Last modified: 2014-08-07 09:16:18 UTC
I'd like to suggest that the preloaded edit summaries be removed or de-emphasized. I'm talking about the screen that comes up on the app after you have made an edit, but before saving, that asks "How did you improve this article?", with four options: Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links, and Other. Since this feature was added, the "Fixed typo" edit summary has predictably become very popular - it is the first and most prominent option, and it's not obvious that skipping the edit summary is possible - but almost never accurate. As a patroller, I would rather see no edit summary at all than a false one; false edit summaries, until recently, usually indicated to me that a user was purposefully trying to evade detection. --[[User:Bongwarrior|Bongwarrior]] ([[User talk:Bongwarrior|talk]]) 09:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)&diff=620072074&oldid=620071370
On tablet, this appears to have been depreciated (using beta). Removing pre-loaded summaries would be useful, maybe replacing with summaries used frequently be the editor in question (maybe let the user create a subpage to enter them manually?). Either way, default edit summaries such as these can be over odvious and intimidating.
(In reply to Mdann52 from comment #1) > Either way, default edit summaries such as these can > be over odvious and intimidating. Our data completely disagrees with this statement. Both highly experienced users and totally new users have virtually the same success rate at proceeding through the edit summary and preview screen. In contrast, registered users are over five times as likely as anonymous users to get through the first edit screen where you see wikitext. Because of the above, realistically we are not going to be focussing our efforts on the edit summary screen for quite a while as we have much more pertinent issues to address.
I disagree completely. When I first got to the screen, it took me a good 15-20 seconds to find I could enter a custom summary, yet alone not have to use the default ones. However, I appreciate why, with the more major bugs in the software, why this is not getting attention any time soon. I have personally found much more pressing things that need resolving that (appear) to have already been reported.
Surely there is always experience that differs from the majority exposed in gathered data (as long as gathered data does not show 100% for one certain behavior or expectation). :)
(In reply to Andre Klapper from comment #4) > Surely there is always experience that differs from the majority exposed in > gathered data (as long as gathered data does not show 100% for one certain > behavior or expectation). :) Indeed. However, the data does show that the reaction of crippling confusion at the edit summary screen is literally in the minority, as over 50% of both registered and anonymous users make it past that screen.
Ideally, I think you'd want to start ppl off with a flow like that, and then after they have passed the screen a few times, you would 'nudge' them and ask "instead of picking one of the predefined summaries, you can write your own. Try it !"
(In reply to Derk-Jan Hartman from comment #6) > Ideally, I think you'd want to start ppl off with a flow like that, and then > after they have passed the screen a few times, you would 'nudge' them and > ask "instead of picking one of the predefined summaries, you can write your > own. Try it !" Agreed. It is not made clear enough that the edit summary step is optional and that one can save without an edit summary. We are undoubtedly losing some edits because of this. That said, not our immediate priority right now, per the above. :-)
