Hi,
Thanks for your thoughts on this, my replies inline:
You're replacing a heavy manual process by another heavy manual process with more disadvantages than the current one:
I disagree, the forum threads duplicate the Discussion page functionality and article tracking status duplicates the History for each page, the article tracking page rank also duplicates the ranking we see on the KB dashboard, so it creates confusion and extra work.
If someone create a new discussion thread about updating an article, a person still needs to manually create an artificial revision so that it shows up in the English KB dashboard as he does now to update the article tracking.
Agreed, this is a 1 for 1 swap, and the benefit is that the change is _with_ the article, not on some separate wiki page where you have to know to go and find out about it.
You won't be able to differentiate articles that need updates and those that need review. As a reviewer, if I see a new revision with no changes, I won't look at the changelog and will reject it.
In this model, every 'Review' is an edit of some kind and it doesn't matter what kind it is, because the nature of the change is described in the History. As a reviewer one has to use the History as a guide to whether a change is made/rejected/approved. Use of the History is key to a wiki content model.
If someone makes a new revision that fixes minor things in addition to an artificial revision, as soon as it will be approved, the artificial revision will become unreviewed and you won't know that the article needs updates.
I don't understand this case. To me, this is two separate edits, with two entries in the History, one for minor edit and one for the needed edit, so approval of the first doesn't approve the second.
Minor: You won't know if an article update or creation is about the Beta/Aurora/Release version.
The release information should be noted in the History when you submit an edit. We already note something about each submitted change in the History, if we make this note a bit more verbose, we can use it instead of duplicate entries in the forum and article tracking page.
Thanks,
Michelle
Hi,
Thanks for your thoughts on this, my replies inline:
''You're replacing a heavy manual process by another heavy manual process with more disadvantages than the current one:''
I disagree, the forum threads duplicate the Discussion page functionality and article tracking status duplicates the History for each page, the article tracking page rank also duplicates the ranking we see on the KB dashboard, so it creates confusion and extra work.
''If someone create a new discussion thread about updating an article, a person still needs to manually create an artificial revision so that it shows up in the English KB dashboard as he does now to update the article tracking.
''
Agreed, this is a 1 for 1 swap, and the benefit is that the change is _with_ the article, not on some separate wiki page where you have to know to go and find out about it.
''You won't be able to differentiate articles that need updates and those that need review. As a reviewer, if I see a new revision with no changes, I won't look at the changelog and will reject it.
''
In this model, every 'Review' is an edit of some kind and it doesn't matter what kind it is, because the nature of the change is described in the History. As a reviewer one has to use the History as a guide to whether a change is made/rejected/approved. Use of the History is key to a wiki content model.
''If someone makes a new revision that fixes minor things in addition to an artificial revision, as soon as it will be approved, the artificial revision will become unreviewed and you won't know that the article needs updates.
''
I don't understand this case. To me, this is two separate edits, with two entries in the History, one for minor edit and one for the needed edit, so approval of the first doesn't approve the second.
''Minor: You won't know if an article update or creation is about the Beta/Aurora/Release version.''
The release information should be noted in the History when you submit an edit. We already note something about each submitted change in the History, if we make this note a bit more verbose, we can use it instead of duplicate entries in the forum and article tracking page.
Thanks,
Michelle