Forum:QFH: by the numbers...

Forums: Index > Village Dump > QFH: by the numbers...

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6330 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Ok, I've been looking at the numbers, and QFH has some issues. One, there is no way to take something off QFH once it's on (I tried taking some QFH tags off some articles that quickly failed at VFH the other day and one of the authors has already insisted that since it was once a QFH, it should always be QFH). This leads to issues, as, just as with featured articles, the quality of the QFH's have improved over time. Lately I've been trying to make notations so that we know just how close something got to being featured when taken off. A quick look at Category:Quasi-Featured and the Featured Content in the sidebar also brings another problem to mind.

There are currently about 300 articles listed as "Quasi-featured" (thanks to the efforts of Alksub and others, this number is close to being accurate now, I think), yet only about 175 are listed under Featured Content's "Quasi-featured" area. This is made more confusing by the fact there is an "other notable articles" zone on this page that apparently anyone can add their article to whenever they want.

So my question is this: should we work toward trying to pare down the articles that are listed as Quasi-featured or should we instead be working to get all the articles listed as Quasi-featured on the Featured content page? I'd also like to know what people think about removing QFH from articles that return to VFH and do poorly the second time around.--<<>> 00:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As a practical example, I have this one that had 15 votes (no againsts) in its first round on VFH, but just 4 in its second. There was a month, if I remember it right, between the two attempts, with no significative changes to its content. I guess we could open a special page for QFHs and see which can manage to get featured. Maybe we can choose a day of week in which we feature these sencond-hand contenders. After some time, the ones that fail will just have the QFH removed and we extinct the category. What about? -- herr doktor needsAbolt  [scream!] 00:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The last thing we need is another voting page. I say if a quasi does more badder the second time 'round VFH that it should keep it's quasi-status, because it comes with a discount coupon to get 20% off a set of all-season tires (buy 5 get 4). Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I second the above, with a minor alteration. Perhaps, instead of a day for Quasi-featured, we feature two articles on the main page (perhaps eclipsing the "yesterday's feature" section), one for the winner of the VFH previous day, one that was runner-up. I also think that the criteria for QFH should be raised to 50% of winner's score. Cheers-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 00:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I mostly disagree here too. The front page is for features. 50% for quasi, however, seems okay to me. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I just thought about another page in order not to flood the VFH with quasis. What if we proceed to feature a fixed number of quasis (30? 60?) and that's all? -- herr doktor needsAbolt  [scream!] 01:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If I may make a small analogy, do you suggest something along the lines of the American Idol episode where the failures from the third round get one last chance to proceed to the next round, even though they're still going to fail in the long run? I would support that. I fucking hate American Idol. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, MO. Perhaps, instead of calling it quasi, we just say "we're featuring two articles from now on"? Too much?-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 22:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering how many featured articles we have and how frequently we now change them, I think we might just want to dispense with QFH altogether. Change the template to either Nil or something unobtrusive and just use the list as a trove for finding old articles that could be featured under our new once-a-day feature regime. If it is an issue of feeling guilty about removing something good from VFH voting, maybe the answer is to be a little looser on VFH removal, not a runner's up prize. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with removing fewer items from VFH, Isra, is that I started that when VFH was in the 50s (on number of articles), which is way, way WAY too many articles to vote on. The removal system is there to keep VFH at a managable size as the site grows, and has done that. And yes, I know good articles get taken down, but that's why I have the QFH tags in the first place, to note of what probably could/should have been featured in different circumstances. I think moving the standard to 50% instead of 25% is a solution for now, but it's only temporary and we'll have to figure out what to do with old stuff. I really think removing the QFH tag from an article that does poorly on VFH the second time around is the key. Maybe have a seperate template for articles that are no longer QFH or soemthing like that, I dunno. That way an author can still list something as having been QFH'd, legitimately, and we can keep the list for articles that really deserve a second chance at VFH.--<<>> 12:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless the "wasn't this just up here?" bias against re-noms has magically vanished, then I don't think second noms are especially the way to do it. And I remember when VFH was at 50. I remember when it was at 100, there, noob. :-p. And I remember that back then the two of us had a back and forth on the give and take on VFH removal that was still unsettled. Personally I think letting it get to 30 or 35 would not be the end of the world, since people tend to only vote on the new additions no matter how many are on the page. Anyhow, that is beside my point. My point is that the shear number of featured articles makes it hard for me to believe we need more categories of recognized articles. Seems to me QFH was invented when we didn't have very many features and we were only changing the featured article once every two days, so that more good articles were perishing. Now it is a reasonable prospect to get featured and it places an article among a larger list of articles. I think that we might want to make QFH more of a resource for finding things than an award unto itself.---Rev. Isra (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the easiest solution to the problem with the featured content page is simply to not care that not all the articles are there. The category (linked on the section title) has all of them in, so this is just a sample. As for scrapping it, why? QFH is another good indicator of good pages you might want to visit - we can't feature them all even if we wanted to. And removing it from things that do badly the second time around will just make people not want their articles to get renommed. (And yes, I have to admit bias as the writer of a Quasi but not, as yet, a Featured.) -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 07:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I'm going to try

