-page notification system than the one rolled out with Echo. I'm sure I could learn to live with squinting at my monitor each time I log in, but newbies failing to notice they have new messages is a huge concern, and I think this needs to be fixed asap. (Other than that, so far I think Echo is a great idea.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Make it default, and make it mandatory for IPs. Most of the time I drop a message on a user's talk page, I'm trying to get his attention. Lots of times, its the last step before I block him. That's why I'm leaving a message. I don't want to have to wonder whether a newbie is ignoring messages or just doesn't realize he's got one. —Kww(talk) 06:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. +1, +1, +1, +1, +1 Yes, yes, please. I got 3 notifications now, I was almost missing the talk page notification! --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Tito, you might want to use a +5. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    TheOriginalSoni, That's five times plus one, not plus five! --Tito Dutta (contact) 09:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Mathematically, its the same TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Linguistically, there is more emphasis on the individual +1s and thus would illustrate a more deeply held belief than +5. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Emphatic yes. I don't care if it's orange, vermillion, puce or heliotrope; I don't mind whether it's a bar, a banner, a flyout, a popup or an animated .gif of bunny rabbits frolicking in the snow; I don't give two hoots if it says "You have new messages", "Oi! Talkpage! Now!" or just "Guflurgle": just give me something that emphatically lets me know I've got a damn message. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Yes, everyone should have the option to keep the bar. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Yes, make the orange bar default for new users and IPs. I prefer the orange bar but it is okay if an option is included to turn it off for autoconfrimed users. --Hdt83 Talk 08:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Yes, with the choice of opting out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Definitely it's nuts to just remove the big oragne bar and replace it with a subtle tiny red box in the corner of the screen. The Orange Bar should be in addition to the red box. No need to remove that, just restore the perfectly good functioning Orange Bar please! GedUK  11:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Yes I am utterly disgusted with the removal of the orange bar without, AFAICT, any well publicized discussion. This proclivity of developers to foist some fundamental change on the community, done as a fait accompli, is a terrible problem. We should not wake up to one of the best features of the interface removed and then have to claw it back. That is not the way it should ever work, and this is iteration number... I've lost count.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Yes per my message below. Graham87 12:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Yes The orange bar should definitely be the default option. If someone doesn't like it, let them opt out of it, but the orange bar should be the default option. Sideways713 (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. I'd like it as an option. RJFJR (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I'm now more comfortable with the little red rectangle, but when it was implemented there was suddenly this unlabeled little red button and I'm there wondering "if I push this will I have to pay someone to install a little blue button to get me back down?" The little red rectangle isn't so bad once I figure out what it's doing and why it's different but the shock of the sudden change made me dislike it. I still like the big orange bar, but I could, eventually, get used to the little red rectangle. RJFJR (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong yes as a default option with an opt-out option. It can be hard enough to get new editors to start communicating and not being sure they actually saw the message, doesn't help. Lova Falk talk 15:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Yes, with the option of switching off. Let everyone decide for themselves what works best for them. Victor Yus (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Opt-in An opt-in option won't hurt anyone. Although, I won't enable it for myself. nerdfighter 16:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Yes The new notification isn't sufficient. This isn't Facebook. Coretheapple (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Yes The notifications doesn't work properly. had 2 messages on my talk, but notifications showed only 1 as unread. Redtigerxyz Talk 18:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Yes (I only clicked the little grey 0 to find what the hell it was...) I don't get it very much, but I like the orange bar and find it really noticable when it does appear - even during an editing session. And I really don't want an email - I almost never use that mail account. This notifications thing seems to me an easy way to miss that someone has left me a message - it is not in an area of the page I normally look at and if the notification number stays the same colour as the 0 I really doubt I'll ever notice it for weeks. Astronaut (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. It should be the default option at least until the developers come up with some sort of improvement to Echo's talk page notification that has been tested and accepted by the community. I'm finding it virtually impossible to deal with anons and new users at the moment because I have no idea whether they have any reasonable chance of realising that they have messages. And I'm finding it awkward to spot the things myself. Like it or not, user talk pages are right at the hub of the Wikipedia community and anything that makes them less efficient to use is retrograde. Comestic/appearance come a distant second to practical/functionality. Furthermore, all this twaddle about "surfacing" and "socialising" etc is making my brain hurt. Any chance of people speaking in plain English instead of elitist management-speak? And is there any chance that the development team will stop imposing stuff from above with little or no consultation? I am among the apparent many who were aware of Echo but thought that the bar would be retained, and now that it has gone we are presented with a fait accompli in the FAQ, along the lines of "there are no plans to reinstate the orange bar". Are developers somehow exempt from consensus? If so, should they be? - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, the "there are no plans" and "yes we hear you, give it a few days and all will be well" are seriously irking. Is there any reason we can't have the orange bar back NOW, until the devs/WMF/whoever get something similar in place? Ignatzmice•talk 20:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Yes - It should be optional for those users who want to retain the previous setup. In fact, I see absolutely no reason why this shouldn't be an option - if you don't want it, don't opt to use it. I would object to this being forced on all users, however. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Yes - while I like the new system, it is not prominent enough and makes it easy to miss important messages. At the very least, the OBOD should be an opt-in preference. Also, new users who make unwanted edits may not notice it and will therefore not receive their warnings. This could lead to an increase in blocks. Oddbodz (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Yes The orange bar should be the default for IP editors and newbies, and available as an option for others. It is the difference between "Excuse me, sir, you're making a mess of the encyclopedia" and "YO! STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING BECAUSE YOU'RE FUCKING UP!" — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Yes - default to having the bar with opt-out being an option in preferences for those that don't want it. I would like to know if my talk-page was edited as soon as it happens. Additionally, the email I began to receive with the header You have a new talkpage message is not as useful as the previous Wikipedia page User talk:Valley2city has been changed by _____ and I would like that reverted as well. Valley2city‽ 20:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Yes - My heart rate does increase in fear when I see it, but in some cases that is the desired effect. How else do you notify other users (esp. newbies) to stop their actions immediately? I would vote that OMOD should be an opt-out. Another option would be to include a checkbox "Notify the user" similar to "This is a minor edit" and "Watch this page" when editing in user talk page. YLSS (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. The notification that you have a new message needs to be very obvious and hard to ignore, especially for new editors. If someone leaves a warning for a new editor, they need to know that the new editor is going to notice it. A tiny icon at the top of the page changing from grey to dark red isn't adequate. We don't necessarily need an orange bar, but we do need to have something equally obvious. Furthermore I don't think a response of "we are considering options for addressing this" is adequate: this is a serious issue with widespread implications that should have been addressed before the feature was rolled out, not at some undefined point in the future. Hut 8.5 22:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, exactly. "Don't worry your pretty little heads about it, we're sure you'll love this next one!" is not okay. Howzabout we get the orange bar back NOW, and then whatever new plan can supplant it once they've got it. Gggrrrrrgrr. Ignatzmice•talk 22:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Yes as default, with opt-out available in preferences. Peter James (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Yes. By default the orange notification that "you have new message" is very useful, especially for new editors. --Dede2008 (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Most emphatically yes - this new "tiny obscure thingie seemingly designed to be missed up there in the corner" is no substitute; and it looks gimmicky, like it was ganked from Google+. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Return to orange bar as default and make the new notification an option in feauture.TMCk (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Yes - anything that promotes interaction between editors is A Good Thing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oh, come on — I've always loved the orange banner! Bring it back! Kurtis (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Yes. I want the return of the orange banner and I will continue to happily use my watchlist and contributions list to keep up with what I care to be informed about. Fylbecatulous talk 02:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Do want. I went ten, maybe twenty pages before I noticed the weenie red box tucked away in the top corner of my page. The orange box made a statement. It let you know authoritatively that someone had conversed with you. You took notice of the orange box. You respected it. And now it's gone. At least make it the default with option to opt-out for non-IPs. Deadbeef 02:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Yes, by default. Personally I prefer using Echo because it looks more elegant and also has more features like notifying when someone has tagged you in a post, but it's way too easy to miss. Ideally, we would have an orange "You have new messages" bar which also advertises the fact that you can switch, e.g. "Don't like this annoying banner? Click here to change your preferences." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Yes Need an option to turn this on, preferably on by default. I don;t get much activity on my talk page. I want something to grab my attention when a new message is there. Some of the "no" comments say its intrusive. I agree, but I want it instrusive so it is hard to miss. Let folks who don't want it opt out. Don't take it away from folks who find it useful. I also agree with the comments about IP messaging. RudolfRed (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Yes, it should be an option that can be allowed to be turned on or off by the user in their preferences or in their Notifications preferences. — Cirt (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73. It must remain the default. In response to Okeyes' riddle, it works as well as it does because a lot of people despise the look of it; I think an aesthetically pleasing solution, however prominent, would be less effective. I'm comfortable with enabling people to opt out, and would consider it myself. But for me the crux of the matter is that someone who has received a talkpage message and continues editing should be treated as though they have seen the big orange bar. —WFC— FL wishlist 06:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74. If I'm doing something wrong I'd like to know immediately so I can stop. The orange bar does just that. I always stop what I'm doing to check what it is. All the other notifications can wait. I have my watchpage which I can check myself as and when I need to. I have set up the new notification system to give me a daily summary (as a starting point - I may move that to weekly). I do not want to wait for a day or a week to be told that I have just accidently deleted someone's user page. The orange bar is important - and talkpage notices should not be confused in with other notifications. At the very least there should be an option to keep the orange bar, and if the official developers don't understand that, then someone who does understand will hopefully write up a script quickly, and let everyone on this page know. SilkTork ✔Tea time 06:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Per Hut 8.5. The tiny notification is hardly noticeable (even when you know it's there – like several commenters above, I also didn't notice my first notifications until after a few minutes) and that is not sufficient in a context where you need to get a particular editor's attention to a message as quickly as possible (e.g. warnings). Chamal's sock SockMaster•C 06:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  76. I trained a class of new users yesterday. As an experiment, I left each of them a talk page message while they were editing, but didn't tell them. Not one of them noticed, during the following four hours; in previous classes, people have noticed the orange bar immediately. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The same with another bunch of trainees today. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Personally I'd turn off the orange bar in favour of a less-prominent notification, but it or something equally prominent must be the default for new editors; it was hard enough getting them to find their talk pages as it was. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  78. New users in particular are much less likely to notice the tiny red box, and then get blocked for failing to respond to warnings. That isn't fair. The orange bar is annoying because it needs to be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  79. On occasion good faith new users have ended up having to be blocked because they blissfully violate content policies while not noticing the big orange bar. Logically it's only going to get worse with a tiny red square. The argument that it's 2013 and we're using a 2003 interface doesn't address the important fact that we also have a "2003" contribution policy: the "modern" sites require registration and email verification before allowing folks to post, so it's relatively easy to contact them if the violate a site's Terms of Service (TOS). Since we don't require that, we need an "in your face" attention getting mechanism by default. Once users figure out that they have a talk page, then opting out of the orange bar is a cool feature. NE Ent 12:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Yes The current implementation is not nearly attention grabbing enough. I would prefer something as or more prominent than the orange bar was. Preferably enormous and obnoxiously colored. This is especially important for new users. After all, it took me half an hour to notice the new Notifications tool when I logged in earlier; there seems to be little hope that a new editor would even realize it exists. Sophus Bie (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, due to my preference for browsing with javascript disabled, my notifications consist of a small number, with no red. I didn't expect the flyout to work, and I'm okay with that, but the lack of any highlighting whatsoever is an issue. Sophus Bie (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Yes; removal of it makes redundant the entire series of IP warnings and makes it very unlikely that they're ever going to find out about their warnings. We need something appallingly obnoxious; the orange bar is not good enough.--Launchballer 12:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The "orange bar is not good enough"? You are in fact voting to bring the orange bar back, at least as an option right? --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying we need a bar. The current one isn't flashy enough - something like this would be much better.--Launchballer 19:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Strongest possible yes - I may be an old fuddyduddy, but the OBOD does its job and I see no valid reason to get rid of it as an option.--ukexpat (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Yes – I share a lot of the sentiment above. New users and IP's benefit from having a blatantly obvious notification streaming across the top of the page when someone has posted on their talk page. The new Echo notification has its advantages, but the problem, evidenced by so many 'Yes' replies thus far, is that the new format appears to branch off in an entirely new direction when it comes to talk page notification. It's not an upgrade from the previous format, but instead is an entirely new approach. A technical person in nature has a tendency to attribute the negative feedback as "resistance to change" before taking the time to fully understand the position. I think that's all we're asking for at this point: time. Let's embrace the desire to improve Wikipedia and its tools, but let's not ignore ideas and principles established throughout the process. Jumping to a different tangent as if we're starting from ground zero can project the notion of reckless abandonment. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Yes. This shouldn't even be a discussion--this is an editor retention issue. A new user will NOT see the number change from one to zero. Assume this is a good faith new user who doesn't understand one of our hundreds of very important but also very non-intuitive rules, and a veteran editor is trying to tell them about this rule. Well, they're never see the message. And then the veteran editor(s) have no choice but to escalate to warnings, and eventually to a block. Now this new user is blocked after having received, from their position, absolutely no warning. Who wants to hang around a website like that? To be honest, I'd love it if non-confirmed users got an orange bar that filled the entire page. We should be increasing the prominence of this message, not decreasing it. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree the Product team needs to come up with a reasonable solution, both for the sake of newcomers and experienced editors. But research showed last year (or the year before, iirc?) that actually, the big orange bar only has a 50 percent clickthrough rate. It's big, and obnoxious, and it occupies the space that (on every other site) is an advert inviting people to punch the monkey and win a prize. It's actually not that effective, because users screen it out. What we need is for them to quickly develop a replacement - something that is noticeably not just more prominent but also better at getting users to pay attention. The current system, quite reasonably, I'd argue, is not being interpreted as doing that (and we don't have the data to show differently). But the OBOD isn't very good at it either. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really mean "clickthrough"? Does this mean "people who click on the hyperlink contained within the orange bar? How do you account for users, such as me, who go direct to their talk page when the bar appears rather than clicking on it? - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never ever, not even once I think done a click through. The bar is there to announce a message on the user page and that's where I go to find the message. So that data might be meaningless. fwiw. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You say the orange bar is "obnoxious", as though that was a problem. It's meant to be obnoxious, for pity's sake, in order to get people's attention. If the design team are redesigning it to be less obnoxious, they are totally missing the point of its purpose, like changing the red traffic-light to a soothing pale lavender-pink because it's prettier and red might alarm drivers. I don't think a 50% click-through is surprising: I quite often go straight to the talk page, and not infrequently finish something else first, but I certainly take notice, exactly because it's obnoxious and persistent, and I greatly doubt that anyone "screens it out". For data on the current system, see #76 above, where Andy Mabbett reports that not one of a class of newbies noticed the new notification in four hours. JohnCD (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If clickthrough is going to be the measure of effectiveness, let's have the clickthrough figures for RSOL (red square of life) to compare to OBOD. There is every chance that they are a damn sight worse. Frankly, I think 50% is pretty good in my opinion. I too frequently do not click through, especially when I am working through my watchlist and can see who the message is from and how urgent it is from the edit summary. By the way, is RSOL marking the messages as read after the talk page is visisted without clicking through? SpinningSpark 06:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Yes. New editors and IPs need to have this by default. They aren't going to notice the number. I have a hard time noticing the number. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I should probably clarify here...I love the new notification system. Keep it just the way it is; just add the orange bar back as a default notification for talk page posts. (I don't oppose an option to turn it off.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  86. I'd really prefer it if we had the option to revert back to the old orange bar for new talk page messages while using the new notification system for the other things (mentions, etc.). Also, per Adjwilley, we really ought to have the orange bar as the default for talk page messages, since new editors aren't likely to notice it (as well as anonymous editors w/ problematic edits requiring talk page interaction. The orange bar is much more noticeable and, to be quite honest, I like it better. Call me old and out of date if you must, but I miss the orange bar already. Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Yes, please! At least give the option to use it. J04n(talk page) 17:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Yes - the orange bar is hard to ignore, but not visible when working (writing) in the edit window, easy to remove when the message is retrieved (not now possible w/ the red thing staring in the face), and generally should be kept. As a side issue, having an orange bar notifiying talk page messages is benign, the current notifications in my view encourages edit warring. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Yes - I have missed several talkpage notifications. The force of talkpage notifications has been negated. Everything else is accessible through my watchlist. This has been presented as a fait accompli and there was insufficient notification and opportunity for discussion. This is not simple conservatism.--SabreBD (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Yes if... it is the default to have it (for new users) and it can be turned off (for those of us that hate it). Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Yes - At least as an option as the number can be easily missed - I agree that the orange bar ought to be on by default for this reason. CT Cooper · talk 20:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Yes The red box is not eye-catching enough. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Yes Nobody asked me if I wanted this notification rubbish. Give me the orange bar back please, and please allow me to turn the notification thing off altogether. Parrot of Doom 22:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  94. I've been known to overlook "tiny little number" notifications on internet forums for a year or two. The orange bar is a whole lot harder to miss. --Carnildo (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Yes Geoff Who, me? 23:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  96. +42 - I love the orange bar. I always noticed it. It literally took me two hours to notice that I had received a message on my talk page because of the little red box. Some people may not like it, but there should be an opt-out option in Preferences. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 01:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Yes! Please, bring it back! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Yes. The tiny little notification number is very easy to miss if you're just having a quick look on WP - especially when you've got used to the big orange banner. Sure, the old banner was intrusive - but that's because it's supposed to be intrusive. Nothing worse than suddenly discovering you've had an urgent request for admin assistance sitting on your talk page for three days... Grutness...wha? 05:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Yes There's no reason I can see why we shouldn't have the OBOD and Echo both running simultaneously. I like Echo a lot, but I also think that the OBOD should be standard for all users to make new messages clear and readily apparent. As many people have noted above, the whole point of a message notification is to be as intrusive as possible, and while the new features Echo introduces are really cool, the loss of the "LOOK AT ME! YOU HAVE A NEW MESSAGE. READ IT YOU FOOL" effect is a bad thing. --Jayron32 06:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Definite, strong, eternity Yes The best is to extinguish Echo totally once and for all, and restore the OBOD. BTW, just placing

    #pt-notifications {visibility: hidden;}

    span#mw-badge-content {display: none}

    li#pt-notifications {display: none}

    on Special:MyPage/vector.css [or the appropriate CSS page for the skin you're using] blocks the Notifications box. Placing the code in User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js on Special:MyPage/vector.js will also restore the OBOD. Arctic Kangaroo 08:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  101. Yes this is needed for new people here, the symbol next to the name is too subtle to notice. The orange bar is obvious when it appears. We can have it opt out. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Yes Besides the comments made about getting the attention of newcomers, I find the tiny red box doesn't get my attention sufficiently. I'm not absolutely wedded to the orange bar per se, but we know it works, so why change it? Mangoe (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Orange bar!! Red Slash 15:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Yes - Looks like this page could use another "yes" :P Mlpearc (powwow) 16:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Yes - I really like the orange bar...Just bring it back. MaskedHero (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Yes. I need to know immediately if I screw up, and I won't notice a little red +1 thingy. the bar, or something equally conspicuous is needed. Personally, I'd favor having a click through pocture of dante's hell, with the meme You just screwed up, inspect the damage on your talk page, but that's just me. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Yes. The orange bar is needed to call to people's attention that they have a message. If someone is a new user and editing inappropriately, and they get a message to warn them of their errors, that needs to be brought to their attention overtly, not subtly. Could users be given the option to turn off the orange bar in favor of a more subtle notification? I suppose. But the default needs to be a big conspicuous notice, like an orange bar. (As to the statistic that only 50% of users click through the orange bar -- how many of the non-clickers were editors who ever came back to Wikipedia at all? We have lots of "hit and run" editors who make one or two edits to the encyclopedia and never come back.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Yes. I read through the above and I can't find if anybody mentioned this but not only is the new notification system too small but it completely ignores the fact that some people are color blind and will not see the red in the dot. Now some people won't have seen the orange either but they will have noticed the huge bar across the top of their page that is not there unless you have a new message. MarnetteD | Talk 21:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Strong YES. Orange bar
    You have new messages (last change).
    is much more noticeable than this gray number. Teyandee (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Yes - First get the orange bar back, then look at possible options to make it more prominent through echo. After that make the orange bar a preference. Eloquence blunt refusal is not the right way to do this. Garion96 (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Yes - The FAQ for notifications flatly states "We're not planning to bring the OBOD back nor to make it available as a preference". So it seems they don't give a damn whether we want it or not. A central part of developing software use to be listening and responding to the people the software is being written for. Personally I find it most unpleasant trying to remember to squint at this coy little "notification" hiding away somewhere at the top of my screen. A notification should notify, otherwise its not a notification. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Yes. Looking at the "No" side, the main argument seems to be "It's new!"... But change as such is a bad thing (for example, it results in confusion) and should be offset with something good - yet little evidence of that is provided. Second argument is "The orange bar interrupts my work!". But "that's a feature, not a bug". When I get a message, I am supposed to stop whatever I am doing and deal with the message first. For all I know, it is going to tell me that I am causing trouble and should stop. Third argument strangely seems to be "It is not noticed by the users." - I wonder how that is supposed to work with the second argument... Finally, the argument "It was ugly!"... Well, perhaps in such case the Foundation could hire a good artist who would make it more beautiful instead? So, it doesn't look like there was a good reason for a change... Of course, it doesn't mean that the world is going to end if the change stays (as a Lithuanian proverb says, "Šuo ir kariamas pripranta." - "A dog also adapts to being hanged."), but it would seem to be better to avoid it... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Yes. I'd love having the orange bar itself back (because I'm a stickler for sameness), but I'd settle for an as-prominent notification. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Yes. It should be available as a preference for established users — I would turn it on, because I find it too easy to miss new messages with the new system. And it should be the default for IPs and new users, because it should not be easy for them to ignore warnings. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Yes, or something similarly noticeable, as a default for all users and mandatory for IPs.  Sandstein  07:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Yes - the new system doesn't give enough emphasis to new messages, users should have the option to use a system that does. --W. D. Graham 09:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Yes, definitely, for all of the reasons given above. Notifications of new talk page messages are far less visible without the orange bar. Prioryman (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Yes! - While the new notifications system works like a charm, the orange bar is still a good way to know someone has left a message on your talkpage. However, I think that it should be a preference: by default, it should be on, but it can be disabled. Also, should it be brought back, something needs to be changed so that edits by SineBot don't count as a new message. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Yes - I usually don't comment on these technical proposals as I generally don't care about the changes and/or can't provide a long, detailed reason for my opinion on a feature. But to me, keeping the orange bar (or at least the availability to opt-in) is just common sense for me. The only notifications I ever really get are additions to my user talk page as I am not an admin or a bot user. But the only way I would have noticed a change to my user talk page was the fact that I saw a change in my watchlist. Luckily, this time it was just the dopey disambiguation bot, but in the future, it could be a user asking an important question. I hope the admins reconsider this awful decision to "We're not planning to bring the OBOD back nor to make it available as a preference." —Mr. Matté (Talk/Contrib) 18:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC) – I don't think they are operating as admins here. I think they are paid for behaving this way. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Absolutely. I don't mind getting new features that may or may not turn out to be helpful. I don't even mind this much if, as seems to be the case, they impact some of our processes (see #Sockpuppet investigations). With the exception of obnoxious howlers such as the "wikilove" stuff, I don't even mind getting useless new features. And I don't care about the precise colour of the bar or whether it appears at the top or on the side. But replacing it by something inconspicuous was a remarkably stupid idea. I want it back. Those who are currently in charge of design have proved their incompetence; I don't trust them to come up with something equally functional. Hans Adler 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Yes As stated above, swapping a UI component without notification (pun intended) is a bad idea. Reinstate it as the default and give users the option to decide which one they want to use. — MrDolomite • Talk 03:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Jawohl - The new notification system is far less noticeable to both newbies and established users alike. At least keep the new system for reversions and the like; but keep the OBOD for all new messages. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 03:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Yes. I think Echo is just great. It's working just fine for me, and find it very useful. But I remember what is was like to be a new editor:
    • I had no idea that there were notability guidelines
    • I had no idea that there were heaps of other policies and guidelines
    • I was unaware that that articles had talk pages
    • I was unaware that that I had a talk page
    • For maybe a year, when I saw (top) (now (current)) for an page on my watchlist, I thought is meant that I had edited a page by clicking on its title instead of on a section in the page
    The orange message bar was the way I found about these things and much more, through messages from other users. I wouldn't have known what in the world a little number next to my username meant, and quite possibly would have ignored it.
    Very strongly support bringing back the orange message bar, making it the default for all users, with Echo as an opt-in alternative.
    --Shirt58 (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Bring it back! It was one of the greatest and most beautiful thing on Wikipedia! If possible make it an 'opt in', with default set to yes.Vanischenu (alt) 12:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Yes, please! - Thus far, I've missed 3 talk page messages because I don't have my pretty blue bar in place (I have a css hack in place to make it blue). It really helps to have it there. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 18:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Strong yes. Orange bar Elfalem (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Yes - This needs to remain the standard. With the orange bar, I notice talk page messages immediately. With the red dot, I notice them twenty minutes later. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Yes -- Of all of the user interface changes to make. I understand the desire to be hip or like FB or ... whatever the thinking was, but not everyone is thinking that way. Let it be (for now) the default option, that can be turned off, or selected, and then in a couple of months change the default to off UNLESS THE USER HAS ALREADY TURNED IT ON! Friends don't let friends make interface changes like Facebook does. htom (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Not necessarily the orange bar, but something more visible, whether in Echo or not. Should be opt-out. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  130. +1 Armbrust The Homunculus 12:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No

