Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

[Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


monomium at gmail

Dec 2, 2012, 4:15 PM

Post #1 of 46 (1746 views)
Permalink
[Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long

The facts banners started out being clean and nice. They are now expanded
by default, bright yellow, full of text, and really quite annoying.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


meta.sj at gmail

Dec 2, 2012, 5:02 PM

Post #2 of 46 (1727 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

I liked the 'clean, nice' versions a lot.


On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Mono <monomium [at] gmail> wrote:

> The facts banners started out being clean and nice. They are now expanded
> by default, bright yellow, full of text, and really quite annoying.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



--
Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


steven.walling at gmail

Dec 2, 2012, 7:29 PM

Post #3 of 46 (1722 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Mono <monomium [at] gmail> wrote:

> They are now expanded
> by default
>

Not //quite// the case, actually. So far as I can see, the banners slide
open when you mouse over them, but stay closed by default.

I think it's kind of bad tactic, since it defies user expectations that
actions are triggered by clicks, not on hover. But it is fairly common
among some advertisers. One thing that might balance this out would be
making the close icon more high profile (previous banners have had a proper
icon, rather than a simple letter-like X).

One plus: the new dropdown takes up less space on the page than the
previous version, since the Jimmy appeal seems to be either removed or
squashed to a smaller size.

Steven
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


keegan.wiki at gmail

Dec 2, 2012, 10:07 PM

Post #4 of 46 (1721 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Mono <monomium [at] gmail> wrote:

> The facts banners started out being clean and nice. They are now expanded
> by default, bright yellow, full of text, and really quite annoying.


Let's rephrase this as a question for the fundraising team:
I think that the banners bothering the readers by the size and the color.
Are the raising money that way that is exponential to the smaller, less
aggressively colored banners? If there is no significant change, can we go
back to that?

If the answer to question one is Yes, then just click the x and move on.

Fundraising is dynamic, strategies shift in an hourly motion and a day
seems like a week. This isn't science, it's economics, it's an art.

--
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


anthere9 at yahoo

Dec 2, 2012, 10:25 PM

Post #5 of 46 (1726 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

On 12/3/12 4:29 AM, Steven Walling wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Mono <monomium [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> They are now expanded
>> by default
>>
>
> Not //quite// the case, actually. So far as I can see, the banners slide
> open when you mouse over them, but stay closed by default.
>
> I think it's kind of bad tactic, since it defies user expectations that
> actions are triggered by clicks, not on hover. But it is fairly common
> among some advertisers. One thing that might balance this out would be
> making the close icon more high profile (previous banners have had a proper
> icon, rather than a simple letter-like X).
>
> One plus: the new dropdown takes up less space on the page than the
> previous version, since the Jimmy appeal seems to be either removed or
> squashed to a smaller size.
>
> Steven
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>

Non scientific commment:
The banners appeared to French readers two weeks ago since we started
the fundraiser earlier. When I saw the bright colors, I also expected a
sort of uproar from readers and many comments on OTRS. Much to my
surprise, we have not received too many complaints (at least, no more
than previous years). Some said nevertheless that they prefered last
year banners :)

Flo



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


sgardner at wikimedia

Dec 3, 2012, 12:08 AM

Post #6 of 46 (1718 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

We've been getting a ton of positive response to the banners this year. I
was at Newsfoo this weekend and a half-dozen people told me they donated
this year for the first time, because they liked the banners' factual tone.
I asked them if they found them ugly and they said yes, but that they
didn't mind or care. I've gotten the same kind of comments from other
channels as well: e-mails and Facebook and so on.

The campaign this year is hugely effective. The banners are smaller and the
campaign will be significantly shorter than in previous years, and yet we
will raise more money: that's excellent.