Ok, Isra. I'm going to try to be a bit more lenient with VFH starting June 1. I will allow articles to build up and I won't remove them until two cretieria are met: 1)There are at least 25 articles at VFH. 2)There is at least one article that has a difference in score of 5 from the articles directly preceding and following it. At this point, as always, I will purge VFH until there are only 20 articles left. I truly think keeping VFH at 20 articles has made voting a lot easier on users, but we'll try it this way for a month and see what happens. If, on July 1, nothing catastrophic has happened, then I will probably continue to do it that way from then on. It should be easier to maintain anyway, as I'll hopefully have to purge less often.

I also plan on changing the criteria for QFH from 25% of the most-recently feature article to 50% at that time. This makes more sense given how much more often we're featuring articles, now. This still leaves tons and tons of articles QFH'd that should each be reviewed and possibly removed from their quasi-featured status. I'm going to do some quick research, and if I can't prove they were at 50% or higher of the most-recently featured article of the time, I'll probably take the QFH tag off the article and move on. It'll be a quasi-forest-fire week or day or whatever you want to call it. If an author objects and provides evidence they should keep the QFH, then I'll reutrn it. If they just put it back and don't talk to me about it, then I'll probably just have an edit war with them or something.

Anyway, after this, there should be a lot fewer articles to place in the featured content area, so that should solve our problems there. Comments, questions, objections, or flames, anyone?--<<>> 15:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I get to keep mine, I'm happy! :-P You might get some objections when you start doing it though, from users who don't read the forums so much. We'll see. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 16:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, yeah. I'm used to getting objections from users who don't konw what's going on.  ;)--<<>> 16:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I just disagree with one little thing. Articles with negative scores (did I hear "noobinations"?) should be removed on sight.-- herr doktor needsAbolt  [scream!] 16:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The only issue there is that we've had articles that were featured with 10+ against votes, and being unlucky enough to get two againsts after the nom would suck, you know?--<<>> 17:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Advantage for quasifs

What it we give quasifs a running start (maybe 3 to 5 bonus points)? This is an one-time trial. If a quasif re-nominated under these rules fails, it's no longer in the category. -- herr doktor needsAbolt  [scream!] 16:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Bring this up against after our Quasi-fire week. I think it's a good idea to counter the "this was already here!" sentiment of users, and once QFH is only for 50%+ articles, I think we can justify it.--<<>> 17:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps

We should perhaps set an expiry time for the QFH categorization?-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 01:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a thought.--<<>> 02:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That it is. Is it a considered one, oh mighty QFH QFA-purger?-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 22:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure... I think once we get QFA settled in, I'd like to turn it into something of a recycling bin for VFH. Give some kind of bonus for an article that's QFA when it's placed back on VFH, and if it dies, then it loses its status. Or something like that. The plan is to give the article a chance on a second run through VFH, where voters notoriously hate sequal runs.--<<>> 16:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My Proposal

Delete the quasi-feature award altogether. I helped create the QFH criteria last time around, and nobody helped out with the clean-up (and this wasn't the first attempt at cleaning up the QFH). So, my points are below:

1. The number of quasi-featured articles is just going to increase over time even with stricter criteria. Where do we put a limit? How many quasi-featured articles can we have before we start complaining that there's "too many"?
2. The quality of quasi-featured articles decreases over time. For example, an article might become quasi-featured, get edited by a few IPs or users who make it ugly over time, and then what? It gets unquasi-featured?
3. Maintaining the QFH is tough. With all of the things we require our admins to do, the quasi-features aren't worth the effort. And for what? An award that gives writers pity for not having their articles on the front page but still being of high quality? See below.
4. It has no value. Articles don't gain anything; this is more of an award directed towards making writers feel happy that they're mediocre or slightly above average, which is what ninjastars, cookies, and other awards are for.
5. The quasi-featured template isn't funny and solidifies my 4th point:

This article was nominated to become a featured article; however, due to a voting discrepancy in Florida involving Oprah and a balrog, it didn't make the cut. It's the thought that counts, right? You can prevent Oprah's nefarious plans from working by voting for other articles at Uncyclopedia:VFH.

6. It was created by User:JBob.

I know. I hate to go against one of the oldest Uncyclopedia rituals, but the QFH is turning into one major headache, and I don't see it getting better. --EMC ^[TALK] 00:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)