  1. Based on AS's explanation below that this a "yes" here is intended to be "yes keep the orange bar exactly as it was, forever", I'm going to say No here. Yes, I support a much-more-visible-than-currently notification option than Echo currently has, and yes, the devs need to squash the "IPs get no notification at all" bug post haste, but once that bug is fixed, Echo is a vast improvement over a bar that impedes page functionality. Any such notification should be implemented within Echo (whatever form that notification ends up taking), since it can be (presumably) done there with all the qualities of visibility and intrusiveness that OB lovers appreciate. Why preserve the legacy, more-awkward way? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it really impede functionality that much? Looking at your talk page, you got about 1.3 new messages bars daily. Did the orange bar really disrupt your ability to use Wikipedia as an editor or a reader? (1.3 assumes that at no point did you have multiple messages left between checking your talk page.) --Onorem♠Dil 16:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only speak for myself, but yes, I have often found myself opening a page, putting my mouse or eyes where I thought a link, infobox, etc would be, and instead finding myself clicking on some random block of orange that has appeared. No, it doesn't keep me from functioning and render me gibbering senselessly, but yes, it's a substandard system in my eyes to anything else that doesn't shove page content aside. Move the orange bar up to the menu bar, fine. Turn my page background orange, fine. But why mess with the placement of the content I care about, if there's a better way? That's why I asked below what you guys are so tied to - is it the orange? the rectangle? the pushing-down-page content? Many of these things are fine with me, but not to the point where I think we need to maintain a legacy system doing them when Echo can do them in an integrated manner. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never had that happen. I've had problems with fundraiser banners doing that, but I can't say I've ever had an issue with the orange banner disrupting my ability to navigate a page in nearly 7 years. I'm not against a better way. I'm against getting rid of the current way when it isn't being replaced by a better way. Don't break it until you have the fix ready. --Onorem♠Dil 16:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had problems with the "new" toolbar loading slowly and doing that, and finally just turned off the toolbar, which I never use anyway. But I also have never had the orange bar do that. I don't think the orange bar jumps things down the way the toolbar and fund-raising banner do…does it? It's not Javascript loaded, is it? Maybe this is browser dependent? -Pete (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots of us orange-bar-lovers are interested in seeing the bar available as an opt-out thing. Can't speak for others, but I at least see no reason for you to be stuck with it if you don't want it. Why would you object to an optional bar? Nyttend (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I can sympathize with Okeyes's concern expressed above that having it as an option requires the orange bar to still be officially supported by the WMF, creating another thing to maintain in addition to Echo proper. Obviously I don't think that's enough of a concern to override providing an option (if I did, I wouldn't have created a replacement orange bar script that I have to maintain now), but it's not an illegitimate point. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Well, because "optional" legacy features tend to...snowball, as far as user demands. If, two years down the road, the devs are ready to deply, I dunno, let's make something up, watchlists via Echo, or allow people to post to talk pages via Echo, or some tweak to the system that affects talk page notifications, the people who kept the legacy-version orange bar will pipe up: "No, you can't do that! It would break my orange bar!" or "Nooo this feature doesn't work with my orange bar, make it work!" and suddenly we have issues over deploying a new feature, because we have to accommodate legacy-users who refused the better option. This happened with skin deployments, if I recall correctly - oldie users are allowed tocontinue use Monobook as a legacy retained in the prefs, but the devs develop with an eye to Vector, because that's what everyone else uses. And when a new feature rolls out, users of legacy skins invariably raise holy hell and require extra dev (and script writer) time and resources to make things work with their preferred legacy format - because they're using something that's not developed for anymore, but they expect that something to continue working indefinitely. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They need to provide a better option before you can accuse legacy users of refusing a better option. Until then, all you are saying is they shouldn't listen to complaints now because at some point in the future, they might make a change that would lead to complaints. --Onorem♠Dil 17:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The team is, I'd note, listening to complaints - I'm pushing them to come up with a resolution today. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (darn it Oliver, stop edit conflicting me!) That's a valid point, Onorem. Everything I'm saying here is predicated upon my assumption that the WMF is and will be working on a better "you've got messages" format than the current red speck. I'm confident enough in the team to assume that they're already on that, so I'm comfortable saying that a better option will be available and the orange bar will be the worse option; I suppose YMMV as far as confidence that that's happening, and if you lack confidence that they'll fix this semi-bug, I can understand how you'd feel that the OB is a better option than what you expect to see in future Echo versions. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I do completely believe that. The godawful hours part a bit less. (It's only 9:42 AM? boohoo.) My comment was not a reflection of how I think you have handled this issue this morning. You're putting up with me and that's good enough for me. My comment was meant for fluffernutter's method of dismissing the complaints. --Onorem♠Dil 17:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    9:42am...PST. I don't live on PST, I work eight hours off it. My work time today lasts until 2am my time, and (theoretically) starts at 5pm. In practise I've been working on this issue since 11am. I would consider a 15 hour workday 'godawful', yes. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No, we don't need it, be gone oh 2003. Btw, this seems like a terrible place to hold this vote. Most people end up here giving feedback, which is generally skewed to criticism. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Where else would we hold it? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 19:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Let someone make a gadget. A number of editors who are used to the old format may be disgruntled, but just as with vector or a new change on Facebook, people quickly move on and forget what the old thing looked like. This is a convenient innovation and while some things should be worked out it is a very good implementation. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think a Facebook analogy applies -- the way Facebook approaches UI changes is different from Wikimedia's in too many ways to count, the primary one being a matter of resources. Also, I don't think many of us are concerned about our own notifications or ability to adjust (as experienced editors), but rather the experience of new and learning users. My concerns arise principally out of concern for my students, not my own editing experience. -Pete (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone can make a gadget to turn it on, I'll be happy for myself, but as Pete notes, it wouldn't help with getting the newbies' attention. Much better to make a gadget to turn it off. Nyttend (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Apart from shortcomings in the deployment, this is a big step forward. The OBOD made Wikipedia look as if it were designed by sixth-graders. older ≠ wiser 18:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK - it can be redesigned to look hi-tech (it looks fine to me, and I can't see any need for redesign) - just so long as it's there for getting through to new users. Peridon (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maybe "as well as", but not "instead of", Echo. Also, humourously, this has just been canvassed on IRC by TheOriginalSoni. — foxj 19:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I object. It was not canvassing for two reasons. First I was asking everyone at the IRC, and not aiming it at specific users [Hence it is not canvassing]. Secondly, the only reason I went to the IRC in the first place was "ask a question", not to ask everyone to join the fight. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not long after you posted your support here, you piped up on IRC: "Anyone here wants the orange bar back?" This is pretty clear-cut canvassing. — foxj 20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately, the poll is probably an exercise in futility. What else is new? Rd232 talk 21:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per TheDJ and Bkonrad. It's about time someone came up with some notification system brings that begins to look and feel like what one would expect on other websites. Some people need to step out of their walled garden and look at the rest of the interwebs. --MuZemike 22:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Should have been gone long, long ago. The new system is a vast and immediate improvement. Robofish (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The day the orange bar disappeared was the day Wikipedia finally did something right. Most IPs don't communicate, aren't interested in communicating, and their talk pages go mostly unanswered. I understand and acknowledge that the community needs a way to communicate with them, and I'm sure we will eventually have one, but the orange bar isn't needed for IPs nor is it needed for registered users. The notification system is the way forward, incorporates new features that allow us to work more efficiently and communicate more effectively, and presents us with a more adaptable but non-intrusive, streamlined interface that we need. This unhealthy desire for the "good old days" when the orange bar would scream across the top of the page like a bloodthirsty eagle bearing down on its prey isn't the way forward. This unfounded nostalgia for the stress-inducing orange bar that always interrupted whatever you were doing with the burning glow of a thousand suns never helped anyone and should not be brought back. Kill it, bury it, spit on it. Goodbye and good riddance. Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That orange bar is amazingly helpful to the community - all of us started out as IPs before we registered (even if only as a reader). I still regularly edit as an IP, and I am still pleased at how often I get the orange bar from someone taking the time to welcome me. Sure many IPs may not respond from an IP address, but how many of them went on to create an account? Without that data we may be doing the project a huge disservice. Manning (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The OBoD is straight out of Windows 3.1. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. (Speaking in a community capacity; I've had no real involvement in the project as a staffer.) I'm hugely glad that the ghastly orange box has gone. Especially because it doesn't work anyway - just like enwiki's hilariously-awful editnotices, which are similarly so 'visible' they trigger the 'this is an ad, please ignore' part of Web users' brains. I have faith that minor improvements to highlight the visibility of outstanding notifications will be sufficient. Regressing would be a huge mistake. James F. (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. No. I don't want plebs bothering me. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. People resist change. I understand that. I believe this system is an improvement and should be default. I have no issue with an option to include the orange banner, but would prefer it was not the default. WormTT(talk) 12:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Please don't revert back to the Orange bar for regular users. The new system is better and is least intrusive. Devs will figure out a way to prominently display the talk message notifications to IPs. — Ganeshk (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just IPs that's the problem. It's the new editors who won't think to look at their talk page, or won't notice this tiny little notification. And to all in this section - those of us who want the bar back for new editors aren't saying 'make it compulsory for all'. We're saying to make it compulsory for new users and let everyone else be able to turn it off. Not everyone has much to do with new editors. Some of us do. Not only warning them, but helping them become real editors by getting them to stop doing something they didn't know was wrong, and explaining how to do it right. I think those wanting 'not to be bothered with plebs' are taking a very short sighted view. Peridon (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also the non-trivial and (you would have thought) bindingly obvious point that making talkpage notifications equivalent to everything else in Echo gives users a strong incentive to turn off the other notifications, so that talkpage messages don't get overlooked. Which then reduces the whole thing to an expensive exercise in making things worse. This aspect of Echo is really a case of shooting yourself in both feet. Rd232 talk 15:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. In pre-Echo land, we have orange bar notifications, watch list notifications, watch lists themselves, fund-raising banners, etc. competing for attention in different ways. Users have de facto differentiation among different kinds of notifications. A unified system like Echo offers a great advantage if it pulls these things together, but a great disadvantage if it does so in a way that eliminates useful differentiation among them. The current two choices (web notification and email notification) might not be granular enough to get the job done. -Pete (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Can we move into 2013, please? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No objections, but the current situation is a bit like taking a wheel off the car to save on tyre wear... Peridon (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. No. The more different options we have for users, the harder it is for new ones to acclimate. Helping new users becomes harder: "When you get a talk page message you should see that orange bar pop up." "What orange bar?" "Oh, right, most people don't have that anymore." It also inhibits future development; how much interface development has been hindered by the need to continue supporting old skins? Powers T 17:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. No. - hahnchen 18:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. No. If you need a huge orange bar to tell you have a message... every time you have a message, then perhaps the accusation of this becoming a social network is really already embedded in the culture. I know...maybe we need that to be a panic bar with a sound effect of an alarm and have it blink? Nah....how about just accepting this as an improvement (which it is) and moving forward.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Besides being very useful for experienced editors, this is almost a necessity for newbies. Ignatzmice•talk 19:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh? Amadscientist, you have seen my talk page. Yes, there are comments that might reasonably be construed to be of a social origin (notably, concerning health issues) but I am already struggling without more prominent notification of changes because the vast majority of changes to my page are directly related to article improvement etc. The talk pages of people such as Drmies and Malleus Fatuorum are replete with many jests, jibes and arguably "social" comments but I suspect that the ratio is pretty much the same, and the placement is more high profile. We humans are social animals and you cannot get away from that but to vaguely suggest that the bar is somehow co-related to the accusation of WP becoming a social network is, well, unappealing and misplaced. Since the bar's replacement is pretty much cosmetically similar to what is in fact a social network ... the argument looks weak. - Sitush (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That is just so much bullshit really. You are a social networker yourself Sitush. You went to Malleus to tell him you mentioned him but couldn't be bothered to let me know you responded. Not in your social loop I guess. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What? You are already involved in this thread, whereas Malleus and Drmies are not. Mine was a courtesy note and, taking my cue from ANI, we don't go round informing people who are already involved that we have mentioned their name/replied etc. Your comment is procedurally invalid. - Sitush (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have frequently had messages which require urgent attention from me as an admin. Anything which makes it harder to see that these messages have arrived is not just a problem for me, but could lead to a situation which requires attention compounding. It isn't a case of "orange bar suggests social networking", its a case of "orange bar indicates something requiring attention". Changing it to an itty-bitty number which may indicate you've got a message, or just that someone has changed something you edited somewhere is akin to replacing a fire siren with a small indicator light that comes on when it's warm weather. Grutness...wha? 06:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I prefer the new, less intrusive system. Also, Powers makes a good point. --BDD (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you trying to force it on me? There's nothing close to serious support for requiring the orange bar; the idea is an optional thing that you can get rid of if you don't want it. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. No. (But I'm real conflicted in !voting 'no', since the shocking orange bar is a real assurance that I won't forget to pick up my new orange prison suit after reading the "You have been blocked indefinitely" message that awaits.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. The orange bar was disruptive and visually unappealing. I'll be most pleased to have seen the last of it. Now if we could just get rid of hat-note accretion. Praemonitus (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. The orange bar shouldn't come back in the long run. It's ugly, and I'm sure we can do a better job of making a noticeable talk-page notification system. However, we need a working system to communicate with new editors, and the current implementation of Echo isn't providing that, so we should have the orange bar back until that gets fixed. I think that the deployment of Echo has been rushed; there should have been an opt-in trial on-wiki to get the more obvious bugs worked out before the orange bar was disabled. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I was very pleased to see the orange bar go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Glad it's gone. Legoktm (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. The notifications number looks a lot cleaner and is more pleasing to the eyes. I much prefer it over the old orange bar. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 02:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Give me the new Notifications section over that hideous orange bar any day. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I'm (obviously) biased. But here is my 2c anyway :-). From an engineering perspective, I dislike OBOD because it is notification code that doesn't live in the notification workflow. Going back to it (esp. permanently) entails the exact same ad-hoc long term maintenance and technical debt that is the why no unified notification system have been attempted in the last 5+ years. (The fact that Bug 47922 needed to be done, shows that there might be a benefit to addressing notifications to cover IP users and doing OBOD correctly.) However, that is long term, not short term; that is engineering, not UI. I'll assume the RFC is asking for a short-timeline UI fix. A lot of discussion has as an operating assumption that OBOD is super prominent and permanent. However, the click-through on OBOD is 50 percent at last test, so I'm uncertain whether or not its prominence, is actually that prominent. (There is a lot of anecdotal evidence for this: see Phoebe's comment, for example. My guess is OBOD looks too much like a banner which the average user has been trained to ignore, It is possible the tiny red number in notifications may actually be better adjusted for training time. OBOD looks prominent to us because we've been trained to look at it, but to new users, the red number is actually more in line with affordances with the rest of the web and thus is actually noticeable.) Even if the new notifications do perform poorly vs. OBOD, there should be a more UI friendly way to achieve equal or better response from urgent notifications like user talk notices. I'm on board with UI tweaks to make talkpage notices more prominent, possibly more permanent (non dismissable?/not easily dismissible), and then iterating from there as long as there is some real analytics to determine if we're actually headed in the right direction. When notifications has something other than user-talk notices cluttering up their notifications section, I think some more radical adjustment needs to be considered (splitting it into two streams a la other social networks)? -- tychay (tchay@wikimedia) (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Terry, thank you for sharing your views. I'd like to point out a couple things:
    1. First, like many others in this section, you are arguing against a straw man. Very few if any Wikipedians are arguing that the original orange bar should be reinstated for anything more than a temporary period while an implementation and transition are agreed upon.
    2. The 50% figure has been repeatedly cited as an indication that the orange bar is ineffective. I am curious how much that premise has been probed. As a counterexample, I routinely ignore the orange bar out of choice -- I see that the notification is from a familiar bot or from a user I'm not interested in talking with right then, and I ignore it for a while. If I'm in an active editing mode, 5 or 6 notifications might build up before I click through. None of this indicates a lack of prominence of the orange bar. I don't know how common my experience is, but it should be considered.
    -Pete (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. New systems kill old systems. --Nizil (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. As someone who hasn't been around for long enough to get habituated to the status quo, I find the current Mediawiki interface extremely clunky and a major hurdle for new editors. The orange bar of doom is just one part of this—the first time I saw it I thought it was a strange bit of vandalism that had been added to the article I was reading. The new solution may not be perfect, but I'd prefer the developers forge ahead with some of the new suggestions at Wikipedia:Notifications/New_message_indicator rather than take time reimplementing an old system out of fear of the inevitable adjustment period. —Neil 13:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care

  1. I'm not much of a fan for the Notifications, but the orange bar popping out of nowhere sometimes scares me due (probably) to its color. ZappaOMati 20:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I personally don't care, and based on editathon experience I don't think new users notice the orange bar either, so nothing lost there. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • snarfa (talk · contribs) just made the same point to me. But I wonder if edit-a-thon experiences may skew our perceptions? A possibility: when a newbie is looking to somebody sitting next to them for guidance, he or she may be less inclined to notice any notification. Meanwhile, many of us know from onlinee experience that some newbies respond to our messages on their talk pages, and it seems pretty likely that they found out because of the big orange bar. No? -Pete (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who knows. But I have myself seen more than one person who was staring at the screen when the orange bar popped up. I said "oh hey, you have a message!" They said, "I do?" I said, "yeah, see the notification?" They said, "nope." So that's my anecdotal evidence. Sure, of course, some folks do notice it. Some people will notice the little red thing too. I don't think we have much evidence one way or the other about relative noticeability, unless there's some user testing out there I'm unaware of. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Phoebe, just wanted to let you know I saw this. I think it's a good discussion to have at some point, but at the moment am much more interested in the Engagement Team rolling back the elimination of a widely-used feature, to create space for a discussion of (a) what the best implementation of Echo will be, and (b) what is the smoothest and most effective path to get there. It appears to me that (b) has been tragically overlooked to this point, and I hope that changes very soon. I'll be happy to get back to a discussion of (a) once it becomes clear that (b) is on the radar. -Pete (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I at least think that each user can choose to get notified of talk page edits by either the "notifications" template, or by the Orange "New Message" Bar. Whatever they choose. Bacon-Cheddar Man 5000 (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I think it would help here if we can narrow down exactly what the "orange bar proponents" (so to speak) are asking for. An orange bar that loads at the top of article text, exactly the way it does now (er, well, did until now)? Something that loads at the top of article text, but can be any color? Something orange, that loads wherever? Anything highly visible, with no particular preference for whether it happens in the "menu bar" or the article text? Personally, I think there should be at least an option for a highly-visible, colored notification (larger than a small red box) that displays by default, but I'm not tied to orange, I quite dislike things loading on top of article text and shoving down the content I'm trying to read, and I don't think we need to preserve a legacy, clunky feature exactly as it was to please a small subset of users when we have a better-integrated way of doing the same thing. Unless you can spell out a bit more what you're asking for, AutomaticStrikeout, I'm not sure where that puts me in your yes/no choices. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking if people should at least have the option of using the orange bar. I haven't seen any reason why it should be replaced and I think that at the very least, people out to be given a Preferences option restoring their orange bar. I'm not saying that it has to remain standardized, but I think it should be an option. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every time we create a preferences option, we create something else that needs to be maintained - even in cases like this where maintenance is probably trivial or non-existent, it sets a bad precedent. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would argue that the bad precedent was set when the orange bar was unilaterally removed without community consensus. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Removing longstanding basic features like this is a very bad thing, and WMF needs to start setting the precedent of restoring basic features that it shouldn't have removed. Nyttend (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to make one thing clear, I don't have a problem with most of this new system. A lot of it has the potential to be incredibly beneficial. On the whole, it's not a bad feature. The talk page notification issue is all I'm concerned about. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the color that's the problem – it's the prominence. WMF removed a very, very obvious form of notification, without any consensus whatsoever (or even warning). No-one really cares about the orange vs red; we care about having features not unilaterally disabled. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big +1 to Ypnypn. But also, the problem is any sudden and unexplained change to the one notification system we've had for many years, which many thousands of people are used to using. I have no huge attachment to the orange bar, but if it's going to be removed, it needs to be done in a way that respects the end user. Sudden and unexplained removal (and by "explained" I mean explained in the interface, where those confused by it will encounter the explanation) is a huge problem. -Pete (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The orange bar is intrusive for good reason. By all means provide an option for experienced users to turn it off (though I, personally, would not take that option), but for the reasons why the default needs to be something at least as conspicuous, consider:

  • The happy schoolchild who has got at Wikipedia in his break and started writing "Poop" everywhere. Not infrequently, that type of IP vandal stops after a {{uw-v2}} or {{uw-v3}} warning. Unless there is something eye-catching to draw his attention to a warning message, the first feedback he will be aware of is a block message.
  • The new good-faith user, unfamiliar with Wikipedia - for instance, a student who has been told to edit Wikipedia for a class project. Those newbies are often very hard to communicate with - I have the impression that many of them think of WP as a website to edit, not as a community they are joining and need to engage with. They are not familiar with the Wikipedia screen, may not know they have a talk page, and may well miss a small red blob. The orange bar says "HEY!!! We need to talk!" and that is exactly the message we need to give.

JohnCD (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • We knew that talk page notification visibility was going to be an issue, but we decided to go with the simplest implementation (to avoid complicating the UI/prefs if possible), and see what the community's response was. There were no objections raised during the beta period on MediaWiki, but of course English Wikipedia is a very different animal. Given the responses here, it seems clear that we're going to have to make talk page notifications more visible, which seems like a reasonable request. Give us a little bit of time and we'll come up with something. Speaking in my personal capacity as a long-time Wikipedian, I've always thought the orange bar of death was clunky and obnoxious. But that's just my personal opinion :) Kaldari (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As Oliver concisely put it above, "orangeness" and "sameness" are different attributes. I don't think the orange bar needs to survive forever, but it's important to have it there now until there is a plan in place for a smooth transition. (I'll be starting a 6 week class on Wikipedia next week, and it's no fun for first-time users to have turbulence around basic features.) Is it a major technical challenge to simply reinstate the orange bar for the "talk page" notification item, and gradually phase it out in favor of the new feature, along with clear tooltips etc.? -Pete (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Kaldari, you KNEW it was going to be an issue and decided to ... talk about it after making the change? Talk about designing and documenting from the inside. If I ever get around to writing a book about the user experience and how to fsck it up, this is going to be a leading example. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN CLUNKY AND OBNOXIOUS IS A FEATURE! Sneaking changes in on users and then thinking ... give us a little bit of time and we'll come up with something. ROLLBACK is your friend. Especially when you've fallen on your face in it. Roll it back and, then think. (Do not worry, I won't be holding my breath for either event.) htom (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OtterSmith, Kaldari was not the decision-maker here. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "We knew ...", "We decided ...", "We're going to ...", "We'll come up with ..." ... certainly gives the impression of either being the spokesperson for a group mind, or a royal we. Doesn't seem to have been a bystander requesting that the brakes be applied. Group mind I think is more likely, all inside the project, all looking inside at the wonderful thing they've created. And we dare to not like it. Been there, seen that, too many times. Customers are such fickle beasts, wanting what they want until they want something else; force-feeding them may be profitable if what you want is their livers, but not if you want golden eggs. I'm a little sorry for pounding only on Kalari, pass it on to the rest of the "we", please. htom (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wonder how many of the opposers of the bright bar actually spend time dealing with new users. Fluffermutter does, but the others I don't recognise from my normal area of deletion - where explanations, cautions and warnings take up a lot of time. They don't always work - but if we have don't have a good clear 'you have a message' thing of whatever sort, we won't get through to any of them. I've been here five years. It took a while this morning before I noticed the little red thing, and a while after that - having started to wonder why I had messages but no warning - that I found out what it was. New users are more concerned with what they're doing to worry about little red pimples. Peridon (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I had the rather ironic experience an hour or so ago of reloading my watchlist and realizing that someone had left me a talkpage message and - surprise, surprise! - the tiny red box had failed to get my notice. No question we need some version of "big honkin' notification here" message, absolutely for newbies and probably for us old-timers as well. I figure if we give them a little time, though, the devs will figure out a way to make Echo honk, rather than making me have to continue to rely on the "Oh god what am I in trouble for now" orange bar of doom - and at that point, the OBoD will be vestigial. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peridon, what do you think I do here if not dealing with new users and deletion? DGG ( talk ) 14:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, you are a regular at CSD. I learned a heck of a lot from you when I was patrolling Edits be New Accounts. And since. You weren't in my mind for that comment. I'm referring to those who don't have to deal with 'plebs' and 'newbies'. Peridon (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many of us calling for the return of the orange bar are doing so (at least in part) out of informed concern for new users. (I am teaching an intro class on Wikipedia.) It seems to me that in evaluating consensus, we should be disregarding the poorly thought out arguments -- and there are plenty on both sides here -- and focusing our attention on the best points. Peridon, your comment -- while well-intentioned, I'm sure -- points in the direction of ad hominem arguments and, ultimately, unnecessary drama. -Pete (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine situations where I'd prefer the old way over the new way. So I think the default ought to be the old way (for the reasons John suggests above), but established editors should be able easily to opt for the new way if they want it. I think most editors have just been taken by surprise by something new here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moved here from the "No" opinion section: James F. (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interjection

It seems to me that most of the "no" votes [when this was posted, there were 6] are overlooking an important point: few if any of us asking for the orange bar back are seeking that as a permanent solution. I think just about everyone accepts that the general approach of Echo is an improvement -- it's just an improvement that needs to be implemented in a careful manner.