Thanks,
Sue
On Dec 2, 2012 7:30 PM, "Steven Walling" <steven.walling [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Mono <monomium [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > They are now expanded
> > by default
> >
>
> Not //quite// the case, actually. So far as I can see, the banners slide
> open when you mouse over them, but stay closed by default.
>
> I think it's kind of bad tactic, since it defies user expectations that
> actions are triggered by clicks, not on hover. But it is fairly common
> among some advertisers. One thing that might balance this out would be
> making the close icon more high profile (previous banners have had a proper
> icon, rather than a simple letter-like X).
>
> One plus: the new dropdown takes up less space on the page than the
> previous version, since the Jimmy appeal seems to be either removed or
> squashed to a smaller size.
>
> Steven
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


erik at wikimedia

Dec 3, 2012, 12:35 AM

Post #7 of 46 (1720 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Sue Gardner <sgardner [at] wikimedia> wrote:
> The campaign this year is hugely effective. The banners are smaller and the
> campaign will be significantly shorter than in previous years, and yet we
> will raise more money: that's excellent.

I think the change that's pointed out in this thread is that the
banners that were running as of this weekend(?) expand to take up
about more than 2x the vertical size with an in-banner donation form
even if you just move your mouse over them. That's a change from the
previous approach, where you had to click the banner to expand it.

I agree that this is counterintuitive - elements shouldn't jump
around, or expand when you don't expect it. It's always a balancing
act, but I feel that we should steer away from dark patterns like
pretending that moving your mouse into a banner area suggests strong
intent -- I'd rather run the previous banner for a longer time. YMMV.

Erik
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


erik at wikimedia

Dec 3, 2012, 1:04 AM

Post #8 of 46 (1727 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Erik Moeller <erik [at] wikimedia> wrote:

> I think the change that's pointed out in this thread is that the
> banners that were running as of this weekend(?) expand to take up
> about more than 2x the vertical size with an in-banner donation form
> even if you just move your mouse over them. That's a change from the
> previous approach, where you had to click the banner to expand it.

For easier comparability of the two banner behaviors -

Activation on click (old behavior):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Lorenzo?banner=B12_5C_120216_SuperCondensed_Click

Activation on hover (current behavior):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Lorenzo?banner=B12_5C_120216_SuperCondensed_Hover

[.These links won't work if you've previously dismissed the banner.
Opening a private browser session or clearing relevant cookies should
make them work.]

Cheers,
Erik
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


dgerard at gmail

Dec 3, 2012, 1:10 AM

Post #9 of 46 (1728 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

On 3 December 2012 09:04, Erik Moeller <erik [at] wikimedia> wrote:

> For easier comparability of the two banner behaviors -
> Activation on hover (current behavior):
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Lorenzo?banner=B12_5C_120216_SuperCondensed_Hover


... yeah, that's the sort of behaviour that inspires ad-blockers.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


magnusmanske at googlemail

Dec 3, 2012, 2:09 AM

Post #10 of 46 (1723 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 9:10 AM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:

> On 3 December 2012 09:04, Erik Moeller <erik [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>
> > For easier comparability of the two banner behaviors -
> > Activation on hover (current behavior):
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Lorenzo?banner=B12_5C_120216_SuperCondensed_Hover
>
>
> ... yeah, that's the sort of behaviour that inspires ad-blockers.
>
> Wouldn't be quite so bad if they shrunk again when you moved the mouse out
of the ad/form region...
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


dgerard at gmail

Dec 3, 2012, 3:17 AM

Post #11 of 46 (1729 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

On 3 December 2012 10:09, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske [at] googlemail> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 9:10 AM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:

>> ... yeah, that's the sort of behaviour that inspires ad-blockers.

> Wouldn't be quite so bad if they shrunk again when you moved the mouse out
> of the ad/form region...


