User talk:Deckiller/FAC urgents
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Pointless
This list begins to become pointless when there are more than, say, five items on it. If there are many items, people tend to ignore it altogether, especially when the same effect would happen if looking at the equally long list at WP:FAC itself. If this list is to be effective, it would probably make more sense to only list up to five items, and then wait until those items have received reviews before moving on to other items. Gary King (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I got someone's attention :-) I'd like to see what others say, but I'm getting the feeling that people are waiting until I add articles to the Urgents list before reviewing them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that is also the case because this list acts as a filter. Also, people don't want to waste their time on items that have received sufficient criticism. Another thing is that consistent reviewers tend to only comment on articles that have blatant issues, and ignore articles that do not have obvious problems after skimming through them, so well written or short articles end up having less criticism. Obscure titles are receiving less criticism for obvious reasons; my Facebook FAC has received plenty of comments pretty quickly, and I imagine that is because people have heard of it but do not use it, so they are interested in it and therefore end up reading it. Also, a few titles are misleading in the sense that people do not expect what they get when they click through to an FAC; a big culprit of this is comedy television episodes, such as those for The Simpsons, which are often a play on cultural phrases so people expect one thing but get another. I guess this is all just Psychology 101, but I think it's worth repeating. I'm now thinking that maybe my idea of creating a separate list that splits FACs by category is worth trying, so people have an alternative way of browsing through them. Gary King (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Don't agree with that analysis or the conclusion, and we already had the discussion about splitting the FAC page. My point is far simpler: because I've been overly vigilant in maintaining this page, people may have come to count on it, and may not be reviewing articles until they appear here. I can't say I agree that any of your analysis is correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I'm a computer scientist, anyhow, so usually half the stuff coming out of my mouth doesn't make sense to people, including me! Gary King (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Don't agree with that analysis or the conclusion, and we already had the discussion about splitting the FAC page. My point is far simpler: because I've been overly vigilant in maintaining this page, people may have come to count on it, and may not be reviewing articles until they appear here. I can't say I agree that any of your analysis is correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that is also the case because this list acts as a filter. Also, people don't want to waste their time on items that have received sufficient criticism. Another thing is that consistent reviewers tend to only comment on articles that have blatant issues, and ignore articles that do not have obvious problems after skimming through them, so well written or short articles end up having less criticism. Obscure titles are receiving less criticism for obvious reasons; my Facebook FAC has received plenty of comments pretty quickly, and I imagine that is because people have heard of it but do not use it, so they are interested in it and therefore end up reading it. Also, a few titles are misleading in the sense that people do not expect what they get when they click through to an FAC; a big culprit of this is comedy television episodes, such as those for The Simpsons, which are often a play on cultural phrases so people expect one thing but get another. I guess this is all just Psychology 101, but I think it's worth repeating. I'm now thinking that maybe my idea of creating a separate list that splits FACs by category is worth trying, so people have an alternative way of browsing through them. Gary King (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