In other words "put the orange banner back now" is not the same as "put the orange banner back forever." Establishing a context in which we can compare the features side by side would be a strong step toward making a calm and consensus-driven decision. -Pete (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On that point, I am one of those "few" (assuming in good faith that "few" is a fair representation). I love both the idea and implementation of Echo. I also completely understand the desire to not be seen as yet another way of grabbing people's attention, and that streamlining is in general a good thing.

The point of the new system appears to be to ensure that people can more efficiently navigate their way through the maze of Wikimedia, keeping on top of things that are important to them. It also accomodates editors with different methods of keeping track. Some editors would go through their notifications once per session, if that. Others would try to keep that little number at zero as often as possible. That difference in approach, that very flexibility that Echo tries to give different types of editor, is the root cause of the problem with removing the orange bar.

Talk page messages are unique. If I go to someone's talk page, more often than not my hope is that they will read it before their next edit. More often than not, a message that can wait can be posted elsewhere. When a warning/request to cease editing and start discussing is posted, there are circumstances in which failure to heed that call could lead to hot water up to and including a block, and this isn't exclusive to IPs or newly registered editors.

So having made the fairly mainstream case for doing something special for talk page notifications, why do I go a step further and say that the orange bar should remain in the long term? Because it is absolutely HIDEOUS, and something that most people want to get rid of as soon as possible. I would cite the clampdown on OBoD spoofs as evidence. Why were they so annoying? Because old and new editors alike saw them and clicked on them immediately, in large numbers, some believing that the link on the other side was worthy of their immediate attention, others wanting to get rid of the ugly bar as soon as possible and ending up at something even less appealing to the eye.

Ultimately, the question for developers and the community alike is where the balance lies. In life as well as on-wiki, I lean heavily towards getting the job done as effectively as possible, regardless of other considerations. That said, I accept that "regardless of other considerations" puts me at one end of the spectrum, and don't have a clue where the middle-ground is. Spend time and resources on a more elegant solution if you must, and if you go down that route I concede that you are likely to find a compromise that achieves consensus. That said, I'm certain that there is nothing you can implement to do the job more effectively than the OBoD. —WFC— FL wishlist 07:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up with this: I've made some improvements to my orange bar of doom script; it doesn't use cookies any more, so most of the problems people were having should be fixed now. As a bonus, it uses the Echo API now, so visiting your talk page will automatically clear the Echo notification for your talk page as well as the OBoD. Big thanks to Legoktm, Kaldari, et al. for helping me figure it out! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infomation only, I installed the script for the OBoD (I have custom .CSS rules for mine) and everything works fine, even the custom rules. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way it should have been

  • The proper method for rolling out such a train-wreck as ECHO would have been to:
    • Do alpha testing
    • Beta testing
    • Roll out to smaller wikis
    • Deploy to enwiki as an optional opt-in feature
    • Extensive testing and feedback over an extended period (several months)
    • Switch ECHO to default notification system for new users, while leaving it opt-in for those veteran users.
    • If at some point after this ECHO finally doesn't suck, discuss the options with the community about phasing out the old system.
  • Developer actions via edict with such a large impact should not be possible. The reaction that the developers are taking (you are screwed the OBoD will not come back regardless of consensus because we say so) is appalling. Given the large amount of issues ECHO caused the update should have immediately been rolled back and the devs should have gone back the the drawing boards to fix it. This IP editors get zero notice about talk page messages for 24 hours is really problematic. How many users ended up getting blocked/where deterred from editing because they where blocked for disruptions because they didnt get the talk page note saying what they where doing was inappropriate? Werieth (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What large amount of issues, sorry? I see two. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I just did a quick scan up the page and I see no less than 7 issues being tracked in bugzilla. Werieth (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And you think we shouldn't deploy on enwiki until there are zero bugs? That's literally never going to happen; there are far too many possible things that can go wrong on individual wikis, from site-specific CSS to use-specific CSS to browser choices.
    I'd argue strongly that Echo does not 'suck'. This specific feature, I agree, is worse than what it replaced. I warned the team that this was a problem with it. Right now, I'd suggest we all calm down and see what they'll come up with as a solution. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what is called incompetence, you do not break a top 10 website and then go home and hope to fix it the next day. I have been in the IT, software development process for many years. Before I put my name on a product and stamp it for release I make sure that it is more than 50% functional. When deploying a major upgrade I assume Murphy's law and have fallback plans. I dont go home until the system is functional. Yeah it might not be 100% bug free but it will not leave a major breakage while I go home and watch TV and relax. If crap has hit the fan its a matter of all hands on deck, or rolling back the updates until such time as a postmortem can be preformed and we can figure out what went to hell. Given the fact that this is one of the top 10 websites in the net I would hope that the paid techs who rolled this out would be competent enough to revert the changes if a patch to fix a major flaw wasnt implemented ASAP. Werieth (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what's called 'the point at which I leave the conversation'. Please do let me know when you can be reasonable about the issues. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I see how it is, when a reasonable deployment process that will work is proposed in the aftermath of a train wreck that you orchestrated you decide to leave the conversation? I never said that it had to be bug free, in fact if you take a look at the plan that I suggested there is a period of several months where bugs can be identified and fixed before shoving it down the throat of your users. You dont just make a single mass switchover, take a look at the WMF move to ashburn they had everything but the master servers already tested prior to the migration. Even then they planned a fallback to revert to the tampa servers if there where problems. I really dont see the forsight and good planning that was shown there in this project. Werieth (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, actually, it's the bit where you start referring to people as incompetent. In what world does that aid the conversation or make participants more likely to listen to you? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I am unsure what else to call it. Any other term that comes to mind is far more derogatory. I was just attempting to describe the actions as I saw them. Why wasnt something like what I proposed implemented? Instead something half baked and full of issues was thrown out and left running for an extended period of time without fixing it. Werieth (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "One night" is not an extended period of time. We have fixed the IP issue already, and will be iterating improvements to the general UI problems over the coming day. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's context dependent. In this context, I agree with Werieth that one night is a very, very, very extended, long period of time. -Pete (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Werieth, Okeyes is telling you that he agrees with you, that he and the dev team are doing their best, and that they're going to be working on it, even if a bit later/slower than you wanted. Is there any value in continuing to hurl nasty words at them telling them how terrible they are, rather than just describing what you see as the faults in the software and/or development system? Nobody at the WMF or among the devs is trying to do anything badly or to offend you, so please give them the courtesy of speaking to them as if they're human beings. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fluffernutter, given the fact that this isnt the first time recently that the devs have unilaterally implemented features that have gone against the communities wishes. (see watchlist-gate within the last year). Given the backlash that a minor change like that caused in comparison to this change it was very poorly thought out, and even more poorly implemented. In most paid positions this kind of screwup would cost them their job. I am not asking for that, rather I am trying to figure out why common sense and careful roll-out did not happen. Given the impact that minor issues can snowball on a site this big a proper reaction would have been to revert the roll-out, get feedback about the bugs that where discovered and develop a phased implementation that wouldn't cause such a large scale disruption. Standard practice when updating/migrating software in a large environment is to do it in small manageable waves where testing can be reformed, feedback can be assessed, and issues resolved before full migration. Measured implementation and testing practices are key to smooth deployments. Like I said before compare this process to the data center move, things where extensively tested prior to the move and there was a fallback plan if there where issues to mitigate extended down time. In this case there wasnt a fallback plan or if there was it was ignored, causing a major disruption to site operations. I am asking why logic and a practice of ensuring minimal downtime was ignored here. I am also appalled by the fact that the limited number of devs can say screw what the community wants, if we what to add a cool hip new feature, regardless of how broken it is we will and you can all go to hell since the old method will never come back. Personally I find that JavaScript intensive web pages are problematic especially when tools like resource loader are used which makes filtering out annoying javascripts impossible. I remember when BITS was first introduced it was geolocating and doing other things that easily added 3-10 seconds to the load time of a web page. I just opened up my browser settings and blocked that script. Since everything is being minified its no longer possible. I tend to prefer the monobook skin due to the fact that its not bloated with all the "cool" looks and bloated javascipt that vector uses. Remember KISS when developing. Werieth (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The value would be in underlining that the problems caused could and should have been avoided, and that lessons should be learned about how this went live. Rd232 talk 20:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of issues is probably a distraction. It's the significance of the issues. No transition from the orange bar planned out? That may be just one issue, but it is…well, I think "large" would be an understatement. (I think there is a lot of quality in Echo, but as has happened before, a poor rollout strategy will sink you regardless of how good the core feature is.) -Pete (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not care about anything that Echo has added. I use my watchlist and contributions tab to keep track of those things. I care about what it subtracted. None of the new notifications are worth getting rid of the prominent talk page notification IMO. --Onorem♠Dil 17:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed Pete. The IP issue alone makes it "really suck" unfortunately. Most of the policies for editors making test edits revolve around them being warned on their talk page - without that there is a huge risk of resorting to mass amounts of blocks to good faith editors instead of a simple talk page message. That said, I fully expect a fix to be deployed within the next day or so (or to see it taken down temporarily). Also, to be fair, I've seen plenty of buggy things deployed over the years on en-wiki. Like it or not it does tend to be a testing ground for things like this despite being a huge website. Ryan Norton 17:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed; the fix is scheduled to go out in a couple of hours (crossing fingers!). I spent a chunk of thisd morning poking people at godawful hours to secure a deployment window. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you; I've already blocked a bunch of two-time-vandalism IPs because there wasn't any way to tell them to stop. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, the issue with IP notifications is fixed now.--Eloquence* 18:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Just tested it, it works as expected. Still concerned about the orange bar in other contexts, as discussed above -- but glad to know this issue has been resolved. -Pete (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good, thank you! Inability to communicate with IPs was a really serious problem, and it is excellent that you have been able to resolve it so promoptly. As you have said that he orange bar will not be retained, I presume this is a temporary fix: what is the longer-term proposal for IPs? JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC?

I note that User:TheOriginalSoni has now turned this discussion into an RfC. Ignoring the substantial problems with trying to formalise something after a lot of conversation has gone on - frankly, you need to start an entirely new discussion if you want the outcome to mean anything - and the long lasting time of an RfC, Eloquence (Erik) has made his position on the orange bar clear. The Echo team is not going to be turning it on again permanently, even as an opt-in, whatever happens. I'd strongly suggest that someone who isn't me simply remove the RfC tag, because it's not going to lead to a different outcome, I'm afraid :/.

I woke up this morning to a set of emails from the team, basically outlining "we think we have a solution, but we'd like to A/B test it against Echo to make sure it's actually an improvement". I'll have a more full update and some screenshots to share in a bit, but I wanted to try and be transparent about what the team is doing (or, at least, what they report to me they're doing). I should have more from them in a bit :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's an RfC now. 83 support the orange bar, 19 oppose, and a lot of the opposes are saying they want the orange bar back temporarily. I suggest the WMF team get the rods out of their behinds and reinstate the orange bar, even if only until they roll out whatever "fix" they have in store. Ignatzmice•talk 13:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not something I have any control over, although, trust me, I have made clear to them that we need a result sooner rather than later. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okeyes, I'd strongly suggest that you let the RfC continue, so that the community's consensus on the matter becomes clear. Whether the WMF acts on that consensus is up to the WMF. Besides, currently the RfC seems to suggest that something (not necessarily the orange bar) better than the current notification is needed, and I gather from your comments on this page that something is in development/QA right now. I doubt stopping the RfC now is going to score any points for the new release, the dev team or the WMF. Chamal T•C 14:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to stop the RfC; it's not within my power :). I'm trying to persuade the Product team to fix this quickly, because I don't want Echo to become exclusively/specifically about this issue, and there's a risk it will. Part of that, however, is trying to stop the situation from escalating, and also (as a general point) trying to avoid users wasting their time contributing to a discussion that will not, simply via a template, be any more or less useful or binding on the Product team than it was before. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Eloquence (Erik) has made his position on the orange bar clear. The Echo team is not going to be turning it on again permanently, even as an opt-in, whatever happens." I really hoped that after the ACTRIAL row Erik and the WMF would not return to the attitude of "We've decided what's best for you, and anyone who doesn't like it can go jump in the lake, because whatever you say, and however many of you say it, we're not listening", but here we are again. JohnCD (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with "we won't turn it on again permanently", if they would just turn it on again temporarily whilst developing improvements to Echo that are at least as good as the Orange Bar. I think this refusal is disappointingly pigheaded and disrespectful of the community. It's the sort of behaviour you expect from a corporate like Facebook, not from a Foundation which is basically there to (a) run the tech and (b) keep the volunteers happy so that the tech serves a purpose! Rd232 talk 17:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree! The WMF and their techies need to remember they work for the editors - not the other way around. We've had this same struggle before, about a year ago over some really dreadful watchlist changes. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stopping the RFC is not going to prevent the discussion getting bogged down in this issue. What will stop it is temporarily turning the orange bar back on, then we can move on to other things and start congratulating the devs for a wonderful notification system while they think about how to properly incorporate the functionality of OBOD. I have made clear to them that we need a result sooner rather than later—that's not soon enough, there have been over 600 blocks in the last 24 hours and most of them will not have seen the warnings. This is an urgent matter that requires dealing with NOW. SpinningSpark 06:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I am sorry if I sound ignorant, but what is this Orange Bar that is being discussed?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume your question is serious? It is the orange bar across the top of the screen saying "You have a new message" which, until Tuesday, used to warn you of the arrival of a new message on your talk page. You will no longer get that; instead, a small blob just to the right of your username on the top line will turn from grey to red to signal a new talk page message or various other events. See Wikipedia:Notifications and Wikipedia:Notifications/FAQ for more detail. JohnCD (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned below, an option that does not have a dependency on the devs is to turn my script into an official gadget; this has been suggested by others, particularly MBisanz below. I've just fixed the last of the bugs that's been reported to me; once I hear back from the affected user (User:Nyttend), I won't be unwilling to have this happen. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's useful for experienced users who know about gadgets but (unless the gadget was ON by default, and I doubt whether that would be allowed) it does nothing for the IPs and newbies who most need to be made aware of a talk page mesage. JohnCD (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't here for the Watchlist War, but it seems an admin was able to edit the site-wide CSS to revert the WMF's changes. Supposing we could confirm User:Writ Keeper's orange bar is (mostly) bug-free, and also supposing we could make it very easy for users to turn it back off again, I would totally support something like that happening here. We wouldn't turn off Echo, only import that bit of script. Although come to think of it, while it makes sense for there to be a site-wide CSS page, it's not as entirely obvious that there's a site-wide JavaScript page.... Ignatzmice•talk 11:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The IP editor, new editor, argument for retaining it for those editors sounds like a sound reasoning IMHO. If there is a way to allow more experienced editors (say who have made more than 500 constructive edits) to opt out of its display, I think we should go with that solution.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, turn on the gadget now. Even if this is only very short term, we have a serious problem right now. But no registered user should be prevented from opting out. If they have enough experience/clue to work out how to turn it off, they are probably aware of the consequences of doing so. In any case, it is their responsibility to read their messages. What we are concerned about here are the IPs and new users who have no clue about the messaging system and were completely unaware they had any messages to read - until they attempt to edit and discover I have blocked them that is. I really don't want that to be the first communication they have from me. SpinningSpark 14:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the script is here. I suggest that, if this is to actually happen, Writ Keeper should update it so that the bar says something like See the documentation page if you want to turn off this bar and the doc page should have instructions on going to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and unchecking the correct box. Or the script could be moved to a centralized location, and then anyone with sufficient competence could add that. I don't know what the protocol is for gadgets. Ignatzmice•talk 14:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the hopes that this actually happens, I have begun a "full" documentation page at User:Ignatzmice/Orange Bar documentation. Ignatzmice•talk 16:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Who has the actual authority to decide to restore the bar as a temporary measure while this is being discussed, or to block its restoration? DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any admin has the power to make Writ's script into an on-by-default gadget, though we should wait until he gives the go-ahead. Only the Editor Engagement Team (Eloquence, Okeyes, Fabiance, Jorm, there are others I don't know; maybe only a specific person on the team) can bring back the original orange bar. Ignatzmice•talk 19:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User mentions have potential...

With this edit, my bot account mentioned me without even visibly showing my username and I still received a notification. This could potentially be used for a form of "talkback", where a special template could be used to notify the person that you are replying to. For example, a user replying to me could put something like {{Reply|The Anonymouse}} at the beginning of their reply. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 06:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've already found myself using this. +1 for killing big blue talkbacks once and for all. Theopolisme (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! Flow will actually handle this too, but it's good we could come up with half a solution (albeit accidentally!) so early :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to using notifications to elimininate the need for talkback. -Pete (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK - what is this Swiss flag thing with numbers on? I've seen odd things in Afd pages and so on on other language Wikipedias, but not this one. Peridon (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's from Google+. There's a similar template at {{like}}. Ignatzmice•talk 21:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't think you'll find me using it, then... Peridon (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template:+3 I like the idea of {{talkback}} going bye-bye. Technical 13 (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anonymouse, Theopolisme, Peteforsyth, Technical 13, and Ryan Vesey: What do you guys think of this {{replyto}} template? Just a little experiment :) Should it also have a 'hide=true' parameter? Kaldari (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! The hide parameter could be useful. Also, maybe we could get {{Rt}} to redirect to it. Finally, should this template be made for substituting or transcluding? The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 06:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added the hide parameter. Personally, I like transcluding it. It keeps the discussion easier to read in the Wikitext, but maybe some people will want to subst. Either way, it should work. Kaldari (talk) 06:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of {{rt}}, I redirected {{ping}} (which was a virtually unused talkback redirect). I'm wondering if the 'hide' option will be confusing to people, as they will come to the conversation looking for where they are mentioned, and might be confused if they can't see it. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaldari: At first glance I like it, but I am getting a little concerned about the number of common use cases being brought up for discussion, that seem to be coming across as new ideas. I'd like to wrap my head around the overall structure a little better, before commenting about specific ones. Above all, I'll be much more comfortable discussing new features once previous features are unbroken. -Pete (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way for a mention to notify all watchers of a page? For example, Anna Frodesiak, who is ill, posted a message requesting talk page stalkers. Is it conceivable that she could activate a template that would notify all watchers of her talk page? Or something along those lines. For example, lets say a user goes on vacation. Could they notify all watchers of their user talk page through a global mention? Viriditas (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cool idea, although I wonder if people would consider it spammy. Kaldari (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, what about user status updates that can interface with notifications that will allow watchers to opt-in to these updates? Viriditas (talk) Today, 23:36 (UTC−4)
The only problem I see with this idea is that it would open a door offering a way for people to see who is watching what pages. I've seen lots of discussion and debate about that (I think at least admins, if not all trusted users, should be able to see who is watching a page anyways). Technical 13 (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications for updates in important articles

Could you please tell me if this project plans to add notifications for updates in some important articles (according to my additions). I think it would be very helpful to me. Thanks, New worl (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New worl Hi there, Do you mean that we send you a notification when an image has been added/ article has significantly grown/ template has been added? to an article that you have classified as important. We have some ideas around this but there is also potential overlap with the watch-list here. My focus on this project was the user experience so it would be useful to get some details from you. Thanks Vibhabamba (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Vibhabamba. I mean notifications for top articles. As you know watchlist may contain hundredths of articles. So I think notification would be very helpful if I can put alerts on some, say, 10 most important articles. New worl (talk) 06:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links on notification pages

Resolved
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49924

Can someone have a look at the way links for namespaces like File and Category are linked on notifcation pages (not the fly out page) but Special:Notifications. Currently the linkage is [[File:Foo.jpg]] so the image is displayed on my notification page rather than just a link by [[:File:Foo.jpg]]. If it's the same for catgeory and template links, this could lead to some interesting displays. NtheP (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify which type of notification specifically caused this for you ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only edit revert at the moment. NtheP (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This should be fixed on English Wikipedia momentarily. Kaldari (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP notifications

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49922
Resolved

According to the FAQ, IPs don't use the new notifications system, and the system has replaced the old Orange Bar Of Doom. Does this mean that IPs now receive no notification when their talk pages have been changed? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just tested it. No orange bar. Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fix this, as soon as humanely possible--talk about jarring oversights. Theopolisme (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe that this is true. Are you quite, quite sure? Can anyone else confirm? This would be just mindboggling. Rd232 talk 10:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try it again. Viriditas (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second test complete. No orange bar. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Filed a bug to get a definitive conclusion or response. (I'm still thinking you must have made some mistake... this just can't be really so...!) Rd232 talk 11:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No mistake, and if you look at my user history, I tried two different IPs just to be sure. IPs don't get the orange bar. Should I try it for a third time? Viriditas (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you're quite sure that after leaving the message and logging out you were using that IP and should have had the orange bar - then I guess it is so. Rd232 talk 11:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just tried two more times. Nothing. Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


(ec) I've just tested it as well - definitely no notification. An optimist on the run!   11:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the reports about the orange bar are correct, Notifications is broken. I sometimes see a new editor (possibly an IP) do something, and I give them a welcome with a message explaining some point (example). I'm not going to do that if it is highly likely that the user will never notice my message (and I'm not going to make a second account to test what it looks like to a new user—perhaps a screenshot would save some trouble). What is going to happen when a user gets some {{uw-test1}} or {{uw-vandalism1}} warnings? Again, I'm not going to bother warning an IP or throwaway account if it is likely I'm wasting my time. The orange bar tells the IP/account that someone has noticed their fun, and that's often all that is required for them to turn their attention elsewhere. I do not think a notification will do that. Also, will a notification be regarded as sufficient warning for a repeat to result in a block? Johnuniq (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the notification is not enough (though I don't think it is); IP users don't get the notification (I have just confirmed by experiment) so they are not told at all that they have a message. The whole vandal-warning system has become useless. This is a disaster. JohnCD (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also this would lead to a potential loss of reformed vandals who stop vandalizing at a level-1 or level-2 warning since they won't be aware that they were warned.. TheStrikeΣagle 11:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I already found the cause and it looks like a simple oversight, if I'm correct, this likely will be fixed after San Francisco wakes up. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully. But this issue just underlines my #Are_you_nuts.3F complaint: if it had been made clear that the Orange Bar was being removed, and that Echo was only for registered users, then "what happens to unregistered users" might have come up as an issue sooner. Excitement about a new system is great, but it's no substitute for documentation. See also my general remarks on user interface changes here. Rd232 talk 12:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, the FAQ says "We're not planning to bring the OBOD back nor to make it available as a preference". Hopefully this was just someone being glib, and not an official position that will never change. This would have been almost painless if the notification system had been rolled out exactly as it was, except making the OBOD opt-out. As is, it's screwed up IP communication, and insulted other users who might want it for no apparent reason. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it was made by the deputy director, so I suspect it may indeed be an official position :/. The IP communication bug is being fixed, and we're actively talking through how to increase the prominence of the notifications for talkpage messages. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Got to love how the WMF people impose things on the community regardless of our opinions. Okeyes, what suggestions do you have for fixing the deputy director communication bug? Nyttend (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, added this morning by User:Eloquence. Bug tracking added. Rd232 talk 15:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the OBOD in its original form isn't coming back (except, if absolutely necessary, as a temporary fix) doesn't mean that we're not taking this issue seriously. We're considering multiple non-OBOD possibilities for raising the prominence of messaging-related notifications, and several have been raised here.--Eloquence* 16:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What a lovely way of dismissing everyone's concerns. Would you mind listening to the community? Nyttend (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like optimists... Peridon (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Riight. You could have so easily taken the sting out of this by bringing back the Orange Bar temporarily, whilst a better alternative is developed at a calm and even leisurely pace. Are you scared that you won't be able to develop a better alternative? This is ridiculous, and frankly more than a little disrespectful of what users actually want (which is at minimum to be given a better alternative, and since you can't magic that overnight, to go back to the status quo ante until you have one to give). Rd232 talk 20:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just tried it, the orange bar is back for IPs. Please don't remove it again unless it is replaced by something at least as intrusive, so that it is possible to get the attention of an IP vandalising or making problematic edits. JohnCD (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Echo blacklist?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49946

Is there a way for Echo to ignore edits by certain bots—namely, User:HostBot, whose edits (example) include a link to an unsuspecting host's talk page? Theopolisme (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly related this topic higher up. Though this bot leaves 'major' edits apparently. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't pick on User:HostBot. This issue is already being discussed by the involved hosts → WT:Teahouse/Host lounge#HostBot Messages and notifications. I'm much more concern with being able to remove User:SineBot from my notifications. Technical 13 (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to exempt MiszaBot III, too - I don't need to be notified when it does its regular archive of my talk page. JohnCD (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not getting a link

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49932

I'm using the modern skin and the notifications "menu" does not drop down, nor am I taken to Special:Notifications when I click on it. Right now if I click the number goes to zero but nothing displays. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that the default format for the notification button is sharply out of line with the rest of the menu. Not urgent, but it stands out like a sore thumb even when there are 0 messages. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see this bug report totally answers my question further down this page in a sub section titled "bug?'. I use the Modern skin and I have the second problem listed on the bugzilla page. I only see part of the right section of the flyout at best. it's flown too far off my page to be any use except to mindreaders. So I'm asking as was iterated on this report: can I have this ECHO dratted thingamajig disabled since I'm not going to alter my skin just for this or anything else actually. Thanks muchly... Fylbecatulous talk 23:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And again, I reiterate that I have IE 10 on Windows. So from the bugzilla report there is no tinker available for us hapless folk.  :(( Fylbecatulous talk 23:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the devs

I've mentioned a fair amount of changes I'd like to see on this page, but I want to make sure that those don't overbear my support for echo as a whole. This is one of the biggest dev side improvements I've seen since the new pages feed someone needs a huge round of applause for the work he's done on bringing both of those tools to us. There are a number of other editors who need thank you's and I wish I knew who all of those are, but in any case, thanks. Ryan Vesey 17:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much; this has totally brightened my day :). Credit goes to the dev-team - User:Kaldari, User:Bsitu and User:LWelling. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And let's not forget Brandon Harris for kicking it off for real 1,5 year ago. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 -- as I've said above, but might be obscured by my concerns about the rollout, I am generally impressed with the core feature. Kudos to those who have made it happen. -Pete (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Thanks everyone for the work. This page has been a good example of rollout, feature explanation, and lots of tweaks/bugs/request to be considered. Huge amount of effort toward a very good and I think useful feature expansion. Way to think out of the box! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really enjoyed designing this interface experience because of the development attitude to this project. Cheers for User:Kaldari, User:Bsitu and User:LWelling They moved really quickly and were always willing to try stuff out and iterate. Vibhabamba (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old notifications

Like pretty much everyone else, I really like the core idea, and I'm thankful to have it. I'm simply curious about old notifications — is there some way to get rid of them, or will they just sit there indefinitely? I've looked everywhere without finding the answer to my question, which by the way isn't at all a big deal; I'd just like to know what to do or to know that it can't be done. Nyttend (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you get new notifications, they fall down into the archive page. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean: will going to Special:Notifications show everything by default or will old ones disappear eventually by themselves, and is there a way to cause old ones to disappear from Special:Notifications? Nyttend (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They don't currently have a set lifetime, but presumably at some point they will get one to stop stored data growing forever. How long would an old one potentially be interesting to you? A week? A month? A year? LWelling (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not very long; I'll generally deal with it and forget it. Nyttend (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the fact that there ARE notifications is probably the most important aspect here. If they have become automatically archived, then that's likely fine, as long as it tells you that it has automatically archived something, I presume. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective, I would like to see the inline notifications window remove notices as soon as I've acknowledged them. A link to Special:Notifications would be sufficient for accessing old notices at a later point, I would think. Resolute 17:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly, "Special:Notifications is a pretty replacement of Special:Log" "the idea was to make it [Special:Notifications] more friendly than Special:Log". See mw:Talk:Echo_(Notifications)/Feature_requirements#Bad_requirements:_reinventing_logs_and_private_notifications. --Nemo 08:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you quoting yourself? Kaldari (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because I thought link was enough for context, but I can quote someone else if you prefer; done now. --Nemo 12:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

API access to Echo?