Still adblocker-inspiring behaviour IMO. Could be just me, of course.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


phoebe.wiki at gmail

Dec 3, 2012, 8:21 AM

Post #12 of 46 (1711 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Magnus Manske
<magnusmanske [at] googlemail> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 9:10 AM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> On 3 December 2012 09:04, Erik Moeller <erik [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>>
>> > For easier comparability of the two banner behaviors -
>> > Activation on hover (current behavior):
>> >
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Lorenzo?banner=B12_5C_120216_SuperCondensed_Hover
>>
>>
>> ... yeah, that's the sort of behaviour that inspires ad-blockers.
>>
>> Wouldn't be quite so bad if they shrunk again when you moved the mouse out
> of the ad/form region...

I think it would be slightly better if the donation page quote that
appears on the hover didn't say "When I founded Wikipedia, I could
have made it into a for-profit company with advertising banners,":
having that phrase in the banner itself sounded pretty discordant to
me, at least (could just drop the word 'banner' and leave it at
'advertising'?). Anyway, yes, the other non-hover ones were less
annoying, especially the ones that were all facts and no fundraising
letter phrases.

All that said: hooray for our fundraising team, for running one of the
best fundraisers yet and in general, for making what might be the most
complex and effective website fundraiser ever look easy. :) Thanks!

-- phoebe

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


vandijk at wmnederland

Dec 3, 2012, 8:26 AM

Post #13 of 46 (1705 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

Hello,
After all the experience and A/B-testing, I have confidence in the
banners. My personal taste wouldn't matter.
Kind regards
Ziko


2012/12/3 phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail>:
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Magnus Manske
> <magnusmanske [at] googlemail> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 9:10 AM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 December 2012 09:04, Erik Moeller <erik [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>>>
>>> > For easier comparability of the two banner behaviors -
>>> > Activation on hover (current behavior):
>>> >
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Lorenzo?banner=B12_5C_120216_SuperCondensed_Hover
>>>
>>>
>>> ... yeah, that's the sort of behaviour that inspires ad-blockers.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't be quite so bad if they shrunk again when you moved the mouse out
>> of the ad/form region...
>
> I think it would be slightly better if the donation page quote that
> appears on the hover didn't say "When I founded Wikipedia, I could
> have made it into a for-profit company with advertising banners,":
> having that phrase in the banner itself sounded pretty discordant to
> me, at least (could just drop the word 'banner' and leave it at
> 'advertising'?). Anyway, yes, the other non-hover ones were less
> annoying, especially the ones that were all facts and no fundraising
> letter phrases.
>
> All that said: hooray for our fundraising team, for running one of the
> best fundraisers yet and in general, for making what might be the most
> complex and effective website fundraiser ever look easy. :) Thanks!
>
> -- phoebe
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



--

-----------------------------------------------------------
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
http://wmnederland.nl/

Wikimedia Nederland
Postbus 167
3500 AD Utrecht
-----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


monomium at gmail

Dec 3, 2012, 11:45 AM

Post #14 of 46 (1706 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Ziko van Dijk <vandijk [at] wmnederland>wrote:

> Hello,
> After all the experience and A/B-testing, I have confidence in the
> banners. My personal taste wouldn't matter.
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>

Yes, but brighter doesn't mean better. The A/B testing results apparently
show a small difference between bright yellow and something more subtle
like http://awesomescreenshot.com/0dcogli4f

As another person said, the thing we are selling to people is an ad-free
encyclopedia, yet we are using some of the most hated web banner techniques
like pullouts, floaters, and painfully bright colors.

Even the original facts banner in a blue was better - on every screen I've
seen, I want to get rid of that banner as fast as possible. Wikipedia
content is pretty plain and that banner is bright yellow.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


pavel.richter at wikimedia

Dec 3, 2012, 12:11 PM

Post #15 of 46 (1713 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

"the thing we are selling to people" As I see it, we are not *selling
*anything.
Wikimedia provides a free encyclopedia to the public, and it promotes Free
Knowledge worldwide. For this, we ask for donations, during a limited time
each year, and with very humble messaging and banners. We do not have to be
ashamed to do so.


Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Pavel Richter
CEO

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Tel.: +49 - 30 - 219 158 260
Twitter: @pavel


2012/12/3 Mono <monomium [at] gmail>

> the thing we are selling to people
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


thomas.dalton at gmail

Dec 3, 2012, 12:25 PM

Post #16 of 46 (1712 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

On 3 December 2012 20:11, Pavel Richter <pavel.richter [at] wikimedia> wrote:
> "the thing we are selling to people" As I see it, we are not *selling
> *anything.
> Wikimedia provides a free encyclopedia to the public, and it promotes Free
> Knowledge worldwide. For this, we ask for donations, during a limited time
> each year, and with very humble messaging and banners. We do not have to be
> ashamed to do so.

The difference between fundraising and sales is pretty small - both
are about convincing people to part with their cash. We have to
convince people that donating money to us is a good idea in exactly
the same way a company needs to convince people that buying their
product is a good idea - you do that by emphasising your key selling
points. In our case, being ad-free is one of our key selling points,
which is the point Mono was making.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


dgerard at gmail

Dec 3, 2012, 12:54 PM

Post #17 of 46 (1720 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

On 3 December 2012 20:11, Pavel Richter <pavel.richter [at] wikimedia> wrote:

> "the thing we are selling to people" As I see it, we are not *selling
> *anything.
> Wikimedia provides a free encyclopedia to the public, and it promotes Free
> Knowledge worldwide. For this, we ask for donations, during a limited time
> each year, and with very humble messaging and banners. We do not have to be
> ashamed to do so.


It is, however, quite unambiguously true that this is an exercise in sales.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


wikipedia at frontier

Dec 3, 2012, 1:13 PM

Post #18 of 46 (1716 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

On 12/3/2012 12:25 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 3 December 2012 20:11, Pavel Richter <pavel.richter [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>> "the thing we are selling to people" As I see it, we are not *selling
>> *anything.
>> Wikimedia provides a free encyclopedia to the public, and it promotes Free
>> Knowledge worldwide. For this, we ask for donations, during a limited time
>> each year, and with very humble messaging and banners. We do not have to be
>> ashamed to do so.
> The difference between fundraising and sales is pretty small - both
> are about convincing people to part with their cash. We have to
> convince people that donating money to us is a good idea in exactly
> the same way a company needs to convince people that buying their
> product is a good idea - you do that by emphasising your key selling
> points. In our case, being ad-free is one of our key selling points,
> which is the point Mono was making.
Even if it's fair to equate fundraising banners with advertising, that
only holds up as an argument for keeping the fundraiser as brief as
possible. Once you accept that there will be such banners (and I believe
we have, at least provisionally), it does not actually follow that the
use of editorial principles from advertising is undesirable, which is
essentially where this discussion started.

Take, for example, the objection on account of the "painfully bright"
banner colors. There is a well-established tradition in
advertising-supported publication, one that long predates the internet,
that considers it desirable to maintain a clear distinction between
"advertising" and "editorial" content. Those who value this tradition
tend to object strongly when advertising is designed in a way that blurs
this distinction, aesthetically or otherwise. And yet, one of the
concessions we keep pushing for from our fundraising is that it somehow
merge into the background and not call attention to itself as being
different from the rest of the site. To be honest, compared to past
fundraisers, one of my reactions when I saw these banners was to think,
"I don't find them especially attractive, but at least I can tell them
apart from Wikipedia at a glance." From this perspective, that's an
improvement on designs where the layout and color scheme is actually too
integrated with the site, and the banner is just an overgrown site
notice that could just as easily be informing me of some downtime for
scheduled maintenance, or giving me some notification on my watchlist.

