User:SuggestBot/Interviews/User-16

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
5	Seni Jatuh (talk)	Add sources
7,585	Scrum (development) (talk)	Add sources
436	Sanath Jayasuriya (talk)	Add sources
2	Darussalam Academy (talk)	Add sources
153	IronPython (talk)	Add sources
38	Rajagopal Sathish (talk)	Add sources
128	Tracy Austin (talk)	Cleanup
128	Gary Kirsten (talk)	Cleanup
345	Hansie Cronje (talk)	Cleanup
38	Prepared-core technique (talk)	Expand
342	Transportation in the United States (talk)	Expand
1,137	Shane Warne (talk)	Expand
14	Samurai in Japanese literature (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
373	Inzamam-ul-Haq (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
45	Lovable rogue (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,818	Hobo (talk)	Merge
224	Andrea Petkovic (talk)	Merge
2	Thomas Webley (talk)	Merge
147	Kamran Akmal (talk)	Wikify
449	Beefcake (talk)	Wikify
470	Sissy (talk)	Wikify
1	2009–10 Rose Bowl series (talk)	Orphan
3	Shib Paul (talk)	Orphan
5	Sridharan Sharath (talk)	Orphan
16	La Ruffiana (talk)	Stub
22	Indian Veterinary Research Institute (talk)	Stub
23	Dark Lady (character) (talk)	Stub
16	Palani Amarnath (talk)	Stub
4	Vaman Kumar (talk)	Stub
67	Good Wife, Wise Mother (talk)	Stub

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions

We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:

Views/Day: Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
Quality: Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), assessment class, and predicted class.

We have added five columns to indicate specific types of work an article might need in order to improve its quality. A red X indicates a definite need, a question mark indicates the need is uncertain, while neither suggests no apparent improvement needed. Placing your cursor over an X or question mark should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:

Content: Is more content needed?
Headings: Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
Images: Is the number of illustrative images about right?
Links: Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
Sources: For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Below are a set of ten statements about the new design of SuggestBot’s article suggestion posts, followed by some open-ended questions. Some of the listed statements might not apply, depending on the articles you were suggested.

To respond you can edit this page and write the answers at the end of each statement, and below each question, just like this page was a talk page. If you wish to submit your answers in private you can email us directly.

Please respond to the statements by writing the number corresponding to your agreement/disagreement with the statement as follows:

1=Strongly disagree

2=Disagree

3=Neither agree nor disagree

4=Agree

5=Strongly agree

6=Did not use this feature

7=Did not notice this feature

Statements

Having more information about the articles helped me make decisions about which articles to work on. 4
Knowing that an article gets many views makes me more interested in improving that article. 5
The columns with X’s and ?’s suggesting specific tasks to improve an article’s quality were helpful. 4
The additional article quality assessment information available as a pop-up by moving the cursor over the quality star rating was helpful. 6
Having some tasks marked as uncertain (with a “?”) was helpful. 3
Being able to sort the table columns made it easier to find articles to work on. 5
The columns with X’s and ?’s describing work that needed to be done were things that the article needed improvement on. 4
The predicted article quality class was inaccurate (predicted article class is shown as part of the pop-up found when moving the cursor over one of the quality star ratings). 4
The improvements needed in an article were covered by one of the task suggestions in the columns with X’s and ?’s. 4
I prefer this design to previous versions I have seen. 5

Open-ended questions

Our new design has suggestions for specific tasks articles need to improve their quality, such as adding more sources and adding more images. Did you follow any of these specific suggestions? If yes, could you also let us know which of them you did and why?

I followed all of the tasks, particularly adding sources since almost all of the suggestions needed more sources.

Our design only suggests five different tasks (content, images, sections, wikilinks, and sources). Are there other tasks you think would be helpful suggestions for improvement to articles?

There could also be suggestions for adding categories

Additional comments on this new design, something that did or did not work, suggestions for improvements, etc.:

This is a great design and I did not find anything that didn't work.

Comments about the survey itself, for instance if the statements/questions were confusing:

The survey was very well written and simple and easy to understand. I didn't have any doubts about the questions.

--Tary123 (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have any questions about any part of this, feel free to let us know. I (User:Nettrom) am the researcher responsible for the project and I’ve got this page on my watchlist so I can respond fairly quickly. I might also stop by to ask some follow-up questions, for instance to clarify if there was something I could not understand. Regards, Nettrom (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)