Hey again, after a couple users were running into trouble with my OBoD script, one suggested using Echo as the driver for the message display, rather than keeping track of things within the script itself. It looks like the entries in the notification widget themselves aren't directly accessible unless the widget has been opened, and just going by the number that's displayed would catch a bunch of things that aren't actually talk page posts. So, is there an API or something that a script could make a call to, to find out whether there are new notifications and what kind of notifications they would be? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Search the API help page. It's meta=notifications (Ctrl+F 'Echo'). --Krenair (talk • contribs) 20:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What page is that? I'm not seeing it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, api.php. --Krenair (talk • contribs) 20:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, of course, I was expecting it to be documented at Mediawiki. Silly me. *rolls eyes* Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah we should rewrite the main MediaWiki api pages to start with pointing people to /api.php. The system works so well, and it always represents whatever is actually the available api on an instance of MediaWiki (instead of the theoretically available api). In the past most of WMF ran the same software and the auto generated documentation was much less complete, but it has totally overtaken the MediaWiki hosted documentation in my opinion —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Writ Keeper: The Echo API is very limited currently (and mostly designed to facility the flyout). I would suggest filing a bug listing what you would like from such an API, and we'll do our best to accommodate. You may also be interested in Template:Bug. Kaldari (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Testing Question about Secondary Accounts

We, the user community, have been asked to test Echo. However, the testing instructions advise creating a second account. Wikipedia has special policies on legitimate alternate accounts, and those policies are long. Could someone provide a summary? In particular, what sort of disclosure is expected both on the primary user page and on the secondary user page? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just make a post on your alternate account's user page (using your primary account, so we know it's legitimate), saying that "this is an alternate account of such-and-such, used for testing". If you're just testing things in user space, it's not a big deal. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume that making real edits in article space (to improve an article) or in article talk space (to discuss an article) can be done from one's primary account with the secondary account receiving the notices. Is that correct? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would you compare two methods for talk page message notifications

A number of people seem to be saying OBOD notifications are better than Echo notifications as they are presented in this version. I'm curious what "better" means, or more generally, if you had two ways to present that message how would you decide which to keep?

Prominence seems to be the main factor being mentioned, but if it were that simple we'd adopt a full screen blinking red notification and call it a day. It's obviously not that simple, but is it a valid metric? (Is it the most important metric?)

Is click through rate by new users a valid metric? (Is it the most important metric?)

Is click through rate by experienced users a valid metric? (Is it the most important metric?)

How else would you compare two proposals? LWelling (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LWelling, do I understand right from the discussion above that you're working on this project? I think it would help if you could set up a user page with a sentence or two about your role. Otherwise it's difficult to distinguish a question like this one from idle rumination. -Pete (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. It's not idle rumination. I'll put up a two line bio. LWelling (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -Pete (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what, turn the Orange Bar back on temporarily (let's say explicitly for no more than 3 months, if that's what it takes for WMF to agree). Then we can calmly and happily chew over how exactly to come up with something better than (a) the current Echo talkpage notification system and (b) the Orange Bar. Deal? Rd232 talk 20:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Address the pain point first, then it will be much easier to talk about a general approach. -Pete (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+2 I tried to convey the same at the IRC. Didn't work. Let's hope this one does. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the orange bar, we knew it was a new user talk-page post, and a diff was offered to the last change, so we could get there with one click. Now, we see the little number has changed, but don't know why. One click tells us it's the user talk page. A second click takes us to the page. We then have to scroll down to find the new post or posts. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If we are lucky enough to be able to pick it out of the 80-120+ sections on our talk page... If not, we then have to scroll back to the top, hit history, and compare. Technical 13 (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks User:SlimVirgin that's really informative. I'll see if I can put the section link back.
    Tracked in Phabricator
    Task T49954
  • I already said this at the IRC but let me say that again - Check the number of responses for new/nonresponsive users. Take all the users who have a low rate of talk page (or any page) replies, and compare their replies over Echo and OBOD. That will be a fairly unbiased metric. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you get rid of the OBOD notification system, how about enabling it on an opt-in basis (say as a gadget)? benzband (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First let me state I do not like the subtle number hiding at the top and I wish I had my orange bar back. With that said, I am 100% glad that the WMF is showing some backbone and taking action on some things finally. I wish they would do it more often until we as a community once again show that we are capable of implementing changes ourselves. We are currently failing miserably in every possible way to make any changes or improvements to even the most basic and fundamental issues. All the people here commenting in angry tones about how dare this be implemented without consulting the community, we deserve what we get. At least they are trying and implementing changes. We can't even do that! Kumioko (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Bar should be the default

The Orange Bar should be an opt-out option. The new system is very cool, I intend to use it. However the Orange Bar should be the default. New editors are overwhelmed enough with new concepts, and a big orange bar requires no explanation that "SOMETHING INTERESTING HAS HAPPENED". Furthermore, AFAICT, the new system is heavily disenfranchising to IP editors. As someone who still does 90% of his editing anonymously, I would find this process to be grossly exclusionary. (And yes I know my IP editing habit is idiosyncratic, but I've been doing it for nearly 12 years now and I'm not going to change). Manning (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a duplicate poll in this section. There is already one further up the page. Manning, what do you mean by "heavily disenfranchising to IP editors". Do you just mean there was a bug affecting them for a few hours, or something more complex? LWelling (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, no. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its only logical. A big Yes TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to opt-out, per KWW's comment above about making sure IPs see that they have a message.Sven Manguard Wha? 07:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the comment above about "the bug for IPs has been fixed". Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to opt-out for all editors. It can be hard enough to get new editors to start communicating and not being sure they actually saw the message, doesn't help.Lova Falk talk 07:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to opt-out for all editors, per KWW and Lova Falk. This is especially important when registered students are editing as class assignments (and other new users) and when we leave messages for IPs. Removing completely as an option was a very poor idea. Voceditenore (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amen -mattbuck (Talk) 10:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to opt-out. I too plan on using Echo, but I also plan on using the orange bar (and am currently thanks to Writ Keeper's script. In addition, it is needed for IPs and newbies (and, according to Fluffernutter and others above, oldies as well!). Ignatz mice•talk 11:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to opt-out for all editors. Mlpearc (powwow) 16:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hi folks, thanks for your helpful feedback on this topic. We hear you loud and clear, and we are now working on a solution that we think will address your concerns. Our primary goal is to provide more prominent display of talk page messages -- even if it's not exactly the 'orange bar of death' implementation, which many people found sub-optimal :) . We'll keep you posted on our progress in coming days. Thanks for your patience ... Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that works for me. I don't need the OBOD as such, I'll be quite happy as long as there is a "HONKING BIG NOTIFICATION" of some kind for newbies. Manning (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's good that this is being taken seriously, but something needs to be done right now, today. IPs and newbies are being warned, and blocked, as we speak by a system that isn't working for them and Wikipedia will be haemorrhaging new editors through frustation even faster than normal. If that "something" means turning back on the OB temporarily, then that's what should be done. I don't know how difficult that is, but I'm fairly certain the devs have rollback rights... SpinningSpark 22:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know I keep saying this, but I agree. Is it really technically impossible to re-implement the orange bar temporarily? If not, EFFING DO IT ALREADY pleaseandthankyoumuchly. Ignatzmice•talk 22:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Does anyone know why this edit didn't notify my main account? MJ94 (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually sign your message with 4 tilde's? Unless you messed with your signature preferences, it looks like you did three tilde's, the small message, then 5 tildes. Presumably this should notify you. If that's not the case, you might have it unchecked in your preferences. Ryan Vesey 22:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I typo'd. However, this did notify me. Thanks, Ryan. MJ94 (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49932
  1. When I click the notifications button, I don't see the notification - the number goes to zero, but I stay on the page I was on rather than going to the notifications page. However, if I click on it before whatever page I'm on is fully loaded, I do go to the notifications page. I can also get there by right clicking and asking to open it in a new tab or window. I'm using Windows, Firefox, Modern skin
  2. I see something about a "flyout" on the page about the tool; that doesn't appear at all for me
  3. The links to "mentions" break when there is a wikilink in the section heading of the relevant page. For example, the link in the notification about this diff should have brought me here, but instead brought me here
  4. There is a white line in the heading on the notifications page. Hovering over it, there appears to be the survey link on one side and the preferences link on the other, but I can't actually see either of those things because of the colour of the text/icon relative to the background colour. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Bugzilla now covers points 1 and 2, but not 3 or 4. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I deployed some fixes locally for the modern skin. It's not complete, but at least it should make the flyout workable for you. 4 is also hidden away in that report btw. See the point about "H1 positioning". 3 might require separate reporting. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick fix DJ, 'preciate it. Is the heading issue related to why the "Notifications" title on Special:Notifications appears indented? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that page is also fully customized and only taking two skins in mind, causing trouble for the two unsupported skins. :( —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting here since you're here, but I don't have a major problem with the stuff on the header - it kind of makes sense and nothing changes up there except for a few scripts mostly limited to mainspace. Better it look different than not have the helpful links, jah? At any rate, every now and then the big ol' 0 has a big space next to it, mainly when editing. SO it looks like "AMORY 0 TALK" which is weird. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another bug?

Why was my little red numeral a "1" this morning when I had two new messages (from two different users), both of which arrived while I was logged out? Rivertorch (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a bug; it just collapses all the "you have a new message" things into a single notification and lets you know all at once. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Then that's a disadvantage of the new system. The OBOD told you how many new messages there were. Or rather from how many users. (SineBot counted as a user, which was sort of confusing. Maybe this isn't a big disadvantage.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did the notification itself not say so? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. It required clicking on and then counting the items, rather than the sum just being there on the page at a glance. It's not exactly onerous, but any decrease in functionality or user-friendliness isn't a good thing. Let me say that I thought I was going to warm to this feature because I imagine some real advantages in helping keep track of things, and I still think it has a lot of potential, but I'm beginning to think it was a bit of a blunder to eliminate the OBOD. A little redundancy wouldn't hurt when it comes to notifications about new messages in user talk, and I'm not clear why an opt-in choice for continued use of the OBOD is being denied. Is there a technical reason or what? (Apologies if that has been answered already. This page is an vast wall of text, and I have given up trying to follow every thread.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bug?

When I click my icon, I do not get an entire flyout screen. It is cut off so that I only see: ATIONS ? The screen is too far to the left. I've tried enlarging and shrinking my page size and tried eliminating my toolbars and still I can't see the left side. Funnily I have part of a post that says: BONO POSTED ON YOUR TALK PAGE. Please everyone run to see... ツ (Sorry it's now in an archived page). Is there some little knob I can twist to correct this? Fylbecatulous talk 02:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have the "Modern" skin. I am on IE 10, Windows 7. Fylbecatulous talk 02:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: please refer to my edits above in the section entitled "Not getting a link": I now see that I have Bug 47932. Call the exterminator. Fylbecatulous talk 23:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected behavior: no red

I'm using Monobook with Iceweasel on Debian at the current version of Squeeze. I'm getting numbers for talk page messages, but there is no red box surrounding them. Is this expected behavior for Monobook? Sophus Bie (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, bother. I'm guessing, then, that it's because I have javascript disabled. (Please don't give the obvious solution, "enable javascript".) I didn't expect the flyout to work, but the lack of red highlighting is an issue. At least Special:Notifications itself seems to be working as intended. Sophus Bie (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...and there's another reason the orange bar is better. Not everyone will have JS enabled. Geez. Ignatzmice•talk 14:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! I wish they would enable using both. It may have been low-tech, but at least low-tech almost always works. Sophus Bie (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to badger your choice, but is there a particular reason you have JavaScript disabled? That closes off a lot of handy functionality, not just on Wikipedia, but pretty much everywhere on the Internet. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For almost everything, I find the speed penalty outweighs the added functionality. With a sample size of 25, I've measured that javascript slows my browsing to about 1/10th of my otherwise expected speed. Sophus Bie (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Echo does work with Javascript disabled. You just don't get the flyout. If anyone knows how to create fancy flyouts without Javascript, I'd love to know :) Kaldari (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind the lack of flyout. My complaint was the lack of red highlighting around the (1). Sophus Bie (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaldari: There's not going to be all the functionality in this that you need, I've spent no time trying to work out how/if it and php could ever give you the interaction you need - and maybe it can't... it may be utterly useless for this purpose, probably a zillion browser compatibility issues, but this (from a quick Google) indicates that kind of thing is not totally impossible: [1] (worked for me in Chrome 28.0.1496.0 dev-m with JS disabled - no other tests done) Begoon talk 12:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watch List Question for Second Account

I created a second account to test notifications. However, when logged on to the second account, I can't watch list pages. Is that because a setting is wrong, or do I first have to reply to the confirming email to confirm the second account? (I've also posted this at the Help Desk, so a reply in either forum is sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get an answer on this? I can't reproduce it. If it is still happening, what do you mean by "can't watch list pages". What skin is that account using? What browser and operating system are you using? LWelling (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mention by IP

Should I expect a notification when I am mentioned by an IP? Or Wikipedia was smart enough to detect that that IP was actually me? (I have no privacy issue with that IP disclosure, let it be there) --Tito Dutta (contact) 09:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible hassle and Suggestion magic word

a) Few weeks ago, Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians page was redesigned and all linked usernames were moved from main page to subpages. b) I have seen sometimes for WikiProjects, task forces etc (specially for new WikiProjects who have not finished designing) they move "Participants" list to sub page etc Does that mean, in such situation, it'll notify all those hundreds of editors? For example, if a new deceased editor's name is included in deceased page, we should add it as a "mention" in his account.
Suggestion: A magic word __STOPNOTIFICATIONS__ can be created so that while doing the works mentioned above, before starting the page redesign work, we can add the magic word in the page to stop notifying and after finishing the task remove the word! --Tito Dutta (contact) 10:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, we often write like this I don't know about the topic, you might get some help from User:Example, —here too notification is not necessary! --Tito Dutta (contact) 10:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless people have started signing, which is a requirement here; you have to both link, and sign in your post. And actually I'd argue that if you're saying "I don't know about the topic, you might get some help from User:Example", User:Example being able to wander along and go "oh, yes!" is really helpful. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to their talk page solves the additional problem. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility concern

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49993

I'm concerned about the accessibility of this tool for screen reader users like myself. While the bold number of notifications is on the top of the screen for sighted users, this is not the case for users of screen readers, which create a virtual buffer in which the HTML and CSS of a page is analysed and presented to users. Screen readers read the HTML of a page from the top to the bottom, so the position of an element on a page for screen readers depends on where it is in the HTML. Therefore, the number (0 or 1 or whatever it may be) is near the bottom of the page from the perspective of a screen reader user, and would be very difficult to find, especially for new users.

The only sensible solution I can think of is to bring back the orange bar (or a functional equivalent); perhaps it could be made to say something like "You have a new message and 3 other notifications", if, for example, a user received a new message, two of their edits were reverted, and they were mentioned once in a discussion.

I do like the mention and revert notification features; they seem like they could be very useful. Graham87 11:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Link part of Notification and OBOD separation anxiety

Got my first notice of a Link. I have to say that I really like this feature of the Notification - this was a really good idea you folks came up with. Replacing the OBOD, not so much. For everything mentioned above, and that it's now a two-step process to respond to notification on a talk page. Used to be - OBOD comes up, click on it to go right to the talk page. Now, it's the teensy red pipe notification - click on it, then click again for the talk page. — Maile (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, it is a Good Thing that we've lengthened the talk page response to two clicks. People are too quick to respond anyway, and slowing them down, even by a single extra click can only help temper their response. We don't need people to reply faster, but slower. Nevertheless, if we replace the useless navigation panel on the left with a notification feed, you can get it down to one click. Really, I can't see any reason to restore OBOD and many reasons to keep the new notification system in place. It's superior to every aspect of the OBOD. Viriditas (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, I've never used the left-side navigation panel for anything but a quick link to the Main page. I've never even paid attention to what else was on it. The idea of a live feed there instead of the current Notification is a great idea. I'd go along with this. — Maile (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.o, interesting, I always find the toolbox links very handy and I use them all the time. — -dainomite   13:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the toolbox and navigation panels are quite different. Like you, I use the toolbox constantly, and like Maile I never use the navigation panel. Ignatzmice•talk 13:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I also use Toolbox a lot. I think Viriditas was just talking about the part that links Main page, contents, Featured content, Current events, Random article, Donate to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Shop. About the only people who would look at that are visitors. That panel space could be different for logged-in users. Just envision it if it were a highlighted live feed that way. — Maile (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link notification is awesome; can it be more flexible, please?

I too have found link notification to be a great new feature. But it's frustrating that it is limited to articles I created. I want to be able to specify other pages that I really care about to get link notifications for, and specify pages I created to not get notifications for.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second this; I'm getting a lot of notifications for redirects that I have created as part of new-page patrol that I really don't care about. However, I'd like to receive notifications about the pages I do care about. Perhaps this could be linked in with the watchlist in some way? So if you have unwatched a page, you don't get link notifications about it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 I third this wonderful idea. — -dainomite   06:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update on talkpage notifications

Hey all. The Editor Engagement team spent almost all of yesterday working on ways to resolve the issue of talkpage notifications and the prominence problems around them. I'd hoped that they'd have been able to come up with something by the end of the day; I'm now being told that their timetable is "something by 2pm PST today". When I've got something to share, I'll share it.

On a personal note: I see a lot of people above complaining about "the developers". While I suspect this is just a catch-all for "the staffers involved", it sort of hurts to see the programmers blamed for what was ultimately a decision of product design - while developers did participate, it was mostly the visual designers and product managers. And I say this as someone who is most certainly not a developer. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, Oliver. Looking forward to seeing what you all come up with.
On the second note, I think it might help if you change the notification (watch list notification, I think) to say "Please let the Wikimedia Foundation know what you think" or similar, instead of "please let the developers know." I suspect we're all happy comply with however we should be addressing people. If I've contributed to this confusion, my apologies. -Pete (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense; I'll ask someone to tweak it now (unless you want to? Admin and all :).) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you, or somebody, already got to it -- and I'm glad, because "editor engagement team" is obviously the right phrasing, but it wasn't obvious to me until I saw it :) -Pete (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh! I poked people on IRC in the -admins channel; time to find out who did it so I can thank them :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I'll be taking the day (and the weekend) off - several days of answering things constantly have got me kinda bushed :/. While I genuinely appreciate the feedback everyone has given, answering it for 15 hours straight isn't fun for anyone, and I don't want to be unnecessarily snarky or useless ;p. I have reason to believe that my boss will be participating if there are any concerns about my brief absence from the conversation, and I hope Vibha, Fabrice, Kaldari and Luke will continue chipping in. Thanks for understanding :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup. Oliver's been living on this page since Tuesday, and he really needs a break. So do all the other folks on the team. I've asked Oliver to take the weekend off (as he should do, normally) and we'll get back to discussing things on Monday. In the meantime, if anyone has anything that can't wait for a few days to be addressed, please mention me in your comment :). Howief (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, wait one freakin' minute, @Howief: YES, we have something that can't wait. If you're going to leave this until next week, give us back the orange bar first. Just as a temporary measure. Or have you not seen the #Yes section? Ignatzmice•talk 23:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hey Ignatz. Yes, I've read the Yes section carefully, as well as all the other posts related to the orange bar. So has everyone who's worked on the feature. The team has been working hard since releasing earlier this week and could use some breathing room. I would really appreciate folks giving the team some space so we can resume the discussion fresh on Monday. Hope that's ok. Howief (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand the coders need breathing room; no one operates well with constant yelling. What I don't understand is why the coders don't turn the orange bar back on while they are altering Echo to resolve the various issues. I'm not technically minded, but it seems like the existing Echo and existing orange bar system would coexist until Echo is modified to make it more prominent, address the IP issues, etc. The unwillingness to turning it back on while things are fixed makes people like me feel like the WMF isn't interested in doing what it can to support my editing, even if it must make changes to advance the software's progress. MBisanz talk 01:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • edit conflict; agree with MBisanzWell, Howie, I can't argue with that, or force you to keep working. Obviously you can't be expected to work 24/7. But you wouldn't have had all this blowback if you'd been clearer about the destruction of the orange bar. And—I keep asking this and not getting a response—we would like to know if there is a technical reason we can't have it back temporarily, or if you're all just being heavy-handed jerks. Ignatzmice•talk 01:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • In the world of software engineering, it's rarely as simple as flicking a switch. I daresay it is not a super difficult change to make, but not extremely easy either. It has to be carefully thought out and thoroughly tested (I'm sure you would be unhappy if stuff got completely broken along the way). Getting the orange bar and Echo to co-exist might be quite difficult; I don't know. Don't assume that the developers are being "heavy-handed" just because something doesn't come immediately. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • It was as simple as flicking a switch for the IP issue. Admittedly it might be harder for logged-in users because they have Echo as well. But I really am quite frustrated with the WMF team for not even answering questions about temporarily turning it back on. This question has been asked here (and here), here, here, here, here, here (and here), and the two replies above yours. In only one case was the actual question addressed: replying to the second diff, Okeyes said he thought it was just that the WMF liked it this way. I have yet to see anything from an actual developer telling me it's impossible to turn the orange bar on temporarily, and at this point, yes, I'm assuming they're just being pigheaded about it. Whatever the supposed issues were with it, there would be NO LOSS if they gave it back temporarily—unless there is a technical issue, which they've been careful to avoid talking about. Ignatzmice•talk 13:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing notification types in preferences?

The preferences FAQ (Wikipedia:Notifications/FAQ) lists the following preferences for me:

  1. Talk page messages: when a message is left on your user talk page (this replaces the orange bar that used to appear);
  2. Mentions: when your user name is mentioned on a talk page;
  3. Page reviews: when a page you created is reviewed (applies to new users only);
  4. Page links: when a new link is made to a page you created;
  5. Edit reverts: when your edits are undone or rolled back;
  6. Thanks: when someone thanks you for your edit (coming soon);
  7. User rights: when your user rights change;
  8. Welcome: when you create a new account;
  9. Getting started: when you have confirmed your email address.

However, Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo doesn't show me the last 4. I understand that the thanks bit isn't implemented yet, and since I've had this account for... wow, 4 years already? "welcome" and "getting started" are moot. But that still leaves "user rights" out in the cold. Is that notification planned? Something not all users get? (I'm not sure why some users wouldn't get a say on whether they're informed when they get new rights, in that case.) Or is the absence of the item on the preferences page an oversight? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's planned and deployed, but it's not a class of message that you should be able to turn off (same as talkpage messages). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply. However, I do see a checkbox for email notifications of talkpage changes. I don't see one for webpage notifications, but it's not obvious to me whether that means "those are always on", "those are always off", or "we aren't telling". If the former two, a read-only checkbox (maybe with some explanation of why they're that way) would be nice, esp. since I do have control of email notifications. If the latter, I'm really curious why you think I don't need to know. (If the intended meaning is something else than the ones I listed, please elaborate.) Likewise, I'd like to know what the settings of webpage and email notifications are for the options not listed on the page are, whether I can change them or not. And if I can't change either, an explanation of why would be nice to have. (For all of the above, that explanation might be in the FAQ instead of the notification preferences tab itself, but IMO the value of the settings should be given on the page itself. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Always on"; it was actually planned to have a greyed-out checkbox, which should be in the next release, but we didn't have time to include it this time around. The options not listed on the page - welcome and getting started are (to my knowledge) one-time, web-only notifications: user rights, I believe, the same. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point for welcome and GS notifications being 1-time if the corresponding messages are going to be automated at all (I'm not sure how I feel about that, but that's a different discussion and moot for me anyway) since users should only get those messages once in that case, but I'm unclear what you mean by user rights being the same. Are you referring to one set of user rights that by its nature gets (eventually) granted to all or most users eventually, or are you saying I'll never see any notification after my first rights change, even if I'm granted other rights later? (This may make no sense, depending on whether/how/why/when new rights are granted - I'm not even sure which rights I have, what they're for, or why I should care whether/when mine change, unless it's because I did Something Bad.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PauAmma (talk • contribs) 16:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, sorry; had a mental fail. User-rights messages are permanently on; the idea is that changes are important enough that, positive or negative, you should be aware of them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Are there any plans to let users choose how they want those always-on notifications delivered? And likewise, will there be a web-only notification to talk page edits? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a web-only talkpage notification; that's the default :). I don't think there are any plans on that front - the web interface is always going to be the primary interface for notifications. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications about Archive Bots

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49910
Resolved

I didn't used to get a yellow bar when a bot archived my talk page; now I get a notification :S can this be fixed? Pretty please! --Errant (chat!) 15:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, already in Bugzilla :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can Echo be fine tuned to ignore certain pages?

So I just got (15 hours ago) a notification that said "Christina Crawford (wrestler) was linked from Ariane Andrew: See all links to this page". It took a suggestion from legoktm and some digging, but I found out that the reason I'm getting that notification is that I was the one that promoted it at Articles for Creation, way back in 2010. It would be really nice if I could exclude those articles from what I get notified on, without having to disable two whole categories of notification. They should all have the edit summary "Created via Articles for Creation (you can help!)". Will this be possible? Sven Manguard Wha? 16:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page links are certainly problematic (which is why they are off by default for existing users). It would be really nice if there were a way to know that pages you are really interested in got linked somewhere. Unfortunately "really interested in" is hard to detect. Maybe something like "pages you have made more than 20 edits to" would catch it. In the short term I think active users will mostly keep them turned off or they'll get a lot of notifications about category pages. For a new editor who creates a few articles on a topic area they have expertise in they could be very rewarding and let them see their contributions getting appreciated. For power users, they are probably too noisy. LWelling (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it could only show links to pages on one's watchlist? -- Ypnypn (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would also be a valid option, but I'm not sure it helps most people. Active users routinely have 1000s of watched pages.LWelling (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to make the feature really useful for highly active users, you do need to provide lots of control options, and "only show it for watched pages" is certainly one good control option. I would say that this feature as it stands is certainly useful for newcomers who haven't created many pages. (Just as well there's some benefit to more engaged newcomers at least, since complete newbies are currently getting screwed by low visibility of welcome and warning and other talkpage messages...) Rd232 talk 12:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signature of alternative account

Is there any way I can tweak the signature of my alternative account (e.g. [2]), so that it still links to my main account but doesn't notify me every time I sign something? An optimist on the run!   17:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could make a redirect to your userpage in your userspace and then have your alt link that. I think that works. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea - I'll try it. Thanks. An optimist on the run!   17:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of mention

Let me be sure that I understand exactly what is a mention. Does that only happen if another user entered my properly wikified user name, User:Robert McClenon, in a talk page? That is what I would expect, because I am an IT engineer, but it may not be what an inexperienced user would expect. Many posters simply type the user's name without wikifying it. Should there be instructions to that effect? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There should (and will be!) - I think one method of learning, however, is seeing it done. A lot of people find things out via, I guess, social osmosis rather than help documentation. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my experience so far:
  1. It works if you add the person's wikilinked username and sign your post, provided you are on a talk page (or possibly other page, like ANI, as noted above).
  2. It does not work if you put the wikilinked username in the edit summary.
  3. It does not work if you put the wikilinked username in HTML comment-tags.
  4. It does not work if you do not sign with four tildes.
Hope this helps. Ignatzmice•talk 17:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But (as was asked before) does it work with the {{user}} template? -- Ypnypn (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just done more testing - it works with {{user}}, so you should be notified about this - Ypnypn (talk · contribs). On the other hand, a link to a user talk page doesn't appear to notify the user. An optimist on the run!   18:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was notified. Thanks for the quick response. -- Ypnypn (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I must have done something wrong. Just tried it again; as Optimist says, it does work. Ignatzmice•talk 18:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking sideways, it seems that if we want someone to know we've mentioned them, we do it in brackets. If we want to talk behind their back, we do it without. Peridon (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing talk notifications

I had 2 unread notifications -Nvvchar. 03:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC) and DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC). Notifications showed only the latter, not both when I assessed wikipedia approx. 20:30 IST. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also why is the diff option not in notifications? --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you can provide a screenshot of the first bug? And the second is being fixed. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Example for today: DYKUpdateBot and 1 other posted on your talk page.

"Giving DYK credit for Master Vithal" How do I interpret the 1 was Nvvchar (who updated old section)? DYKUpdateBot left 3 messages. But I know only about Master Vithal. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bug in Echo reporting a revert

Resolved

Someone just reverted an editor with the edit summary "Reverted to revision 553245825 by Floquenbeam (TW)". But the notification system just sent me a message that my edit to that page had been reverted, presumably because my name shows up in their edit summary. The coders of Echo and the coders of Twinkle need to huddle. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your later edit here was one of those which was reverted by the return to your earlier version, so I don't think it's a bug. - David Biddulph (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, my mistake. Thanks for catching that. Nevermind... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

I had a speedy tag removed from an article (and put it back later). Does this count as a revert, 'cos I didn't get notified? Diff is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3LD_Art_%26_Technology_Center&diff=553238508&oldid=553238289 while it lasts (admins will be able to see it later, of course). Peridon (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second thought - is it only a revert when 'undo' is used for the purposes of Notification? This one was manual removal not 'undo'. Peridon (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I would imagine. I wouldn't be surprised if Twinkle, etc, did it too, though I also wouldn't be surprised if it didn't. I'll check that now. Ignatzmice•talk 22:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is another case where what an inexperienced user might expect is not what an IT engineer would expect. (IT engineer who is inexperienced user still brings knowledge of how software is designed. Most users are not IT engineers.) It is easy to design the software to provide notification of a revert via the Undo button. On a manual edit, it would be complicated to determine whether the edit had the effect of reverting a previous edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Twinkle-reverts do not trigger a notification. "Undo"-reverts do. I wonder about rollback by admins? That's more system-level than Twinkle. Maybe you could try rolling back any recent edits here? Ignatzmice•talk 22:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, as rollbacker. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got a notification. Ignatzmice•talk 22:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)OK - I've rolled back the last edit there (not with Twinkle). I very rarely use rollback. I've probably rolled back the roll back... Peridon (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So has TheOriginalSoni had a notification of my admin rollback? Peridon (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link notifications for redirects

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T50045

...are entirely too excessive for someone who has created millions of redirect pages like me. I'm turning that feature off for now but it would still be useful for my real created pages. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That they can't detect redirects is frustrating; I'll put it in Bugzilla :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, it would be nice if links to redirects of articles I created caused notifications, regardless of who created the redirect itself. -- Ypnypn (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link to new section on your talk page

English is my second language, so please let me know if I'm being too vague or unclear. Thanks.

The notification for changes to your talk page, i.e. the addition of a new section/message, only provides a link to the entire talk page ("User talk:Mathonius") and not a link to the added section ("User talk:Mathonius#Echo"), like the orange banner used to do. The same notification in my archive gives a link to the user page of the user editing my talk page, a link to the entire talk page, and a link to the specific section. Is it possible to add such a link to the original notifications as well?

Regards, Mathonius (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or am I asking the same question as Redtigerxyz (see here)? Mathonius (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathonius: Should be fixed as soon as the next deployment happens (next week). Kaldari (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Kaldari. Oddly enough, the notification of your reply was "Kaldari mentioned you on [[Wikipedia_talk:Notifications#Link_to_new_section_on_your_talk_page|Wikipedia talk:Notifications]].", linking to this specific section. Mathonius (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least it works for mention notifications :) Kaldari (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article assessment notifications

I apologize if this has already been suggested. I would like to receive notifications when certain DYK, GA, and FA nominations/reviews are initiated and when they are passed/failed. I'm particularly interested in articles about Hawaii. Can someone add this to the feature queue? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viriditas. I'm the ux designer on this project. The good news is that some sort of subscription based model is on the long long term roadmap. Its going to take a significant amount of evolution to get there. We certainly want to get to a place where we can provide much more a fine tune controls on what we notify you about. i.e: projects/ categories/ people / articles that a user cares about. It is (needless to say) very complex and so this first phase is about understanding how users are using notifications and then providing a more powerful control panel . Vibhabamba (talk) 07:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vibhabamb, this productive suggestion from Viriditas, and your comment about a long term roadmap providing notifications, make me think about how this all could help individual projects.
  • On the short end of it, the old diabled Rich Farmbrough tools like Fembot were never substituted with something else. So we have pages like Hawaii Project Recent Changes stopped adding articles a year ago when the bot was disabled, and, therefore, are now only Reporting on articles that had been added up to that time. Not all projects have this set up, but the ones that do are a year out of date. Would be good if something could be substituted for the projects.
  • On a larger scale, WikiProject Military History is more organized than the average project, but they have Summary of open tasks, manually updated, that is similar to what Viriditas is requesting on an individual user basis. It would be great if the idea that Viriditas has requested on a personal user availability, combined with what Femtobot used to do, could be designed for the projects. And maybe along the lines that it would just be automatically attached to the talk pages of all projects. Quite frankly, most of the projects out there don't know what is available to them, and nobody is really in charge of the individual projects.
Just some thoughts. The projects don't seem to be on the drawing board when system improvements are designed. — Maile (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're certainly on the drawing board; the issue is how we implement things in a way that's generalisable. So: we totally could build it around Wikiprojects, or to handle Wikiprojects, but localising that to different projects is going to be very difficult. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a step in the right direction. Hope is in view...— Maile (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Maile. I agree with your comments, and that's exactly what I was getting at. I forgot to add, I would like to be notified about XfDs and RfCs related to the Hawaii project. My personal problem with the current notification system is that it isn't open enough to allow other editors to tweak it to add and receive notifications of their choice, particularly in terms of improving participation in community processes like Xfd, GAR, etc. I mean, look at the backlog for GA articles already. Can you imagine if interested editors were receiving notifications based on review topics? The queues would be free and clear. I appreciate all the work the team has done so far, but it seems to me the most important aspect of notifications is not being utilized. I really think this should be a priority. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications for templated messages.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T50044

Yesterday, I left {{Subst:Welcome to Wikipedia}} on the talk page of a person I was training, When I saw them looking at the notification, it said I had said "{{Welcome to Wikipedia}}". Not the most user-friendly message; and will be less so for user warning templates and others with obscure names or shortcuts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean there are other parts of Echo's talkpage notice handling that need improving? Colour me shocked. The important thing is: no backsies. Rd232 talk 10:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pigsonthewing; yep, markup in edit summaries and section titles is a known (and listed) bug. Hopefully it'll be fixed soon :). Rd232; can you explain how commentary like that is at all contributing to the discussion? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right you are; griping is useless. So floating #Petition on handling of interface changes. Rd232 talk 22:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing links

I have a notification:

Frankley was linked from John Pakington (serjeant-at-law): See all links to this page

linked as shown. The most useful link for me, here, would be John Pakington (serjeant-at-law). No doubt others would want a link to Frankley. It seems bizarre to mention articles by title and not link to them. In some cases, "WhatLinksHere" lists will be so long as to be effectively useless.

Also, the phrase "this page" is unhelpfully ambiguous; and the repetition of "See all links to this page" as link text in multiple notifications, with different targets, is a a breach of accessibility guidelines. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oversighted data

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T50059

On my Special:Notifications, it includes article titles of articles that link to pages I created, the subject lines of discussions that mention me or that are made on my talk page, and the usernames of all people who trigger notices. This is true even if the article is deleted, the discussion is renamed, or the user is renamed. This would seem to be bad from an oversight perspective, because if a discussion subject or article title contained private information, like Jenny at 867-5309 or ==Matt Bisanz from 34th Street in New York is being mean to me== and was properly oversighted, it would still appear in any number of people's Special:Notifications page, defeating the purpose of oversight. This would also be true if the action was done by User:MBisanz is at 867-5309 and the username was suppressed or forcibly renamed. MBisanz talk 19:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications are basically private to the users which they were sent to, there's no point trying to hide things which people have (or should have in the case of non-recent unread notifications) already seen. It's not the same situation as the public logs/history where new, uninvolved, users could come along and see now-private information. --Krenair (talk • contribs) 21:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of at least one very easy to execute attack, but I'll refrain from laying out the step-by-step until I hear if it will be changed to stop it from occurring. MBisanz talk 22:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making the tab across the top-right more prominent

While we're here, can we make that tab going from our usernames all the way to "logout" in the topright hand corner of the screen much more prominent? That's always irked me... especially when trying to log in to Wikipedia on my iPhone. So fiddly. But in general they shouldn't all be lumped together like that. IMO username and talkpage should be much larger, especially since they appear after every signature.--Coin945 (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC) hi User:Coin945 Im the UX designer on this project. Absolutely agree with you, the top right nav is too small with too many elements in it. We need to find a way so that username and talk are easier targets. We are definitely working on this in the coming few iterations. Vibhabamba (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Petition on handling of interface changes

The handling of Wikipedia:Interface changes is an issue that comes up again and again. Fundamentally, there's a lack of sufficient communication, and a failure to try hard enough to leverage the collective knowledge of active Wikipedians. This applies most obviously to things which do get implemented (like Echo), but also to things which don't (like cross-wiki watchlists). It's been pointed out that Echo was signposted in various ways (including being WP:SIGNPOSTed), yet this failed to include the key information that the Orange Bar was being replaced from day one, rather than supplemented and perhaps later phased out. And the effective rejection of requests to at least temporarily restore the status quo ante whilst an adequate replacement is developed is not good enough: for an Editor Engagement Team to produce a tool that at least temporarily substantially harms engagement of new editors whilst needlessly pissing off many highly active editors is unsatisfactory to say the least.

So I'm just floating the idea of a petition asking WMF to try to improve communication between editors and WMF design/development (which absolutely does not mean allowing the community to block everything they don't like). Anyone think it's worth doing? (Would help if it was accompanied by concrete suggestions on how.) Rd232 talk 22:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hellz yes. Though that's just my frustration speaking. Obviously something should be done, but at this point I don't have a lot of confidence that it will be. Ignatzmice•talk 22:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Given that the Foundation can do it (like how it's been communicating SUL finalization), I don't see why it wasn't done here. It would have been very easy to edit the orange bar for the week or two before the change to say "You have a talk page edit. By the way, starting on X, look up for the red square by your name instead of here to see talk page edits and other notices." MBisanz talk 22:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - there seems to be an attitude of "we're going to do this whether you like it or not" from the Foundation recently. This just leads to an "us and them" feeling from editors. — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 22:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • YES!!! They have no problem beating us over the head with humonguous fugly banners when they want our money but when they want to fuck up mess around with our working environment and tools they take great care to only "announce" it in a few carefully selected obscure walled gardens. How about creating a "community noticeboard" page that is permanently included in all users' watchlists. BTW I've turned off all the new notifications so that the silly little red dot comes up only for talk page notification - Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - please raise it. It seems to be that the perceived "imposition" of changes to the working environment of editors is at odds with a project based around democratic ideals of consensus and civility. Whether or not the imposition is real is irrelevant at this point, as it is the perception that counts. Such a strategy is also unwise in two respects. First, extensive consultation would have pointed out any flaws in the change, which might have been remedied. Second, once a perception of imposition has been created, editors are much less likely to accept the change and anything associated with it. Debate then becomes heated and damage may be done in the commitment of a team working on the software project and of editors in general. In this case it was probably compounded by Okeyes' comment that "In the long term, this feature isn't going away", which may go down in the annals of Wikipedia as one of the great indicative soundbites (although I note the context of the statement that goes before this - which was clearly meant to be conciliatory). This could all be avoided in the first place, but also needs to be treated with greater care once a widespread reaction becomes clear. It is also true that editors need to keep civil and calm no matter the perceived harm. In short there needs to be better consideration and communication in both sets of circumstances: how changes are communicated and consulted on and what happens if the first of these fails, as it clearly has in this case.--SabreBD (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but the issue is larger than communication. Communication needs to be two-way; it is no good if one party refuses to listen. The unfortunate Okeyes is doing his best (and he showed with Page Curation that development in collaboration with the users and taking their views into account is possible), but in this case, though he told the devs six months ago that this was not an adequate way to signal new talk page messages, they clearly thought they knew better. When the first appalled reaction to the loss of the orange bar began to come in, there was at first some suggestion that it could be reconsidered, but early on Wednesday the door was banged shut, and Okeyes now has to tell us not to bother with an RFC (currently running 102/19) because "Eloquence (Erik) has made his position on the orange bar clear. The Echo team is not going to be turning it on again permanently, even as an opt-in, whatever happens."
There is a repeated pattern here, seen before with ACTRIAL, and the attitude comes from the top of the WMF: they know best, and the message for volunteers is that we just have to trust them because "If you don't trust WMF, you can - and probably should - contribute your effort elsewhere, because WMF may - and probably will - do things you won't like. HTH, Erik" That is an unfortunate attitude from a Foundation whose output is produced entirely by volunteers. JohnCD (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Echo seems to have some great potential, but the attitude here of "like it or lump it" is really hard to fathom. It is supposedly designed for editors but the devs don't seem to care whether or not it is actually helpful to us. This conversation could long ago have moved on to something much more productive but has now got completely hung up on the orange bar issue which would have been so simple to solve with an attitude of wanting to communicate. SpinningSpark 16:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there definitely needs to be improved communication. I would suggest two things: having a group of Wikipedians who test these changes before they're implemented, and it ought to be a group that doesn't consist of developers or technical people; and also trying these things out on smaller wikis first, where problems will become apparent without having to take up the time of so many people. Also, given that the changes are supposed to help new users, and that the removal of the orange bar is clearly not in the interests of new users (because they will miss welcome notices, advice, replies and warnings), it's hard to work out what the thinking was. Some public brainstorming would help a lot, where the editors who respond really are listened to. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's a start at Wikipedia:Petition to the WMF on handling of interface changes. Please start putting in suggestions and good and bad examples, and editing the petition header. Rd232 talk 11:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Preferences documentation

FYI, I made a quick section for this in Help:Preferences#Notifications, basically linking to the 2 main documentation pages, and the latest TheSignpost summary. (Help:Preferences is linked at the top of Special:Preferences). Please tweak/edit as needed. Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please be able to get rid of the little gray box altogether?

I can't stand notifications. I think that they are completely ridiculous and don't even want to look at them. I changed my preferences so that it won't give me notifications at all. However, the little gray box with a 0 in it remains. If we select not to get notifications at all, may we please be able to have the gray box disappear? öBrambleberry of RiverClan 02:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect someone like User:Writ Keeper could code something to hide it in your CSS. It also raises the question of whether the en.wiki community could decide to bring back a more prominent notification system or make the gray box an opt-in using edits to Gadgets and global css/js. I doubt that would go down well though. MBisanz talk 02:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This css code...
#pt-notifications { visibility: hidden; }
...removes the gray box and the number. It leaves a blank space, though. Just add it to Special:MyPage/common.css (for all skins) or Special:MyPage/vector.css (for just the vector skin). The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 02:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, that doesn't work for me. Ignatzmice•talk 02:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really preferred the orange box... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 02:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to say so at #Yes above! You'd be number 97. Ignatzmice•talk 02:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you The Anonymouse & Ignatzmice for your scripts. Mlpearc (powwow) 02:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit: I just grabbed it from further up on this page (see #Requesting ability to turn off all notifications and #How to turn this off). The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 03:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anyway to make this into a clickable Gadget in Preferences? MBisanz talk 03:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's already User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js and User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/cookielessOrangeBar.js. I imagine it'd be pretty simple to turn these into a JavaScript Gadget available in Special:Preferences. But there a lot of issues getting muddied/muddled on this talk page and the gadget will only solve one particular problem.
Notifications for people making bad edits (anon or not) are a big issue. It might mitigate this to implement a "seen" feature for talk page warnings. Maaaaaaaaybe. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Note that cookielessOrangeBar.js is obsolete; the cookieless functionality has been merged into the main orangeBar.js. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, same here too. I've installed Writ Keeper's OBOD script. Leaving the space blank is better than having some Notification box. Arctic Kangaroo 08:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk message alert isn't obvious enough for newbies

I like the new functions but the tab should be flashing ( or the notifications floating (flyout) box should pop up automatically) when there's an unread message on your talk page. Yesterday I encountered an excellent new biomedical editor; I left a personalised welcome on his talk page. Today I realise he's never going to see it. There is no point in leaving talk page notices for newbies at the moment. This to some degree undermines new editor retention. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? That's a very useful observation. Hey User:Howief, User:Eloquence, User:Okeyes (WMF), User:Fabrice Florin (WMF), this guy here has just pointed out a major bug in your new system. Maybe there should be a bigger notification for newbies! A big bright-colored bar running across the top of any page they visit, maybe. It would tell them in no uncertain terms that there had been a change to their talk page (hey, they might not even know they had a talk page), and it would stay there until they visited their talk page to see the message. What do people think of that idea? Ignatzmice•talk 04:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Be nice. Mlpearc (powwow) 04:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Ignatzmice You raise a very valid point with the current talk notification being less prominent than desired, so it absolutely must be fixed. That said, the Orange Bar also has behavioral issues with it. For one it is disconnected from the talk hook, it also makes you go to the talk page instead of providing notification content right there. We think that we could provide the same level of prominence and efficiency with some slightly altered versions of the Orange bar. We are currently exploring a few options to fix this issue and are hoping to share early next week using IRC. One humble request - we are with you, not against you. Vibhabamba (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Anthonyhcole just came up with a really good idea that may have been overlooked: Just make the notifications message box flyout automatically (without the new user having to notice and then click on it) when there is an unread talk page message. One could even argue that is more noticeable than the orange bar. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested (as Fluffernutter mentioned) the idea of the Notifications box popping out automatically for IPs and users that are not yet autoconfirmed within a few minutes of rollout, further, I would suggest the background colour for the top cell in the Notifications box (i.e that which contains the text Notifications ? be coloured to match the old OBOD). I would say however that I (personally) don't want an auto opening Notifications box and I know a lot of people don't want that so when autoconfirmed comes along, it should be a configurable option. When editing and creating content rather than performing administrative tasks, it's nice to see you have a message on your talk page, without having to leave the page you're on at the moment and trundle off to visit your talk page, just to see you added a link to a DAB page or someone is wanting you to undertake some administrative action.
I would also caution those who are being a little unpleasant towards the developers of this, starting petitions and being quite unhelpful at times with sarcastic remarks (they're not big nor clever, as well you know) - you know (or should know) full well that people complain when they're unhappy but say little or nothing when they're happy. There are at the very least the same number of people out there who are quite satisfied with Echo and given the numbers editing v. the numbers complaining here, probably a lot more. They'll have no idea of this discussion and aren't driven to say "Ooh it's wonderful, leave it alone". Human nature and all that.
Yes, it's not perfect but without rolling it out and getting feedback, it never would be perfect from day one because a handful of developers cannot hope to guess what hundreds of thousands of people are going to say and do with the new feature - different people want it to do different things, not just notify people of a new talk page message so it's only natural something that provides vastly increased functionality will not provide the exact combination of functionality everybody wants from day one.
Go forth but play nicely, everybody. Nick (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The people not likely to complain are the big issue, actually - here, new editors and IPs (before the absurd oversight for the latter was fixed). Highly active editors can and will adapt, as evidenced by the creation of scripts and CSS to get rid of the new system because they don't like it. (This of course does nothing for the long-term health of the system, if large numbers of people hate it because of one key broken aspect and opt out of what should be a great new thing.)
  2. WMF can't make everyone happy, nor predict everyone's needs. But they can try harder to collaborate with users in design and to be responsive to feedback, whilst retaining final say over what gets done. See also Wikipedia:Interface changes. Rd232 talk 08:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I just (logged in) left a message on my IP address's talk page. When I logged out and changed the page, I (as an IP) got an orange bar message. So IPs still get the orange bar, which is good. It seems to me that all that's needed here is for new accounts to have the "flyout" presented automatically whenever they have a new talk page message, with the option to dismiss it and a pointer to the notifications tab. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts

Not complaining about anything, just some thoughts triggered by all the dialogue on this page.