That's not to say that I necessarily agree with all of the decisions
that went into the current banners as to aesthetics or content. But I
also don't have the expertise or all of the data that's behind those
decisions, which is why I tend to reach a similar conclusion as Ziko. I
trust that the fundraising team will attempt to balance all of these
considerations, that they do listen to the concerns people have, and
that they will make the best choices they can in light of the
information available. Keeping that in mind usually helps me as I
reflect on whether my own concerns are merely matters of personal taste
or something more important.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


zexley at wikimedia

Dec 3, 2012, 2:00 PM

Post #19 of 46 (1713 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

Thanks for these comments everyone. I hate the auto-expanding and sticking
banners too!

But before I get into the discussion about banners, I want to deliver some
good news: After eight days of banners, we're free to take them down
completely until Dec 26th, when we'll re-launch for a final 6-day push.
That would mean a total of about 14 full days of banners for the 2012
fundraiser. (Though if you add up all our pre-campaign testing, it's more
like 16 days.)

That's 16 -- down from 46 days last year.

But instead of taking banners down completely, I would like to experiment
with showing new visitors (people who haven't seen any banners yet) only
one or a few banner impressions -- and do that between today and Dec 26.

Depending on the results of that experiment, we'll have some new options
for next year. I think that we'll see a way to not only eliminate the need
for expanding banners, but also to show the vast majority of users only a
few banners all year.

So here's what I think we're going to do for the rest of this campaign:

1) Let's go back to the clean, non-expanding, non-sticking banners that
many of us liked at the beginning of the fundraiser.

2) Until Dec. 26, let's show banners only one or a few times to people who
have not seen banners yet. Unfortunately, people with multiple computers,
or who clear cookies frequently, will see them more than once. But that the
vast majority of frequent Wikipedia users will stop seeing banners -- and
less frequent users will see just a few, between now and December 26. I
think we'll still be able to raise a couple million dollars between now and
December 26th this way.

3) On December 26th we'll probably need to raise another four or five
million dollars to meet our end-of-year goal of $25M (we have $18.5M so
far). So on December 26th, we'll raise the fundraising level. But depending
on how much we need we might be able to still hide banners after 5 or 10
views, or keep them non-sticky. We'll have a lot of choices.

4) When Dec 26 gets here, if we only need to raise a few million more, then
we would like to feature Victor's video about editors and make that the
closing message of this campaign. If we can't do that, then
we'll feature the video in thank you messages starting Jan 1.

That's the tentative plan. It may have to change. But it'll be something
like that. As I said above, we could also just take down banners completely
until Dec 26. But I would like to keep showing banners one time to people
who haven't seen them yet because of what we will learn.

And with what we learn, I think we'll have many more options next year --
and can either eliminate sticky banners, or show far fewer banners, or
smaller banners -- and hopefully never have to think of auto-expanding
banners again!

On the topic of banner color and design: I liked blue a lot more than
yellow/gold. But a lot of people like the gold better. We oddly get a lot
of positive comments about it in the donor survey many donors fill out
after giving. And it does significantly better than blue in the long term
as far as we can tell.

It amazing how differently we perceive the banners from most non-editing
and non-staff users. We get a ton of positive comments about these new
banners and people really don't see these new ones as ads. In general, they
see them as an informative message from Wikipedia. But I agree that the
sticky and auto-expand UI is not good for users, even if few complain about
it.

I used to want to make them as small as possible, but after getting all
this feedback from donors, now I would rather swap in better information
that is less effective for fundraising but more valuable for the movement.
I'd love to include a couple sentences about how Wikipedia is made and who
makes it, and cut out a couple of those repetitive asks.

People love Wikipedia, and they love learning that we're a non-profit that
runs on donations. Most of them never would have guessed. And I'm happy
that these banners are waking the world up to this amazing and beautiful
reality.

Zack


On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Michael Snow <wikipedia [at] frontier> wrote:

> On 12/3/2012 12:25 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> On 3 December 2012 20:11, Pavel Richter <pavel.richter [at] wikimedia>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "the thing we are selling to people" As I see it, we are not *selling
>>> *anything.
>>> Wikimedia provides a free encyclopedia to the public, and it promotes
>>> Free
>>> Knowledge worldwide. For this, we ask for donations, during a limited
>>> time
>>> each year, and with very humble messaging and banners. We do not have to
>>> be
>>> ashamed to do so.
>>>
>> The difference between fundraising and sales is pretty small - both
>> are about convincing people to part with their cash. We have to
>> convince people that donating money to us is a good idea in exactly
>> the same way a company needs to convince people that buying their
>> product is a good idea - you do that by emphasising your key selling
>> points. In our case, being ad-free is one of our key selling points,
>> which is the point Mono was making.
>>
> Even if it's fair to equate fundraising banners with advertising, that
> only holds up as an argument for keeping the fundraiser as brief as
> possible. Once you accept that there will be such banners (and I believe we
> have, at least provisionally), it does not actually follow that the use of
> editorial principles from advertising is undesirable, which is essentially
> where this discussion started.
>
> Take, for example, the objection on account of the "painfully bright"
> banner colors. There is a well-established tradition in
> advertising-supported publication, one that long predates the internet,
> that considers it desirable to maintain a clear distinction between
> "advertising" and "editorial" content. Those who value this tradition tend
> to object strongly when advertising is designed in a way that blurs this
> distinction, aesthetically or otherwise. And yet, one of the concessions we
> keep pushing for from our fundraising is that it somehow merge into the
> background and not call attention to itself as being different from the
> rest of the site. To be honest, compared to past fundraisers, one of my
> reactions when I saw these banners was to think, "I don't find them
> especially attractive, but at least I can tell them apart from Wikipedia at
> a glance." From this perspective, that's an improvement on designs where
> the layout and color scheme is actually too integrated with the site, and
> the banner is just an overgrown site notice that could just as easily be
> informing me of some downtime for scheduled maintenance, or giving me some
> notification on my watchlist.
>
> That's not to say that I necessarily agree with all of the decisions that
> went into the current banners as to aesthetics or content. But I also don't
> have the expertise or all of the data that's behind those decisions, which
> is why I tend to reach a similar conclusion as Ziko. I trust that the
> fundraising team will attempt to balance all of these considerations, that
> they do listen to the concerns people have, and that they will make the
> best choices they can in light of the information available. Keeping that
> in mind usually helps me as I reflect on whether my own concerns are merely
> matters of personal taste or something more important.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists**org <Wikimedia-l [at] lists>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>



--
Zack Exley
Chief Revenue Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415 506 9225
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


meta.sj at gmail

Dec 3, 2012, 2:50 PM

Post #20 of 46 (1717 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

Thanks for the detailed thoughts, Zack!

Did we run banners on the sister projects as well?
It would also be great to experiment with running targeted banner messages
and presentations on the sister projects, particularly Commons and
Wiktionary, to see what the visitor response is like. We've certainly had
some good suggested designs in the past.

As you say, readers love discovering that we're a non-profit and how we
run. This is one of our opportunities each year to rejoice in the work of
the projects, get feedback, and hold a large-scale barnraising for the
coming year's work. It's good to reduce the total amount of time people
see banners on the projects, but also a very positive thing for all
projects to take part.

SJ
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


bharris at wikimedia

Dec 3, 2012, 3:01 PM

Post #21 of 46 (1706 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

I, for one, think this is totally awesome news.


Snt frm my iPhne

On Dec 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Zack Exley <zexley [at] wikimedia> wrote:

> After eight days of banners, we're free to take them down
> completely until Dec 26th, when we'll re-launch for a final 6-day push.
> That would mean a total of about 14 full days of banners for the 2012
> fundraiser.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


zexley at wikimedia

Dec 3, 2012, 3:06 PM

Post #22 of 46 (1715 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj [at] gmail> wrote:

> Thanks for the detailed thoughts, Zack!
>
> Did we run banners on the sister projects as well?
>

This year, we haven't so far.