  • What Rd232 says about the people not likely to complain being the big issue - it's something I've wondered about with all issues, every time I read something over at the Village Pump. On every talk page that involves policy, procedure, complaints, it's frequently the same small core of users, with some variations, likely to express anything. And how many editors does Wikipedia have? Millions? How many of them actually even read talk pages and are informed about changes? How many of them are going along clueless that the OBOD is gone and have never even noticed the new notification?
  • I access from a computer, not a hand held device, so I can only guess at this. That little red notification thingy - how noticeable is it to the people who are accessing from a device? How many see a grayed-out pipe and think they need to clean their device screen?
  • The fly-out idea. If I were a new user, and something flew out from my browser that I could click, my first thought would be that I just got a virus. That's been one of the things that drives conversation over at the Village Pump every time something new gets activated like that. The most recent being dialogue being about those warnings you get that you are about to close multiple tabs.
  • We all deal with the frustration of editors who ignore their own talk page postings. One of the most recent one I've seen is an editor who has been around for years and almost always never reacts to talk page postings. And using DYK as an example, editors doing a review leave talk page messages to nominators because the nomination needs action of some sort. Sometimes the nominators respond, and there's a wide variance on how long it takes to get a response. Sometimes they don't respond. I can think of a couple right now where the nominators/article creators are professional-level in RL, but have not responded to concerns. Did they happen to not know about the new notification system? Or is it just one of those things?

As I say, not complaining. But hoping everything comes together eventually. — Maile (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wikis

Many users of the Chinese Wikipedia(including me) want to try this in Chinese Wikipedia. Would you mind installing this function in Chinese Wikipedia? Thanks!--Carrotkit (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Echo will eventually be rolled out to all the other projects; they're launching it here first to work out the kinks before it goes live everywhere else. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'll forgive my lack of technical knowledge, but somehow, it seems like less than a best practice to test software on the largest live installation of it. Least of all because privacy vulnerabilities, like I identified above, will have the largest negative effect on the largest installation. Also possibly because waiting for changes, like a more prominent notice, will have the largest negative effect if something is installed on the largest project first. MBisanz talk 15:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Valid points, but it's also the largest user base, which means the broadest amount of feedback; implementing on a smaller wiki would potentially mean that issues could go undiscovered for much longer. (I've beta tested software and developed websites; trust me, the more eyes you have on something, the better) Plus, I would imagine that there's a certain value in all the feedback being in a single language, rather than trying to track and translate criticism and suggestions in a dozen+ languages. That alone would slow down the development time significantly, I would guess. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So I understand you want to talk in English only, because the developers are not able/willing to make a conversation in another language? --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's absolutely nothing to do with our rationale. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To translate the above, "yes" — after all, "never believe anything until it's been officially denied". Of course, there's also the fact that the Foundation doesn't really care about projects other than the English Wikipedia, since that's what accounts for the overwhelming majority of traffic. --108.38.191.162 (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm just not seeing how commons + meta + en.wiktionary (which probably have an aggregate of 1/4 the highly active users of enwiki) wouldn't have spotted the problems we uncovered so far. Then again, I also don't see why it couldn't be rolled back temporarily when it was realized the problems we uncovered would take longer than a weekend to fix, because now lots of people here are missing lots of messages and we do have an old system that at least notified some of them. MBisanz talk 16:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to try this. Some Wikipedians thought Wikipedia will be slimier to Facebook if there is the Echo. An user said he doesn't want to look at the notifications. Maybe we can open this function, still we let users to try this or not. Sorry for my Chinglish...--Carrotkit (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

50% statistic

So, according to research, only 50% of people clicked the orange bar. This statistic seems to form a substantial portion of the justification for removing the orange bar in favor of Echo. I have a few questions:

  1. Is Echo being tracked to see if it generates higher or lower notification rate?
  2. What is the threshold or criteria for determining if the implementation of Echo is a success or a failure?
  3. What will happen if Echo's final, long-term notification rate is lower than 50%?
  4. If the goal is getting more people to click, why wasn't Echo implemented in addition to an orange bar (or a bar of a different color/format)?
  5. I see the default for Echo was set with notifications for Talk page post, Mention, Page review, Edit revert turned on for the website and Page link turned off, with email notice turned off for all of them. If one of the goals is increasing user awareness of notifications, why weren't email notices for Talk page posts turned on by default? Can we request that they be turned on by default for registered users?

Thanks. MBisanz talk 15:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was discussed further up the page, but no figures for RSOL seem to be forthcoming. Plus, it seems that a lot of editors go straight to talk page rather than click through OBOD which is going to skew the figures a lot. Plus, IPs only get OBOD once, it disappears after the next page load. All-in-all, 50% sounds pretty good to me. SpinningSpark 16:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 50% awareness rate sounds amazing to me, but it's not my place to second guess the decision that 50% is too low. It is reasonable though to make sure that whatever is done to increase the rate, actually increases it and that the rate increase isn't a pertext just to make changes that are known to be controversial. MBisanz talk 16:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: It's not correct that IPs get OBOD only once. Also, going straight to the talk page would have counted as a visit to the talkpage in the analysis that was performed, since it was done by polling the user_newtalk table (see m:Research:Warning Templates in Huggle). I've asked the folks who did the research to clarify the time window ("within 24 hours" or whatever), if possible, since that's the most critical additional variable to determine whether the orange bar is effective or not.--Eloquence* 00:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hey. As one of the authors of the study that showed the 50% rate, I just wanted to chime in, and give a +1 to MBisanz's questions. Fabrice and the Echo team should probably answer in full, but I can tell you this based on my access to the relevant logs: at this point we are gathering pretty comprehensive data on delivery of different messages by type, Web vs. email, and so on. We're not yet tracking clickthroughs and views, though there are plans to do so in the near-term I believe. You can actually see the full list of data currently collected via the public event-logging schema. (A schema is part of what tells MediaWiki what kind of data to collect, when and where we need to.) As for how to answer these questions: I'm strongly in favor of not just gathering descriptive statistics, but running a controlled test for newly-registered editors, where we would give a randomized sample Echo and another the OBOD, and compare various metrics for each group. Personal opinions and observations like the quote from Pigsonthewing are not a sound way to make a conclusion about the behavior of most new editors, not when we get 3-4,000 new signups every day. The best way for us to know about whether Echo is successful or not as a system overall, especially for new users, is to look at real data from the most representative sample possible. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally agree with you that proper data is needed. But just wind back a minute, we are only looking at Pigsonthewing's anectodal evidence at all because of the claim that echo is better than OBOD as it only has a 50% clickthrough rate. That claim that A is better than B because B has only 50% success is a fallacious argument and a complete misuse of statistics far worse than using anectodal data. If the Foundation had provided some sound data we would use that instead, no problem. But it is a bit rich to criticise the use of poor data when nothing else is available and it is only being used to counter an argument that had no data (at least not on both sides). SpinningSpark 06:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah we don't actually know anything about the clickthrough rates of Echo, so no one can claim it's better or worse regarding new editor interaction with OBOD. There's nothing to compare the previous 50% rate to reliably. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning returning editors

As this page shows, the change took even regular editors by surprise. There is a large population of occasional editors who over the next weeks and months will return to Wikipedia unaware of this significant change to the user interface. I suggest that there should be a dismissable announcement displayed to tell returning users that they will no longer get the orange bar warning of talk page changes, and direct them to WP:Notifications/FAQ to learn about the new system. JohnCD (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was why I suggested in the thread above this one that they turn on the email notification feature by default. MBisanz talk 16:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would help, but not everyone has email enabled, and there are probably some who, like me, have a separate email account for Wikipedia-related messages, which I do not check as often as I edit. Even if they get an email to tell them to have a new message, they will not know that the orange bar has gone. JohnCD (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See below. We may have a limited opportunity to tell people about it through the temporary gadget default. MBisanz talk 19:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a related editor retention problem. Recently I took a long, open-ended wiki break, but stayed logged in all the time. One reason I didn't give up this site completely is that occasionally I got an orange bar. If it had just been a number >0 that could also have meant "someone has linked to a page you created", then I would simply have ignored it. But the orange bar made me read my talk page. It's about as effective as a ringing telephone. Incidentally, that's also why it can be so annoying. I don't think we can have effective without annoying. Complaints about the orange bar are just proof that it does something right. Hans Adler 19:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

returning to notifications page on login

I don't know if this is already tracked... yesterday I got an email that I had a new notification. Clicked the link in the email to go to Special:notifications. I wasn't logged in to Wikipedia, so I got the prompt to log in. However, after logging in, the log in screen gave me the option to return to the Main Page, not special:Notifications. I don't know if that behavior is true for all special pages or just this one, but it's a problem -- it's confusing [for those not intimately familiar with both notifications & mediawiki] to know how to get back to Notifications. Have others seen this? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo OBOD Gadget is live

I have taken the comments on this page as overwhelming community consensus for a return to OBOD for the time being and have consequently implemented User:Writ Keeper's script as a gadget. If you wish to complain about this action, my talk page is here. If you want the gadget modified, I will be no use, you need Writ Keeper for that. Regards, SpinningSpark 18:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't have enabled it by default if I knew how to put it in there, but I suppose that's ok for now. Can we edit the orange bar message to tell people about the changeover to Notifications so that when the WMF gets Echo's next release done, we can turn off the default Gadget without people wondering where it went? MBisanz talk 18:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The on-by-default is needed for newbies. See MediaWiki talk:Gadget-OBoD.js—if you add that in, there will be a link to the documentation page. You can see how it will look at User:Ignatzmice/sandbox. Ignatzmice•talk 19:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the CSD area admins and all others who deal with newcomers, thanks. It gave me quite a shock... Peridon (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but enabling a gadget by default requires a broad consensus. This should at least be discussed at the Villaga Pump. I have disabled the [default] keyword. — Edokter (talk) — 19:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 107/19 RFC above isn't sufficient or isn't in the right place? MBisanz talk 19:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)There's a pretty broad consensus here on this page. There is no point having it if it is not on by default. Those who just want it for personal reasons can add it their js page. This is for newbies who don't know their arse from their elbow as far as how WP works is concerned. SpinningSpark 19:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're in the process of adding a link to instructions for turning it off. It needs to be default-on for the newbies. Ignatzmice•talk 19:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC should have been advertised to the Village Pump then. My main concern is that untested code has been made to run by default; that has crippled the site in the past. The code should be reviewed before being made default; that is policy. — Edokter (talk) — 19:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect Edokter it didn't require a broad consensus to get rid of the old bar and go to an invisible and unreadable number. Why would it require a broad consensus (that everyone knows is impossible to achive in Wikipedia anyway) to bring it back. Kumioko (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted at VPP pointing here. The script was already being run by several users without problems so I was confident that there was nothing seriously wrong with it. It is also an urgent problem that new users are not being warned properly of mistakes they are making and getting blocked as a consequence. SpinningSpark 19:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also posted at VPT, section #Orange message bar. Review the script for yourself, Edokter. Ignatzmice•talk 19:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also see User talk:Writ Keeper#New script request—there were some issues, but he's fixed them. It's not exactly "untested." Ignatzmice•talk 19:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would review it, but JSON is not my speciality. — Edokter (talk) — 20:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edokter, who are the "resident javascript gurus" whose review would satisfy you? We need to find one quickly. JohnCD (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo? FallingGravity (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you know how to get it there? As Rd232 said below, this is a slap-it-on fix because the WMF team can't be arsed to do it themselves. And in the end, I expect we'll keep the gadget but undo the default-on (once we re-do the default-on). Ignatzmice•talk 21:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On by default?

Should the orange talk page notification bar gadget be turned on by default for all users (users will be free to choose to turn it off individually)?

  • Not without review from a resident javascript guru. — Edokter (talk) — 20:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • YES, per above. The script works, it is fully opt-out-able. We need it to let new users know they even have a talk page. Ignatzmice•talk Today, 15:58 (UTC−4)
  • Yes! It can be hard enough to get new editors to start communicating and not being sure they actually saw the message, doesn't help. Lova Falk talk 20:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edokter's concerns about insufficiently tested code make me nervous about widespread use at this time. As for the near future, before changing the default, I'd kind of like to know whether it actually matters. I know that change is bad (and this is yet another reminder that the WP:VisualEditor will totally change editing in just two months), but are we actually having a higher percentage of newbies claim that they didn't see it, or is the problem simply with us old fossils? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, people are reporting problems with newbies. See the #Yes section above, though I believe people mentioned it in other places too. Ignatzmice•talk 20:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Newbies generally won't complain that they didn't see messages: they won't know they had any, they will find that their contribution has been deleted, not know why, and go away discouraged. This is a new-editor-retention issue if ever there was one. JohnCD (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either that, or they'll find out that their contributions were deleted via a large orange bar, read the templated message on their talk page, and go away discouraged. Actual discussion is probably our best choice when dealing with good-faith newbies and editor retention. Just my thoughts. FallingGravity (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The templated message explains the reasons, and gives them a link to the talk page of the person who sent it. There's no way to even start a discussion if the newbie doesn't know there is a message for him. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Pdnbtn.png
        • I know, I use templates all the time when dealing with vandals. What I'm saying is is that neither the presence of an orange bar or an Echo fly-out are excuses to bite the newcomers, whether it be templated or non-templated discussions. (Note: I'm not accusing you of anything, but I think it's a good message for these kind of newbie-awareness threads). FallingGravity (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes to on by default. The people that know what's what will turn it off if they want. The ones we want to target will find out about talk pages. Or get blocked and find out that way. Take your pick. Peridon (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, absolutely, otherwise it will not be available to new users, the people who need it most. The "official" solution seems to be receding - Fabrice's message below talks of a release the week after next. We cannot possibly wait that long without an effective way to communicate with newbies. JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Since WMF refuses to temporarily roll back whilst the relevant parts of Echo are brought up to scratch, we'll just have to do it ourselves. To be clear: for me this is absolutely temporary, until Echo does what it should have done in the first place, which is make everyone go "wow, that's so much better than the Orange Bar!". (Or if that seems to set the standard too high... then at least "yeah, OK, that's no worse.") Rd232 talk 21:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. As a user I find the OBOD ugly and obnoxious. For those with concerns about visibility for new users: you have absolutely no proof that your concerns are valid. Only data about clickthrough rates on both features, tested as a controlled experiment, would give us an objective understanding of whether the new system is better or worse for showing newbies they have messages. I find it ironic that people complaining about the WMF forcing features on users would jump to forcing the OBOD on all newly-registered editors. There are also performance concerns, and the code needs review from a seasoned JavaScript programmer if it's going to be on for everyone, like Edokter points out. Steven Walling • talk 21:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the event that the gadget is re-defaulted, a message would be added that would include, among other things, a link to the documentation page that has clear instructions for how to disable it. (See what this would look like at User:Ignatzmice/sandbox. It would be the third version, probably.) We need it default-on to make sure the new users know they have messages; unlike what the WMF did, we're providing a very easy way to undo this if people don't like it. Ignatzmice•talk 21:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see why people who just want the old way back because they're grumpy and unwilling to change should be able to inflict this ugly thing on everyone else by default. It's an easy way for advanced users like you and I to turn it off, but I don't see why I should need to in the first place, just because a minority of active editors prefer the old system. The way that the preference is described right now is childish and opaque to most people, and that section of Appearance preferences is insanely cluttered with cruft already. What's more, a largely untested JavaScript-dependent version of the OBOD is not a performant way to introduce a better way of pointing out notifications. As Fabrice says below, the WMF is working on a bunch of ways to potentially address the concern of visibility, and they won't involve a total hack like this. Steven Walling • talk 22:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you think the doc page is "childish", edit it! That's the point of a wiki. We need something NOW to let the newbies know what's up; Fabiance says below that an update is coming out week after next. Eloquence says he's "suggesting the team" do something sooner. I have little faith in that. Following a link to a page that details how to turn it off is hardly "advanced user" material. Ignatzmice•talk 22:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) It's absolutely not a case of people being "grumpy and unwilling to change": it is a real problem of how to communicate with new users. Andy Mabbett reports above (#76 in the "Yes" section of the RFC above) that he sent a test message to a class of newbies he was training, and in four hours NOT ONE of them noticed the notification. If ever there was an "editor engagement" issue this is one. A newbie will very frequently start by doing something wrong: if he just finds his contribution reverted with no explanation, he will probably go away discouraged. We need to send a welcome message, and an explanation of the problem, and a link to someone who can discuss it. It is intensely frustrating to do that in the knowledge that the recipient will probably never know he has a message. Fabrice's note below talks of a possible official solution the week after next: we cannot wait that long. If Erik has decreed that we cannot have the orange bar back as an interim, we shall have to do this DIY solution. JohnCD (talk) Today, 18:39 (UTC−4)
          • Andy's quote above is totally biased. When we get 3-4,000 new editors registering every day, drawing a conclusion about all new editor reactions to Echo from a sample of four people is pretty ridiculous. No one yet has any real idea whether the feature is more or less successful than the OBOD for new editors who have never seen either feature. Steven Walling • talk 23:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Steven, I'd be grateful if you could explain your grounds for alleging that my report is "totally biased". Can you also say who has drawn a conclusion about all new editor reactions based on it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Andy: I explained more below. Note I'm not saying you're personally biased. I'm saying a sample of four people from an editathon, when we have thousands of new signups ever day, is too small a sample. You can't draw any conclusions about the wider new editor population from observing four people, especially not when these are the type of new editors who sought out extra hand-holding in order to learn the ropes (which is one known bias, among other unknowns like their demographics). The only thing that will tell us with any confidence about whether OBOD is more or less usable for new editors overall is an experiment with a wider, randomized sample. People here on this page are in fact calling for interface changes, like turning on an OBOD gadget by default for all users, based on the claim that the new notifications aren't visible to inexperienced editors. They said it all over the AN thread too. Steven Walling • talk 18:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Steven: If I thought you'd said I was biased, I would have referred that in my question to you. I asked you why you said that my report was totally biased, and you have not explained that. Please do so now. The sample was indeed small, but was sufficient to initially identify an issue, per Usability testing#How many users to test?; and was confirmed by the second sample tested yesterday. I'm unclear why you think a failure to notify people "who sought out extra hand-holding in order to learn the ropes" (leaving aside that that's your unfounded assumption) is not a case for an urgent remedy. I don't dispute that "people are calling for interface changes", here or elsewhere; but I asked who has drawn a conclusion about all new editor reactions". The use of "all" was yours. You haven't answered that, either. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If you don't understand why hastily changing the interface for tens of thousands of people based on a usability test with four people is wrong, I don't think it's worth trying to convince you otherwise. Steven Walling • talk 18:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Then kindly explain why WMF shouldn't fire the entire editor engagement team, because they've hastily changed the interface for millions of people? You have the gall to object when we're trying to fix the mess that you've made, and you continue to thumb your nose at almost everyone else's wishes. It's you who has the explaining and the convincing to do. Nyttend (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      Excellent point. How big was WMF's sample size for general usability tests of this feature and removal of the established one in each of the four key groups IP users / new accounts / experienced editors / editors using screen readers? As a general comment, Steven Walling, when you manage to make me agree with Andy Mabbett on something, that should be reason for serious concern. Hans Adler 19:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      Right, exactly. You keep saying "only four! not big enough!" but then you don't have your own numbers to throw back at us—numbers you should have gotten before deploying Echo removing the orange bar. (Again: Echo, good; orange bar, also good.) Ignatzmice•talk 19:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I don't appreciate the passive-aggressive tone of your response; but where did I call for "hastily changing the interface for tens of thousands of people based on a usability test with four people"? You have again not answered the questions I put to you; and have ignored the point I made about usability testing. All this reflects very badly on the WMF team of which you are part. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: I'm sorry, but I fundamentally disagree that this is a "mess" that needs hasty cleanup by throwing a JavaScript gadget at all users by default. (Also, note I'm not on notifications team, so "mess you've made" doesn't really apply to me, and is why I'm using my volunteer account to participate in this RFC.) If people who dislike the new feature and want OBOD back want to hack something together for their use, go for it, but neither WMF nor the community should change the interface for everybody else based on an untested assumption about how new editors react to a feature. Fabrice, Erik, and others have said that there is a plan to properly A/B test the feature, which will give us a basis for a more rational discussion about how drastically we need to change the interface. Until that happens, I'm against turning on this gadget by default. Steven Walling • talk 19:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why should we care what you think, when you don't care about our preferences? And what do you call something that made it impossible to notify IPs and a lot harder to notify everyone else? Since you're participating in this as an editor as well as a Foundation person, let me remind you directly: consensus governs what we do as editors, and editors who keep thumbing their noses at others are routinely and justifiably blocked. Nyttend (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, calm down, everyone. I think most people would call 120/23 (with three of the 23 supporting a temporary orange bar) clear consensus. No need to start threatening blocks; the important thing is figuring out the best way to get it back (temporarily!) until the WMF team steps up to the plate. Ignatzmice•talk 19:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nyttend, quit with the threats. You're going to block me for commenting on an open RFC, and then defending my position after people replied? Sorry, but you know that wouldn't fly. You don't have to care what I think, but I still have a right to comment as a fellow editor and administrator. Steven Walling • talk 20:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, while I don't think there are any bugs in my code, and I do perform substantial testing of my scripts on my own before I publish them, I think the deployment of my script was over-hasty, especially since I haven't heard back from one user who has reported problems (though I'm reasonably sure I fixed them); I had not been asked for a final go-ahead. My last communication that I recall about this was with MBisanz on IRC some time ago (around 6 AM this morning UTC, I believe), where I said that the code might be ready for such a deployment, but that I wanted to hear back from Nyttend first, and that I would like to have seen an explicit consensus to adopt the script first. I'm not sure whether I support or oppose on-by-default in any case. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize for being so hasty about it, but we really need to make sure newbies are seeing that they have new messages. As far as I can see, the "bug" Nyttend reported was that it did nothing at all—hardly breaking the site (I know you didn't say that). I mean, say someone comes along with Windows 98; what's the worst-case scenario? I think the benefits far outweigh any potential bugs. Ignatzmice•talk 23:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On - as a new editor it was one the few things that probably kept me here, having the in-your-face-you-can't-ignore message bar light up was a delight and something I looked forward to because it meant that someone noticed a question I'd asked. Had I been welcomed, it would have been even more exciting. As an established editor it's equally exciting to have someone drop by to chat, to say hi, even to tell you how awful you are. It's how we communicate and stay engaged. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off/oppose I have performed no tests and honestly have no idea how this script in its current form will interact with anonymous editors. One of the things I wanted to do before this was deployed was to make a quick return for anons. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • IPs get the normal system orange bar, see #IP notifications above. I don't think people who aren't logged in get Gadgets anyway—they certainly don't get preferences. Ignatzmice•talk 23:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, from my understanding of gadgets, and I did quite a bit of research to implement it on a non-wikipedia wiki, is that the point of setting them on by default is non-logged in users do get them that way (it's the only way they can). Technical 13 (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, default-on gadgets are executed for anon editors. But this is moot, as is pointed out, anon editors still get the orange bar. — Edokter (talk) — 23:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is not moot. If/when the gadget is re-installed and re-defaulted, IP editors will see two orange bars. Although I thought I saw someone say the regular orange bar only lasted for one page? Ignatzmice•talk 01:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, I see now that WP:Gadget says [default|rights=minoredit] will enable it for all registered users, so that's what we want if this ever ends up being reinstated. Ignatzmice•talk 23:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • The proposed OBOD is not going to happen; Writ Keeper does not want his code used and the WMF also has reservations. The current gadget (red notify popup) may be an alternative temporary option to turn on by default, which is a little broader in scope (as it shows on all notifications, which I think is not a bad thing). If the community so wishes, I have no problem turning the current gadget on by default until a permanent solution is implemented. — Edokter (talk) — 23:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the testing should be done expeditiously and turned back on by default. Those that think it is ugly, DO have the option of going and turning it off in their preferences. More importantly, if it is not on by default, how will the new users know it is available and you are effectively taking away their choice to turn it off. That being said, I'm maintaining this is a comment and not an on because I would like to see the testing done first (and quickly). Technical 13 (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per RD232. (As a temporary solution until a good Echo-based solution can be phased in.) Every day that goes by, I'm astonished that this straightforward step has not been taken. Stop disrupting the collaborative norms of a top 5 site; create a rollout plan for an almost certainly improved notification system that phases out the old one in a manageable way, with plenty of opportunity for zapping bugs and accommodating unanticipated use cases. In addition to the concerns about IPs and newbies, every day that goes by where somebody like User:INeverCry is impeded from working at his normal capacity is damaging the project. -Pete (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Peteforsyth: I'm sorry, but "disrupting the collaborative norms of a top 5 site" is nonsensical hyperbole. With the new feature, you get the exact same user talk page notification you would get with the previous version, plus you get more detail about exactly who edited when, and other kinds of notifications. These notifications about user talk messages still facilitate the exact same collaborative interactions, plus more with mentions and revert notifications. This feature is enhancing collaboration, if anything. The thing that people are complaining about legitimately is primarily one aspect of this feature: that the indicator for having new notifications is not as prominent as it was before. That's a pretty specific piece of feedback that can be dealt with from a design perspective, and it will be. But to say that this one problematic aspect is "disrupting collaborative norms" is over the top. As other editors around have said quite correctly: there are some great things and some bad things about the new system. Frankly, I would expect that you -- one of the architects of the Public Policy Initiative and someone who does paid consulting about Wikipedia -- would have more empathy towards others introducing potentially controversial new ideas. Steven Walling • talk 05:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • there are some great things and some bad things about the new system. - to be precise, there are some good new (but under-developed) things and one very bad thing about the new system, and refusing to deactivate the bad thing until its brought up to scratch undermines the entire system. The general "no turning back, not even temporarily" attitude also has a potential demoralising effect on volunteers which nobody seems to given a moment's thought to. Frankly, the collective behaviour of the Editor Engagement Team here is bizarre - changing a key means of communicating with new editors in a way that is probably significantly worse, whilst ignoring feedback from many highly active editors about this issue! And the only real response is to say things like "well we don't know if the key feature's really objectively worse, and a few people really disliked it"; "overall it's a great new system"; "we'll fix it fairly soon, we're working on it, but in the mean time, you're stuck with it". Frankly, if I was a CEO of a company where something like this had happened, I'd be looking to fire someone. Rd232 talk 09:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think "disrupting the collaborative norms of a top 5 site" is nonsensical hyperbole at all, it is a very fair description. Communicating with new users is vital to engaging them with the project: for a team called "Editor Engagement" to turn off the most effective way of doing that, and refuse to reinstate it while an adequate substitute is worked out, really makes one wonder if they are on the same planet. Nor has any step been taken to warn returning occasional users, accustomed to the orange bar as a message notifier, that it has gone.
If the new ED wants to understand why the WMF has a reputation with the projects for not listening, and for dismissing any opinion or evidence that does not agree with their preconceptions, s/he could do worse than read down this page. A 116/22 majority in an RFC is "a minority of active editors"; a small grey/red blob replacing a large bright orange bar is "the exact same user talk page notification you would get with the previous version"; the idea that it might be less likely to be noticed by newbies is "an assumption"; and Andy Mabbett's actual evidence of that is dismissed as "totally biased". How on earth can you justify that last remark? JohnCD (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnCD: last month there were more than 30,000 people who contributed five or more edits to English Wikipedia.[4] You don't have to know much about statistics to grok that asking just four new editors is not enough of a sample to be reliably representative. It is potentially subject to a lot of inherent bias, especially due to the fact that they were the kind of people who sought out hands-on training, and were thus less likely to be able to understand all parts of our interface. Steven Walling • talk 17:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We shall have to agree to differ. It seems to me that when the question is whether the new notification system is as effective as the old one, a report which says "none of my class noticed the new notification in four hours; in previous classes, people have noticed the orange bar immediately" is highly relevant and cannot be dismissed as biased or a small sample. JohnCD (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Steven Walling: I think you might be missing the point here. While four editors may not make a representative sample, they cannot be ignored from being a part of a "sample" either. Are there studies or anecdotes which show that the red blob works better than OBoD? If not, I doubt anyone has the right to rebutt a correct but possibly non-representative example from John. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, on by default. Nobody should be able to go without the Orange Bar unless they go into their own preferences and shut it off by their own choice. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet, but soon. It's a very bad idea to make a script default when the writer says it's not yet ready to be default. However, once it's ready, it absolutely needs to be default: as JohnCD says, we need to be sure that new people are reading their messages. As Rd232 says, this is the kind of thing for which people are justifiably fired. Nyttend (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as a gadget

I've removed the gadget per Writ Keeper's request. Looking at the criteria for gadgets at Wikipedia:Gadget#General criteria for Gadgets, Gadgets must be compatible with all major browsers, i.e. they must not terminate with errors., Gadgets should be functional in most major browsers (cross-browser compatibility). Exceptions must be clearly stated., and Gadgets only working in some skins must be marked as such if that data is available. have not been met. Writ Keeper confirmed for me that he hasn't tested the script at all in Opera or Safari, and Nyttend reported an issue with IE8 that hasn't been confirmed as resolved as of yet. In addition there could be a potential issue with the Modern skin that needs to be investigated, the gadget is missing a header, and Writ hasn't had the opportunity to write proper documentation for the gadget (the current documentation).

You can of course load the script manually by going to Special:MyPage/common.js (if you want to install for all skins), Special:MyPage/vector.js (if you just want to add it to the Vector skin) or Special:MyPage/monobook.js (if you're using Monobook) and adding importScript("User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js"); on a new line.

Please give Writ Keeper some time to properly test and document the gadget before we add it back, which will also allow us to judge the consensus of the "on by default" discussion in the section above. Pinging User:Spinningspark, User:Ignatzmice, User:MBisanz, User:Edokter and User:Rd232 as some of the most active users in the above discussion, please don't be angry if I missed pinging you. Thehelpfulone 23:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I requested this; the request came at the tail end of an IRC discussion on the subject, so I apologize that there's no paper trail for it. As Thehelpfulone says, the requirements for a gadget are that it is compatible with all browsers; there has been an issue in IE8 where the script crashes, for which I have not received confirmation from the user that it has been fixed, and I have not done any testing at all in Safari or Opera, or in Wikipedia skins other than Vector or Monobook. Moreover, the more I've thought about it, the more I feel that I should not be the only one to test or vet this; I think that there should be at least one other person, skilled at JS (particularly JQuery, which I use extensively) and the MediaWiki API and trusted by the community, to look at the code and vouch for it; mine should not be the only eyes on this. User scripts are explicitly "use at your own risk", but the same cannot be said of an official gadget available through the Preferences screen; I feel comfortable enough to release my script as the former, but not as the latter. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, oops, sorry — I've not replied to Writ Keeper precisely because I didn't notice the most recent message, since the orange bar isn't yet working for me. To be more precise, it's not working in the 256-bit version of IE 8.0.7601.17514. Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Works fine in Safari. Ignatzmice•talk 00:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can also confirm that it works fine on Safari. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 00:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something just got changed, because it just now appeared when someone left me a message. I'm using the same browser with the same cookie settings as before, and I've not cleared my cache in the last few minutes. Nyttend (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest it be re-added and defaulted; the list on WP:Gadget seems to differentiate between "failing with errors" and "failing gracefully", and I haven't seen any indication of it actually breaking things—only failing to do its job, which is a bummer for some people but not a reason to deny it to others, and in addition User:Nyttend reported the problem gone. There is clear consensus, both here and in #Yes above, for it to be default-on; it's very easy to turn it off if people so desire. Obviously User:Writ Keeper should get another pair of eyes on it ASAP, and of course anyone (especially WK) is welcome to edit/move the documentation page I made. But I'd like to get this show rolling again. User:Edokter's suggestion below is a good idea, but the mw.notify badge is small (I uploaded a screenshot) and disappears quickly, and it still isn't working. Ignatzmice•talk 15:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also note that it works in all skins except Cologne Blue—but Cologne Blue doesn't even have the old orange bar, so that's not the script's fault. See here. Ignatzmice•talk 16:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you may not realize is that Javascript tends to fail silently--but that doesn't mean it's failing gracefully. Usually the only sign that an end user would get when a script breaks is that that script and any others that would've been executed after it will not load. So, I have this script at the top of my .js page; if it fails with an error, I won't see the error (unless I look at the dev console), but none of my scripts will load. This is even worse when it's a gadget, IIRC; I believe those get loaded before any user scripts do, so an error in a gadget--while still being silent to an end-user not looking for it--will cause all of their user scripts, and possibly some of their gadgets, to also fail to load. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need for the script to work with every browser as long as we indicate which ones it works for. There are several gadgets (including Twinkle) that do not work with some browsers. Kumioko (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • For such an essential function as talk page notifications, we need a 100% reliable mechanism. There is no excuse for not having working notifications for those new users not having the right browser. How would we indicate to them that their browser is not compatible? — Edokter (talk) — 18:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Moreover, when this was pushed to everyone as a default-on gadget, we didn't know which browsers (or Wikipedia skins) it would work for, because I didn't extensively test other browsers/skins, and nobody asked me what testing I had done before they pushed it willy-nilly. Again, I developed it with the mindest of a user script: I would create it the best I could, do whatever testing was reasonable at the time, and let users report problems they stumble across. That's not enough for any official gadget, much less a default-on gadget. (As an aside, Edokter, I think your script is a much better idea for a gadget than mine; let my script serve the oldbies who don't want to let go of their orange, and let yours serve the newbies who need more visual notification.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well for what its worth I have been preaching that the WMF needs to step up and start making decisions because we as a community have repeatedly shown we are incapable of implementing changes. So as far as I am concerned we get what we deserve. If we were capable of making decisions then the WMF wouldn't have to drop a bomb like this on us and deal with the fallout. I don't like this change but at the same time I wish the WMF would make a lot more decisions so I can live with it. I still think it falls into the category of an uneeded unwanted change and the time used to create it would have been better spent on a lot of other things but oh well. I also think this change is going a long way in the wrong direction towards making Wikipedia easier for editors and is much akin to the hated Facebook timeline implementation. As for the newbies/oldby's comment. The new implementation is going to cause a lot of messages to go unanswered by all, basically makes IP notifications useless. The only ones who are going to respond are going to be those of us that go and use Writ keepers script so we can see the changes. I went 2 days and didn't even notice I had a message. Kumioko (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another approach

Just brainstorming... There should be a far easier way to grab the attention of new editors without having to resort to JSON. Noting (below) that the notification icon has the class .mw-badge-important Reading the , it should be trivial to trigger a standard mw.notify message indicating to the user that there are new notifications. Basically a single line of javascript. (Moved code to gadget: Mediawiki:Gadget-Notification.js and Mediawiki:Gadget-Notification.css.) This should have the exact same effect, except users get a notification bubble, not an orange bar. — Edokter (talk) — 11:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great idea. However, there needs to be an alternative for people without scripts enabled. The orange bar worked without any need for JavaScript. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 15:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That cannot be solved locally. — Edokter (talk) — 16:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are quite right (as you already know, I tried something myself). My comment is more of a general plea the developers. Hopefully whatever they deploy on Tuesday will be an improvement. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 21:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Finally got the script to work properly. Code is above. — Edokter (talk) — 17:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I ran into that problem too; the DOM changes as the JS gets called, and what's available to the script is not the same as what's on the final page. Anyway, I actually use something similar to what you propose in my script by doing var numNotes = /\d+/.exec($("#pt-notifications").text())[0]; to retrieve the number of new notifications, but my script then goes on to figure out what kind of notifications they are. Yours will produce an alert on any notification, including name mentions and the like, while mine only triggers on talk-page-post alerts. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to step away from the idea that it should work "exactly" like the old ways; a popup on any notification is not a bad thing. If anything, it familiarizes new editors faster with the new notification system. Hanging on to the OBOD will only confuse matters. — Edokter (talk) — 17:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doing it because it's teh old way; I'm doing it because in my opinion, a talk page post is the only notification really worth caring about. The others are nice but unnecessary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not running after all Exactly. It's good for the newbies to learn about Echo, but it's essential for them to know they have a new message. Ignatzmice•talk 19:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New gadget

Screenshot of red popup gadget
Screenshot of orange popup gadget
I invite anyone to test the gadget now in place. — Edokter (talk) — 17:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The red is very noticeable; it works in all skins (in my limited test, just on Safari). It still goes away quickly, and I think something window-wide would be good. Gotta run! Ignatzmice•talk 18:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • there';s a basic misunderstanding here--while it is good to find a better solution, the first step is to remove the one that did not work. I am amazed that over 3 days have now passed without doing that. the developers have said for several years now how they want to be responsive to the community. Let them show it. DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Edokter: Much nicer than the previous gadget, I think. This method is quite similar to some of the options Fabrice and the team have discussed for how to make new notifications more prominent, interestingly enough. I think using the mw.notify style like you seem to be doing works from a placement and interaction standpoint, least as a temporary measure. However I find the red background to be incomplete (i.e. it doesn't fill the whole container) and too obnoxious. The animation alone really strongly brings a lot of attention when it happens, so I would prefer you remove the red. Red is an even louder color than orange, and generally denotes a problem or warning, rather than neutral information. One smaller suggestion: the title should maybe be "New notifications!" or "You have new notifications!". Steven Walling • talk 00:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. This script here seems to be the Echo script; if someone (User:Edokter) wants to dig through it and see what, exactly, happens when you click on the little box, it might be possible to call that function as well when you click on the big badge. But I would recommend we not do that, in the interests of not breaking things by getting in over our heads. Ignatzmice•talk 01:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments Steve. I am indeed actually using an mw.notify popup, which limits me in styling, so there will always be some unused space. I chose the red to match the badge color, but I could limit that to the first line only. Not sure about the "!", that seems over the top. — Edokter (talk) — 11:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm trying to get a link to the doc page (I won't even think about messing with the Echo script, sorry THO) and I can't get a link to work inside the notification. So what I've done is set up this in my common.css:

div.mw-notification-alert-footer {
    font-size: 50%;
    text-align: center;
}

and then stick this between "...to see your notifications." and the final closing div: <div class="mw-notification-alert-footer">You can turn this off in Preferences>Gadgets</div>. Does that seem reasonable? Ignatzmice•talk 02:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can make a link work inside the notification, and I could make it link directly to the gadgets page. — Edokter (talk) — 11:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now linking to the doc page, which I moved to Wikipedia:Notifications/Popup documentation. — Edokter (talk) — 12:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I say go ahead and make it default. It works in every browser/skin I've tried (which are these ones), and that link to the doc page is well-worded. It's very simple to turn it off. Ignatzmice•talk 12:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like a little more approval before doing that, even if it is only for 24 hours. — Edokter (talk) — 13:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, @Ignatzmice: please don't encourage the addition of code that needs to be properly reviewed first (even if it is relatively simple code) before it's added as default across the site. Thehelpfulone 14:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on new message indicator

Hi folks, thanks for all your good suggestions for improving the new notifications tool! We really appreciate your thoughtful feedback, and look forward to collaborating with you in coming days, to find practical solutions to the issues you raised.

We are now working on several options for new message indicators, to address these concerns quickly. Our goals are to provide a message indicator that's more prominent and clearly differentiated, as well as more persistent and consistent with best UI practices. The purpose of this proposed feature is to better inform people who might have missed the red badge that now lights up when you have new messages. For the past few days, we've been preparing a few possible design solutions, which we would like to review with you early next week, so we can develop a better solution based on your recommendations.

To that end, we'll be holding an IRC office hours chat to discuss these new designs and the new notification tool next Wednesday, May 8th at 20:00 UTC (1pm PT). We hope some of you can join us then, for a constructive conversation about our next steps.

For those of you who cannot join us via IRC, we will prepare a special discussion page to focus on short-term solutions to the message indicator issue. This wiki page will show different design mockups and invite you to comment on each option, so we can collaboratively identify the most practical solution. That page will be published on Tuesday and we'll post a link to it here, as well as send a newsletter (you can sign up here for this newsletter, if you haven't already).

Based on your feedback, we plan to develop a new message indicator for release the following week. Our goal is to collect data on how that new solution compares to the current version of the tool, in order to determine its effectiveness. This will help us all make more informed decisions that are based on actual data rather than subjective impressions. We hope this plan works for you.

Again, many thanks to all of you who have contributed so thoughtfully to help solve this problem. We are confident that by working together productively, we can all find a practical solution very soon. Thanks for your patience and understanding :) Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, it sounds like a good way forward, using the sort of collaborative model I and others have been asking for; - with one glaring exception, namely not temporarily reverting to the old system while the new system is brought up to scratch. That's bad for at least 3 reasons: (i) harm done in the interim, particularly in communication with new editors; (ii) risking entrenchment of disapproval of Echo, including use of scripts and CSS to get rid of it (iii) encouraging a rushing of design and development which makes it less likely that what is done will be as good as it should be. Echo should be unambiguously welcomed; that it hasn't been is entirely down to the imposition of a tool that isn't ready for primetime, and refusing to temporarily revert to the prior system for the problem aspect. Echo should have been a triumph of long-awaited tech improvement (and hopefully it still will be in the long run); this poisonous chaos around its introduction is entirely unnecessary. Rd232 talk 21:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I haven't been saying this a lot, as I've been too upset over the "la-la-la we can't hear you" aspect of the orange bar, but I, too, like the new features of Echo. I don't like the REMOVAL of the old features. That's my only complaint. Ignatzmice•talk 21:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. Couldn't have said it better myself. SpinningSpark 21:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rd232,
I understand that this has been a frustrating experience, and I'm sorry for that. We decided to launch without replacing OBOD because any interface change like this takes some time to "settle"; there's an established behavior (look for the orange bar) among experienced users to check for new messages, and there's no question that changing the user interface indicator is going to take some adjustment. While not very prominent, Echo notifications are designed to stand out through their red color, and resemble notification interfaces on other major sites which hundreds of millions of users are familiar with. In addition, new users who have confirmed email addresses will also get email reminders when they receive new talk page messages.
A small historical side note: MediaWiki's "new messages" indicator was originally a simple "*" next to the talk link. I replaced it with "You have new messages" more than 10 years ago because that was clearly insufficient, and this later became the OBOD. I'm mentioning this to make clear that prominence of messages is absolutely a concern that I fully relate to and understand.
At this point, the idea that new users aren't seeing messages due to Echo is mostly based on assumptions around how users interact with the new system, not on actual data. (Also note that IP users are still getting the original OBOD.) It's very possible that Echo has reduced the message awareness among new users. If so, it's possible that this is due to the reduced prominence of the red number; it's also possible that it's due to the additional process of opening a flyout in which to look for the message notification. It's also possible that it's not reduced message awareness significantly, or even that it has increased it. New users now immediately get a "Welcome" notification, which may help establish a habit of checking the red number.
The point is that at this point we don't know the answer, and just because the OBOD is the familiar interface (and experienced users are likely to take some time to get used to the new UI), I would be wary of jumping to conclusions based on anecdotes or personal impressions.
We should also keep in mind that the assumption that there should be a single interface element (the OBOD) to alert new users about new messages is designed around the idea that there is a single kind of thing (new messages on the user talk page) that merits this level of attention-grabbing. As we make more parts of our software notification-aware, it's very likely that other types of events will deserve similar prominence. Even now we have the "mentions" feature that is used to alert users that you've responded on your own talk page (as an alternative to the talkback template); is a conversation less important just because it was started somewhere else?
A better launch plan would have taken many of these issues into account from the start, including clear communications about the removal of the OBOD and the plans to address it. While the team did discuss the removal of OBOD as being a risk factor with the new system (and something to be improved upon), it did not rise to the level of a proper plan being in place from the start to measure the impact of that change (e.g. launching an A/B test first) and to communicate clearly about it. Nonetheless, we've communicated from day one that we're looking into ways to increase the significance of talk page notifications.
To make sure that iterating carefully on the current state of the feature isn't overshadowed by continuing concerns over presence of absence of OBOD, my recommendation to the team is to either quickly implement an OBOD-alternative (there are already several mock-ups which are close to dev-ready), or to temporarily restore OBOD until a full testing plan for alternatives is in place. Fabrice will make the final call on this, and will organize conversations with the community in coming days.--Eloquence* 22:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that new users are not seeing notifications is not an assumption, but based on actual experience: Andy Mabbett reports (#76 in the "Yes" section of the RFC above) that he sent a test message to a class of newbies he was training, and "not one of them noticed, during the following four hours; in previous classes, people have noticed the orange bar immediately." The same with another class the next day. JohnCD (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnCD: I saw that before composing my response (which is why I said "mostly"), and I value Andy's observations (as well as his work training editors!). Still, we need to be careful not to generalize from observations like this, and it's possible that other factors influenced user behavior. I have personally conducted user-tests on wikis where new users get a welcome message by default, where users completely overlooked and ignored the orange bar through the entire session. It's a very different UI from what most other sites employ nowadays; visual prominence alone does not guarantee that users understand and interact with it in the intended fashion.
That said, I hope the recommendation above addresses your concerns as well as Andy's.--Eloquence* 23:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. There is no way a new user is going to bother clicking a little tab with a meaningless "1" in it. What do you think new users do? Explore the web page? Click on all the tabs to see what they are? Maybe you and your developer mates do that when you arrive at a new site. Normal people don't. New users won't get talk page messages. Sorry about the shouting. There seems to be a bit of not-hearing going on here.
As for the office hours chat. Why? It automatically excludes people at work and people in wrong time zones. Nothing can be said there that can't be said here. This is a wiki. This is how you talk to wiki editors.
I suggest you just make the flyout pop up automatically for new accounts when they have a new talk page message. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eloquence, are your team running a separate analysis on the use of Echo by IP users and non-autoconfirmed users? The main concern here is that new users would be unaware of the messages and warnings they get; I'm sure the existing editors would adapt to the new interface soon enough. I don't think something general like your 50% clikthrough statistic for the OBOD is going to be sufficient to address that concern, as the problem is more to do with how this affects new users rather than the older users who have been made aware about the new system and will be on the look out for it. Chamal T•C 04:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Chamal N: Yes, I agree that the impact on message visibility to new users needs to be carefully assessed, and we should avoid making decisions based purely on intuition in this regard. (I'll point out again that IP users are still getting the OBOD, and users with confirmed email addresses will get emails informing them of talk page messages as well.) My recommendation for next steps is a) short term: to mitigate risk, quickly restore a more prominent notification for talk page messages, whether it's the OBOD, a refined visual treatment thereof, or an approach that integrates more nicely with the Echo badge but still calls out new messages with significant visibility, b) mid term: prepare a test of at least two options and study comparative impact on message awareness by new users, with the goal to not significantly degrade (and ideally increase) new user awareness of new messages.--Eloquence* 04:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Eloquence, what percentage of new accounts give us their email address? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthonyhcole I grabbed the most recent 20 account creations (not created automatically or by another user) and found that 2 out of 20 had e-mail addresses. So that would be 10% of users. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 06:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthonyhcole and The Anonymouse: We looked at the stats for this a little bit ago. About 30% of all new accounts had a confirmed email address in Jan-March 2013 (80% of all accounts set an email address during signup, but that's not the same as confirmed addresses of course). This rate may change seasonally, as it's not something we've tracked a lot before, but we could probably learn a bit more about it since launch of notifications specifically, because there is one notification triggered by signup (welcome) and another triggered on email confirmation (getting started). Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 06:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response, which at least clearly acknowledges the launch issues (without really adequately explaining why the decision was made to replace OBOD on day one, but maybe it's moot now). Acknowledging the complexity of the design issue, however, which points to various kinds of testing and analysis needed over a period of time, further suggests a temporary reversion (removal of talkpage notifications from Echo), whilst this is done. Rushing it will just encourage people to demand something that's really similar to the old Orange Bar, and be less willing to explore other options. Considering how long we've been waiting for "sane" notifications, I don't see the advantages in trying to force this to stay live before it's really ready. Rd232 talk 10:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, thinking about some of the new possibilities of Echo, there should be some attempt to link the signup process with the new possibilities of different kinds of email notification, with a lot more emphasis on the idea that providing an email address will be really useful, and you'll have full control over what email notification you get. That probably needs to go beyond a mere mention on the signup page to be effective. Rd232 talk 10:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there's still the problem of those (about 70%) that don't give an email address, and of the 30% who do, those who (like me at first here) give an email address that they don't check often, and which they use for places they either don't trust or don't really want mail from. I'm not the only one - I know several people who have email addresses for junk stuff. Peridon (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fabrice: You do realize that restoration of the orange bar already qualifies for Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported something, right? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fabrice, will the old Orange Bar behavior be turned back on as a temporary measure prior to the IRC discussion? -Pete (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Had I done something that met with such a negative reaction as the removal of the OBOD, I would have reverted immediately, and tried to re-introducte the improvements later after discussion. I would not have let a discussion continue over just what to do, but accepted the verdict, at least temporarily. I would not try to accommodate things first, while putting off an immediate fix for what the community had so clearly declared to be my error. But that's because I act as an editor and an admin, and know that what I do can be reverted by any other such person if they are really dissatisfied. I might feel differently if I were in a position of true control, the way the interface programmers are, who free to ignore even the most dissatisfied feedback if they wish to. DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update 1: Hi Anthonyhcole, DGG, Ignatz, Peridon, Pete, Rd232, Theopolisme and others: Thanks for you constructive comments and guidance. Here's a quick update, to answer your last questions: our plan is to deploy a temporary solution this week to address the concerns on this page. My hope is that we can do this in our next deployment window on Tuesday, prior to the IRC chat on Wednesday. We will either re-deploy the old OBOD to complement the current tool -- or one of the message indicator options we've been working on, based on community and team feedback. To that end, I am now preparing a special discussion page with mockups for each option this afternoon, so we can get community feedback on these options right away. I expect to publish it in a few hours, so we can have first results Monday morning and make a decision then as to which option to develop and deploy this week. We are aware that the most expedient option would be to re-enable the OBOD, and we are seriously considering that option -- though we hope that one of our new options can provide the same benefits more effectively, and can be developed on Monday. Either way, we aim to provide a solution as early as Tuesday. I will post again here in a few hours with another update. Thanks for your patience. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As early as a week since the major screwup! We're so impressed. But seriously, I do look forward to seeing the options. Thanks. Ignatzmice•talk 21:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the update, Fabrice. I would like to stress my support for restoring the orange bar as it was, as a temporary measure. Even if the new approach reflects an unqualified improvement over the orange bar-based system, if implementing it (or deciding on whether to implement it) adds 12 hours to the current state of affairs, in my view that is 12 hours too long. I look forward to evaluating the many merits of the new software, in a context where the activities of tens of thousands of people with varying experience levels are not disrupted by an incomplete solution. -Pete (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like Pete, I look forward to seeing improvements. But since there are several people capable of doing so on line, the time to return the orange bar on a temporary basis is not even 12 hours from now, but this evening. (You want to think you've made progress, change the shade a little) Like Pete, I emphasise that every hour without doing it is an hour when additional contributors will not realize people are trying to help them. . The consensus of the community is unmistakable, the technical possibility of restoring it is obvious. If I told an editor whose work I had screwed up, that there was an easy temporary fix, and I'd do it sometime next week, I'd expect some discussion at an/i. I recall once in doing tech support in a previous position, that when i told a library user late one evening that a fix involving access to a single journal would have to wait until the next morning, my boss was quite angry about it both immediately and the day following. It was at that point i learned the benefit of having emergency fall-backs immediately available, and immediately using them. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. I appreciate the sense of urgency now being communicated, but reiterate a point I made before: developing an Echo-based talkpage notification solution that is "good enough" may happen soon (even this week), but rushing it won't do it any favours - and do we really want to keep tinkering with it as testing comes up with something substantially better? Rd232 talk 22:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a test gadget in place, which should be pretty effective when turned on as default. It not the Orange Bar Of Doom™, but the Red Popup Of Doom™. The code is very simple and it only shows for registered users, but shows on all notifications, which helps new editors become more familiar with Echo. So the functionality is very much the same. — Edokter (talk) — 23:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer the orange bar, but I'd be willing to go with the RPoD. Can you get a link in there (similar to what's at User:Ignatzmice/sandbox) to a doc page with instructions for turning it off? Ignatzmice•talk 00:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update 2: Hi DGG, Edokter, Ignatz, Pete, Rd232, and others: As discussed, we have prepared a special discussion page with four different options for this proposed message indicator. Each option includes a design mockup, key features, as well as pros and cons. We think one of these options can be developed quickly tomorrow, with the potential to provide the same benefits as the OBOD, without some of its drawbacks.
Please share your feedback on that discussion page, so we can collaboratively identify the most practical solution together.
We plan to develop and release one of these message indicator options early this week, based on your comments and our development team's recommendations. Our goal is to release this feature in our next deployment window on Tuesday at around 20:00 UTC -- which is our earliest opportunity, in order to get the code carefully developed, reviewed, tested and deployed. We will either re-deploy the old OBOD to complement the current tool -- or one of the message indicator options we've been working on, based on your feedback. The amount of time required to implement the OBOD or any of the other options is comparable, as they all rely on the same back-end code changes, which are significant. The good news is that we have already written much of this back-end code over the weekend, and the front-end code should take lot less work, so we expect to get it all done on Monday.
In the meantime, we strongly advise against turning on any gadgets by default, as this will only complicate things, and will delay a timely solution to this issue. While we appreciate concerns that some users may not be getting their messages, we have yet to see conclusive evidence that this is indeed the case. Most other top sites nowadays use a red badge to notify their users of new messages -- and this 'best practice' is widely considered to be a very effective way to get a user's attention.
We will post another update on Monday at around 20:00 UTC to inform you of our progress. Thanks again for your understanding. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting, Fabrice. I've taken the liberty of editing the introduction, which didn't mention the suddenness of the change as a factor independent of the relative merits of the notification systems. I am certain this discussion will get a whole lot easier for everyone involved, not least the WMF staff working on it, once that basic point is acknowledged and appropriate temporary action is taken. -Pete (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect reverted message