> It would also be great to experiment with running targeted banner messages
> and presentations on the sister projects, particularly Commons and
> Wiktionary, to see what the visitor response is like. We've certainly had
> some good suggested designs in the past.
>
>
As you say, readers love discovering that we're a non-profit and how we
> run. This is one of our opportunities each year to rejoice in the work of
> the projects, get feedback, and hold a large-scale barnraising for the
> coming year's work. It's good to reduce the total amount of time people
> see banners on the projects, but also a very positive thing for all
> projects to take part.
>
>
I'd love to see a barn raising for participation instead of fundraising. So
little money comes from the other projects that it's actually
counterproductive from a revenue perspective.

If the only reason to do the fundraiser on those projects is to have a
coming together of the community, then why not do it around invitations to
participate instead of to donate?


> SJ
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



--
Zack Exley
Chief Revenue Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415 506 9225
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


tstarling at wikimedia

Dec 3, 2012, 5:25 PM

Post #23 of 46 (1711 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

On 03/12/12 20:04, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Activation on hover (current behavior):
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Lorenzo?banner=B12_5C_120216_SuperCondensed_Hover

If you ignore the banner and scroll down, then later accidentally move
the cursor over the banner, the article scrolls up to the top, losing
your place. That could be annoying, especially on long articles.

It happens because the collapsed banner has position: fixed, whereas
the expanded banner has position: absolute.

-- Tim Starling


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


zexley at wikimedia

Dec 3, 2012, 5:42 PM

Post #24 of 46 (1711 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Tim Starling <tstarling [at] wikimedia>wrote:

> On 03/12/12 20:04, Erik Moeller wrote:
> > Activation on hover (current behavior):
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Lorenzo?banner=B12_5C_120216_SuperCondensed_Hover
>
> If you ignore the banner and scroll down, then later accidentally move
> the cursor over the banner, the article scrolls up to the top, losing
> your place. That could be annoying, especially on long articles.
>
> It happens because the collapsed banner has position: fixed, whereas
> the expanded banner has position: absolute.
>
>
Thanks.

We just were playing around with the hover banners to see what kind of
effect they might have. They're not up now. And probably won't come back.


> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



--
Zack Exley
Chief Revenue Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415 506 9225
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


meta.sj at gmail

Dec 3, 2012, 7:43 PM

Post #25 of 46 (1708 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long [In reply to]

Brandon Harris writes:
> I, for one, think this is totally awesome news.

It is indeed!

Zack Exley <zexley [at] wikimedia> wrote:


> > This is one of our opportunities each year to rejoice in the work
>
> of the projects, get feedback, and hold a large-scale barnraising for
>
> the coming year's work. It's good to reduce the total amount of time
>
> people see banners... also [positive] for all projects to take part.
>

> So little money comes from the other projects that it's actually
> counterproductive from a revenue perspective.
>

This need not be expensive or painstaking. And a campaign could include
both calls to participate, as you say, and calls to donate.

For example: one Project-neutral banner or small campaign that focuses on
the broad future-looking work of Wikimedia: including new and growing
sister projects. That campaign could be consistent each year.

And we could invite each community to come up with their own banners -
celebrating the work of their project and asking for help as they see fit.


> If the only reason to do the fundraiser on those projects is to have a
> coming together of the community, then why not do it around invitations
> to participate instead of to donate?
>

Invitations to participate is a great idea. We should do that -- perhaps
at a low level year-round.

Donation should be part of it because it is one of the most universal sorts
of participation. Many people find editing hard but donating easy; we
should welcome them and their support, on whatever project they support.

And smaller communities like to pull their own weight. Active editors and
readers who identify with a smaller project would want to give through that
project. As long as some sort of campaign is running, one of the banners
(and an appeal page that participants can link their friends to, which
talks about their project and not about Wikipedia!) should be for donation.
The smaller the community, the more important those small acts of
identification are to nurturing it.

SJ
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.