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T50111

This is incredibly minor but I thought you ought to know. If someone moves a page and someone reverts a change prior to your edit, it notifies you that you have been reverted. example. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a bug.--ragesoss (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allow CSS customisation of "(1)"

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T50165

I've just had "(1)" showing at the top of my screen for several hours without realising it. I'm surprised MediaWiki doesn't do anything to draw a notification to my attention, and this definitely needs improvement (several people are already discussing this above).

Anyway, I wanted to fix this myself with a bit of user CSS. Looking at the HTML source, however, I can't see any class= or id= to indicate new notifications. The only difference in the page is the content (i.e. "(1)" instead of "(0)"). There is nothing I can use to write a CSS rule to be triggered by new notifications.

Hence, I'd like to suggest an enhancement to Echo: When the count of new notifications is non-zero, add a class that CSS can use to format the link differently. For example, when there are no new notifications, the HTML source would look like this (i.e. the same as it does now): 

<li id="pt-notifications"><a href="/wiki/Special:Notifications" title="Your notifications">(0)</a></li>

When there is a new notification, the HTML source could look like this (note the added class="new-notifications"): 

<li id="pt-notifications" class="new-notifications"><a href="/wiki/Special:Notifications" title="Your notifications">(1)</a></li>

– PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 23:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a CSS class which you can use; it is added dynamically by javascript, so you may have looked in the HTML source instead of the rendered DOM source. Anyway, look for the .mw-badge-important class, which makes the background red. — Edokter (talk) — 00:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for that. Unfortunately that isn't much use to me because I have scripts disabled. This also explains why I don't see the "red square" others have mentioned. I guess this is an interim measure until the devs give us something better? Since the number of notifications is known when the server serves the page, I don't see why the class can't already be on the page when it is served. (Except of course that a developer needs to change the server-side code, whereas any admin can write JS.) – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 15:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please file a bug in Bugzilla (if there isn't one already). --MZMcBride (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 19:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please add an edit notice to this page?

Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Wikipedia_talk

Big and bright, along the lines of: "Presently, IP editors still receive the orange bar notifying them of a new message on their talk page, and new accounts that have given us a confirmed email address receive an email notifying them of new messages on their talk page." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigations

The new notification system notifies people mentioned at WP:SPI, cf. [6]. This may or may not be a good thing, not as a technical but as an organizational matter.

One of the SPI "Important notes" says:

You can notify the suspected accounts by adding {{subst:socksuspectnotice|PUPPETMASTER}} ~~~~ to the bottom of their talk pages. (Notification is courteous but isn't mandatory, and in some cases it may be sub-optimal. Use your best judgement.)

Note the second sentence.

IMHO this otherwise worthwhile technical innovation shouldn't automatically circumvent that, and some deliberation is necessary on the matter. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a problem. The automatic notification about reverts could be problematic (or at least require changes in Wikipedia's processes) for similar reasons. It's almost like an invitation to edit warring. Hans Adler 18:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting conundrum. Poor noticeability of badge at the top might be a feature in the instance of sockpuppets or vandals. LET'S KEEP THINKING POSITIVE, GUYS. :-) Killiondude (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Not speaking of the sock-puppetry concerns) Don't we want to let vandals know that their vandalism is not welcome here? How is this any different from template warnings? FallingGravity (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The warnings make it clear that they can't simply re-revert. A neutral notification about a revert will be interpreted by some as confirmation of their idea that Wikipedia is some kind of neutral stage for edit wars in which the most persistent user wins. Hans Adler 16:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot reset number by going to page

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49912

So I have had some talk page notices today, and I see that if I go to my talk page directly instead of going via clicking the little red number, the number stays red. This will train the user to ignore the little red number (I've already started, and I'm one of the people who *likes* this feature).If I have a notification for my talk page and another for a mention somewhere else, that number should go down by one when I go to my talk page and by 2 if I then go to the page where I was mentioned, *regardless* of whether or not I've done so through the notification interface. Clicking on the number is useless until it has a diff rather than just a link to my talk page (something I already have!), and even the section link is useless for pages with big sections. So....two points here:

  • All links (including those onwiki and those in emails) must include a diff to the edit
  • The little red number should automatically decrease when a user goes to the page for which s/he has received a notification, whether or not they go through the notification interface.

I'm enthusiastic about the new features with this tool, but I'm quite disappointed that the features that made the old tool useful (direct links to the edit, emails that include links, high visibility, notice disappearing simply by going to the page involved) have all been deprecated. I have faith that the team can get this right, and I know it's a weekend so hopefully they're refreshing themselves for a busy week. Please let's get this right; I think a lot of the criticism about visibility is very valid and is really diminishing the ability to recognize the positives here. Risker (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say pretty much the same thing. Thanks Risker for such an articulate explanation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just now noticed that if I go to my talk page itself, the notification stays, but if I go to the talk page history or last diff (via Writ Keeper's script) the notification goes away. Ignatzmice•talk 02:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way: keep in mind that my script does this manually; each time you visit your talk page, I check the unread notifications for unread messages and mark any talk-page ones read, while leaving the others unread (this happens after the page load, though, so usually the notification number won't reflect it until the page is re-loaded). This is done manually, though; it's not a feature of Echo proper. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Risker, HJ Mitchell and Ignatz: Thanks for reporting this issue, which is already on our to-do list. I just filed this new bug for it and gave it our highest priority: Template:Bug. We aim to deploy it at the same time as the new message indicator, if possible. Sorry for this inconvenience, we'll get right on it. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Is there notification if a page one created is deleted? -- Ypnypn (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment, although it'd totally be worth building in. One of the things the team is going to work on, hopefully, is a notification when a page is tagged for deletion, so that users have an opportunity to check the article and make whatever tweaks are necessary. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really necessary - The Prod, Speedy and AFD templates all cause a notice to be posted the page creator. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why these are mutually exclusive. -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was on the shortlist, and once the UI settles down creating more notification types for events like this where there is a concrete way of detecting it happening is relatively straightforward. I hope there will be a lot more types added over time both to help regular contributors with workflow, and to encourage dabblers to become more regular. LWelling (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on new message indicator

New message indicators for notifications tool

We would be grateful for your feedback on a proposed 'message indicator' feature for this notifications tool.

The purpose of this feature is to better inform people who might have missed the red badge that now lights up when you have new notifications. It aims to address concerns raised on this page about removing the OBOD in this version of the tool, as discussed above.

To that end, we have prepared a special discussion page with four different options for this proposed message indicator. Each option includes a design mockup, key features, as well as pros and cons. We think any of the first four options can be developed quickly this week, and have the potential to provide the same benefits as the OBOD, without some of its drawbacks.

Please share your feedback on that discussion page, so we can collaboratively identify the most practical solution together.

We plan to develop and release a new message indicator this week, based on your comments and our development team's recommendations.

Thanks for your guidance. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 05:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't like the default zero.

I don't like the default zero messages "notification". I would prefer that the notification button didn't show when there is no messages. In addition, when I do get messages I can't read them properly, but this may be because I use the Cologne Blue skin and not the default. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iselilja, due to the limited design and development bandwidth we are able to optimize visual design for Vector and perhaps Monobook, a lot of the visual design work for new components will be optimized for these skins and I would encourage use of these for best user experience; Its also not easy to create a clean crisp design for so many skins with the front end limitations of Mediawiki Vibhabamba (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason there is a zero button is in case you want to re-visit any of you recent notifications that you've already seen. Otherwise there would be no way to get to them other than manually going to Special:Notifications. Kaldari (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does the zero need to be in a grey box? Perhaps that's just the price I pay for using Monobook. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

page links for chosen pages

I'd like an option to extend the Page Links feature to pages I choose and to delete pages from that list. I think I virtually created an article by converting a redirect into a full article, but someone else created the redirect. I don't know if there's a page I'd want to not know this about, but I might lose interest in an active page and then I might want it off my list. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea :). I'm not sure how creative we can get with this sort of thing - although it'd certainly be nice. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prototype enhancements - an update

Hey all :). I've just posted an update to the discussion page about the new messages indicator that should explain what we're doing right now, and what you can expect from us in the coming days (hint: lots of fun prototypes). If you've got any questions, or want to think about my discussion points, drop them there or send me a message :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hold on now....why is the section edit link not over at the far right anymore?

Discussion moved to WP:Village pump (technical) [7]

FYI-does Visual Editor impact any of what you are doing here?

FYI Visual Editor is coming — Maile (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we're well aware of it :). There shouldn't be any conflict between it and Echo, no. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New red notice box is double plus less good than OBOD

I'm not sure if this is being discussed above, and if it is, someone can point me to it, but the new red "pop up" box that shows up to let you know about new notifications es no bueno. We don't need a giant screaming red box for every new notification. We need a giant screaming red (or orange, I'm not picky) box for new messages. I don't need to be intrusively reminded that someone linked to an article on my watchlist, and I don't think new users to either. I merely need that level of notification only when someone leaves a message on my User talk: page. That's why we need the OBOD back to its old functionality. The new red box isn't very helpful, and I think that all users (especially new users) would benefit from Echo (which I still like a lot) with the Orange "you have messages" box implemented. This new development isn't as good, as it notifies users of too much stuff. There needs to be something special and different for new user talk messages, not for every unread notification. --Jayron32 06:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can turn it off: MediaWiki:Gadget-Notification. It's primarily to ensure new users don't miss talkpage messages (and they won't get many other notifications). Rd232 talk 09:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you miss my point. I'm not particularly concerned about my experience; I think this feature isn't helpful for the bulk of Wikipedia editors in general, and feel that the best possible solution isn't this red box, but rather an intrusive notification about talk page messages only (i.e. the Orange Box or something very like it) working in conjunction with the notification system. I recognize I, as an experienced user, has possibilities to customize my Wikipedia user interface. The vast bulk of users do not, and I don't particularly like how this particular feature would work for them. --Jayron32 13:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that a new-messages-specific notification would be better, but that rather fell by the wayside—User:Writ Keeper isn't fully comfortable with his orange-bar script being default on. This was intended to be a sort of compromise, I think—and a good compromise leaves no-one happy. Ignatzmice•talk 13:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, being triggered by talkpage messages only would be better. But bear in mind that the vast majority of users won't get very many non-talkpage notifications - it's very different for highly active long-term editors. Rd232 talk 13:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, if we are going to have a red box show up, why can't we click through it directly to whatever we're being notified? Why is it necessary to click the number? Having an attention getting that redirects you somewhere else seems to partially defeat the purpose of the attention getter. Not to mention I think the way the notification dropdown itself works isn't really user friendly: to get to the talk page section edited, you need to click a little teeny arrow that took me a while to find, and there's no choice at all, as far as I can see, to view a diff. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that may be because of an Echo bug (#Cannot reset number by going to page) - it doesn't know you've visited your talkpage if you don't go through the red box. Rd232 talk 15:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The big attention-getter is a superficial workaround; it only reads Echo, it doesn't affect it. I suppose it's theoretically possible to tie it in more directly, but that's probably more than Edokter wants to take on. And it runs the risk of actually breaking things. Ignatzmice•talk 16:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than theoretically possible; that's what my OBoD script does. It scans the unread Echo notifications for any talk page messages, posts the OBoD if there are any, and then when you go to your talk page, it goes through and marks all the talk-page-message notifications read. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just reading and writing variables, yes? The idea (which is a good idea) is to make clicking the pop-up do the same thing as clicking the number. Which would be more difficult, I believe. Ignatzmice•talk 16:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, when you visit your talk page with my script installed (and with unread-talk-page notifications), your little red Echo notification number will go down, and the notifications within it will really be marked read. It might not be visible at first; it happens after the notification number is loaded, so the number won't change until you reload the page. But you can see for yourself: with an unread talk-page notification, go to your talk page with my script and then go to a different page without touching the Echo notification bubble; your number of new notifications will go down accordingly. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, yes, but you're only changing various variables—the underlying stuff. I believe what Heimstern was saying was either a) make clicking the popup take you to the page/diff in question (which would be difficult, 'cause what if there are more than one) or b) make clicking the popup show the flyout. Ignatzmice•talk 17:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prototypes released

See this thread; User:Kaldari has written several prominent replacements for talkpage notifications. Test however many you can, play around with them and let me know what you think. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:I'm in Modern skin. Tried E and F, and on my skin they both look exactly like what we already have. Maybe it's the skin. I appreciate all the time and effort everyone is putting out to give us something workable. But all of this is just adding steps to what used to be so simple in accessing talk page messages. The OBOD was a one-step click to access talk page messages. When the teensy red pipe was added, it became a two-step process. Now the notification makes it a three-step process. Click the big notification to find out you have to go over and click on the red pipe, only to also click again on your talk page to get the messages. — Maile (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me that you're kidding. Does the new notification only tell you to check your notifications because one of them is an edit to your talk page? --Onorem♠Dil 14:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:::That's how it works for me. When the new notification comes up, if I click it, look at it and click it again, it just goes away - it's nothing but an alert to tell me to look at the red pipe notification. The new notification has no link for me to click. — Maile (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently, it wasn't working at all when I posted the above. Now it works fine. I don't know why. But inbetween the above posting and now, I've been offline. That's the only thing I can think of. — Maile (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My $0.02

Just wanted to drop by some quick feedback, nothing more than my $0.02 on the Echo system as it is now:

  • We really need diffs in the emails, else they're kinda useless;
  • The subject of the email could include the language and project this refers to for when this will be spread to other wikis (this would be really useful for filters);
  • There should be a way to avoid getting notices of when bots edit with the bot flag on, I keep seeing MiszaBot in the list of notifications;
  • The "0" looks very out of place in a grey box;
  • The new talkpage message popup thing seems not aware that I had already read said message: the big orange box of doom used to disappear if I visited my talk page;
  • The in the notification box are fairly pointless without diffs, I would say, as I have to track it down thru the history if it has since been reverted.

All that said, it is a good concept and with some finetuning I'm sure it will turn into a userful tool :) Snowolf How can I help? 15:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I just logged in and was confronted with the new big loud notification pop-up. Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is only a temporary measure until a final solution is implemented. — Edokter (talk) — 15:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syndication Secret Token

With the watchlist, you can get your watchlist as a feed without being logged in.
May this feature be added to the notification system. (Quick/temp fix could be to reuse the watchlist token.) Thanks, 930913(Congratulate) 18:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous idea. Theopolisme (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How would that work, exactly? Notifications are primarily web-based. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer: notifications could also spit out an RSS feed, like many other MediaWiki things already do. Not sure if this actually needs security on it, but watchlist token would be one way to do it perhaps. Rd232 talk 23:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. Yep, iirc, that's being considered :). I thought you meant having notifications distributing watchlist changes, and got very confused ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can we get rid of this nonsense?

Just another gimmick with no value - if somebody would like to talk to me: my talk page is available for signed messages, which are recorded together with my answer (if any) --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the only feature of Notifications. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't. They made a decision, and you're going to like it. --Onorem♠Dil 20:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or alternately you can accept that it is impossible to build anything that pleases anyone, and allowing an opt-out to anything anyone could plausibly object to would end up being truly ridiculous. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My reply answered the question. I'm not sure how your responses do. --Onorem♠Dil 21:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one of them was to you, so not intended to ;p. His question was based, by his statement, on the premise that talkpage messages were the primary (or sole) purpose of notifications. This is false. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who has asked for this change? Or was it just another project (image filter 2) to keep employment high in headquarters? What are the real advantages? --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me, and I like it. Surprise surprise (I'm not Cilla Black, honest) few people actually hate it enough to waste their life bitching about it. Some love it, some hate it, most will just get on with doing whatever it is they do without being quite nasty and pissing off the developers for no good reason other than someone stole their comfort blanket. Nick (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I have noticed about this change that I do like is that it notifies me if I am mentioned directly in some discussions. Other than that its pretty much a pointless waste of time and in most cases makes things worse rather than better. Notifications are easily missed, it doesn't go to IP's, I trigger it when I leave messages for myself, etc. The new edit section location is a pretty pointless one as well as is the new Login page layout that looks pretty much identical to Facebook. What's next? Are we going to force "Timeline"? Or start adding like buttons to all the articles? I am all for the WMF stepping up and making decisions but I feel as though good programmers and dollars went to waste developing useless features here. There is an incredibly long list of other features and improvements that people have been asking for that have gone completely unanswered and undone. To have these unwanted and rather pointless changes being forced upon us is frustrating and pretty disrespectful of our time as volunteers. I really do have all the respect in the world for the programmers and folks that worked on these changes but they are just a waste of time and more thought should have gone into the planning of do we need them prior to development. Kumioko (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The login page being more Facebook like is a stroke of genius, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, LinkedIn, these companies spend more on their user interface design (and associated research) than WMF spends in total, it's probably not a daft idea to incorporate elements of FB, Google etc into the design of MediaWiki/Wikimedia sites. The FB login page isn't laid out the way it is just to look pretty, it's the product of careful design and research, all designed to look less intimidating, to be easier to use for visually impaired users, to work better on mobile devices, and more besides, no doubt. For veteran editors, yeah, it's going to be anything from a minor inconvenient to a real wrench to tear themselves away from the 1990s/2000s user interface with OBOD and the old login screen (which a lot people will only see a dozen times a year) and work with something more up to date, but at the same time, the olde fashionede appearance of WP prior to Echo was undoubtedly making it difficult for newer editors more familiar with Facebook, Google+ and the like to feel entirely at home here. Having to sign and date this post is completely counter intuitive when you're used to Facebook adding your name and time to the left of every comment you make, FB does it automatically, WP has four tildes and an army of bots to let people know who left the comment on their talk page.
The edit link being directly adjacent to the section title instead of over to the right is simply to bring en.wp into line with most other sites, to make it easier to chop and change from one site to the next. It's good to get people contributing to Commons, to Wikinews, to all the other sites they want to, and to make it as easy as possible to slip slide from one to the other. Nick (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't mind the edit link or the new login page. I just hope a lot of time wasn't spent on them because we don't really gain anything. I also think that the new discussion method has some pluses but getting rid of the orange bar and replacing it with a tiny number with a red background that doesn't comply with generally accepted design medthodologys is not beneficial. Many people cannot see red or green so these colors should be avoided for notifications. Burnt orange like the bar is better. The size, location and obviousness is also a problem. Its too small and hiding it in the midst of the links at the top is asking for people to ignore it. The location and implementation were not well thought out regardless of what bugs it fixes. Additionally, there is a long list of other problems that should have taken precedance. With all that said and as I have said before I am glad the WMF is making some decisions and I wish they would make more since we as a community have shown we aren't capable of doing it. The WMF may have asked if we hadn't shown so precisely over the years that we cannot make decisions. We deserve whatever we get until we do. Since I am complaining here is what I would have done with the notification. Allow people to choose a couple options under gadgets. I would have let the orange bar be an option but if its a matter of location mabe placing it in the empty are to the left of the login name and other links at the top of the page would be better. It doesn't need to be as big as the orange bar but even Facebook has a larger more obvious number and notification that what we implemented here. Additionally, we are not google or facebook so we do not need to change things just to be like them. We are still one of the most visited websites and IMO its largely because we don't implement uselss changes often and we have a decent layout that's fairly easy to understand and use. We should not mess with what we have unless there is a good reason to do so. Kumioko (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your general question: Echo/Notifications derives from Template:Bugzilla, and is or will be the answer to many bugs. PS It's not actually compulsory, even for German Wikipedians, to throw in gratuitous references to image filters when complaining about WMF development activity. Rd232 talk 23:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Given recent events, I have created a proposal that I think might facilitate communication between the software development team and the community. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I just wanted to say thanks for the new system. I really like it. The little red box is unobtrusive, yet easy to see on each page if one wants to check if they have messages, way more than the huge orange notification bar used to be. And it even lets you know who left a message and everything, making it easier to find on your talk page, rather than having to occasionally hunt around to figure out what section the message was added to like with the old system.

So, again, thanks! (I am sad that the day is quickly coming that I won't be able to use Classic though. :( ) SilverserenC 03:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Hey all. Just wanted to let you know that Oliver will be taking some time away from this discussion. He took the weekend off (as he should), but the cumulative energy he's put in over the past week has left him a bit burnt out. The other folks on the team will be continuing the discussion. Howief (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear. Enjoy the time off. Take as much as you need. --Onorem♠Dil 16:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that was meant to sound as snarky as it does, it doesn't have any place in this discussion. -Pete (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that. I'm afraid I can't refrain from pointing that this is a direct consequence of refusing to allow everyone (community, devs, WMF team) the time to handle this calmly and methodically, by temporarily reinstating the OB while replacements for the OB are developed. It's an appallingly bad call, but one which even now could still be reversed to good effect. Rd232 talk 17:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Notifications&oldid=554155495"