Forum:Random Feature, dammit
- Hea, it's a random feature button!
Yeah, so, me and MrN9000 discussed it, and we (yes, just the two of us) have decided that, if you people decide to not include a random feature button SOMEWHERE on the site, like the mainpage or on the left under navigation or community or something, that you are all 'tards. Take a look at User:Cajek to see my interpretation of it. Obviously, it will be much smaller and more plainlink-looking when it gets to be a part of the site. Here's what MrN had to say:
| “ | I know there are a lot of nay sayers over there, but screw them. Who cares? The point is to try and make Uncyc better. I think we should add the random featured button above the random button. Maybe move the Babel link (to the community box) or scrap it altogether. Many people don't like change just because they... Um? I never really understood that one. Anyway, you just keep on making good suggestions Mr Cajek sir. I think there might be an objection based on using that DPL thing too much, but hea, maybe we need to get some better servers or something... | ” |
• <1:20, 07 Jul 2008>
- Can't be done. Too bad! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:31, 07 Jul 2008
- It's impossible? Even for a computer? Or Sannse? This would really make the impression of Uncyc which users get a lot better. Surely it can be done somehow? MrN
01:43, Jul 7
- Hey, careful, Sannse can do anything. Hell, I saw her convert a piece of string into a rod of plutonium. -
Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 
02:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, careful, Sannse can do anything. Hell, I saw her convert a piece of string into a rod of plutonium. -
- It's impossible? Even for a computer? Or Sannse? This would really make the impression of Uncyc which users get a lot better. Surely it can be done somehow? MrN
- Even if it could be done, I wouldn't support that.
- A hush befell the room; could THINKER really be against a random selector for the site's top quality articles?!
- Yes I am. Reason being is this: as much as I am always rallying for quality n00bs to stop being IPs and join, I also feel that part of that process is exploring the site, slowly becoming familiar with the lay of the land. Which goes full circle to my core argument for only top-notch work gracing the frontpage: if we offer solid, humorous FA's and read-worthy Recent UnNews, they'll be compelling enough. And we are still a wikipedia parody; they don't have it, we don't need it kinda thing. --THINKER 01:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand your "exploring the site" idea Thinker. Would you not rather that people explored our features than our crap? ... Wikipedia does not have it? We had better get rid of UnBooks, UnScripts, UnTunes, Game, HowTo and Why? then. MrN 01:56, Jul 7
- I understand his "exploring the site" thing, and I think it's a good idea. But we need more hooks, in my opinion, but I've not got any ideas, and a random feature button isn't the way to go. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 02:00 Jul 07, 2008
- I don't understand your "exploring the site" idea Thinker. Would you not rather that people explored our features than our crap? ... Wikipedia does not have it? We had better get rid of UnBooks, UnScripts, UnTunes, Game, HowTo and Why? then. MrN
- Yes I am. Reason being is this: as much as I am always rallying for quality n00bs to stop being IPs and join, I also feel that part of that process is exploring the site, slowly becoming familiar with the lay of the land. Which goes full circle to my core argument for only top-notch work gracing the frontpage: if we offer solid, humorous FA's and read-worthy Recent UnNews, they'll be compelling enough. And we are still a wikipedia parody; they don't have it, we don't need it kinda thing. --THINKER 01:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, guys. You are making NO sense to me. Why the fuck not point people in the direction of our best articles? Why can't it be done? I did it on my god damned user page... We are NOT suggesting removing the random page button. • <2:05, 07 Jul 2008>
- I'm supporting Thinker and going against Cajek? I thought I'd never see the day.
- A hush fell over the room. So did a wrecking ball. Ouch.
- We already are pointing them in the direction of our best articles. There's a link right bloody there, on the left. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 02:07 Jul 07, 2008
- Wouldn't it be easier to point them towards a specific article instead of having them look through a list? I know that when I first came here, I saw that list and thought Whoo boy, nevermind. Let's appeal to the lowest common denominator with our link outlay. • <2:19, 07 Jul 2008>
- What I'm saying is that there is a button in the box that says featured content. There are dozens of links to various areas of the site on the front page as well. Not everything needs to be laid out for people to go and instantly grab it; elements of the site that are unfamiliar to n00bs and other non-users become familiar if you're willing to stick with it. We're trying to encourage that "stick with it" behavior by having them explore the site on their own. They can hit the regular random button.
- And if it should land on a crappy article? So be it in this case: I am the most vocal proponent of deleting rubbish on this site, and should a potentially worthwhile n00b taper off because of getting a poor string of articles, I believe that is the site's fault and that needs to be addressed, not having a button to randomly generate good stuff. The site itself should be good stuff; FA's should be especially good stuff. But that is a different discussion. --THINKER 02:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'd support a weighted random system based on site ratings. But that has yet to happen. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 02:47 Jul 07, 2008
- But the site ratings are utter balls. I consistently see 5-stars on new userpages, and pure garbage. If we do what you're saying, we would need to completely fix up the rating system. But this too is probably for a different discussion. The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 03:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- What he said. Except I don't really know how we'd go about "fixing up" the rating system.. --THINKER 03:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. It seems pointless here to be honest. The only idea I have is have a butt-load of people vote on as many articles as possible over like a weekend or something, just to get some near-decent ratings. But to be honest, no thanks. The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 03:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- What he said. Except I don't really know how we'd go about "fixing up" the rating system.. --THINKER 03:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- But the site ratings are utter balls. I consistently see 5-stars on new userpages, and pure garbage. If we do what you're saying, we would need to completely fix up the rating system. But this too is probably for a different discussion. The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 03:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- And if it should land on a crappy article? So be it in this case: I am the most vocal proponent of deleting rubbish on this site, and should a potentially worthwhile n00b taper off because of getting a poor string of articles, I believe that is the site's fault and that needs to be addressed, not having a button to randomly generate good stuff. The site itself should be good stuff; FA's should be especially good stuff. But that is a different discussion. --THINKER 02:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I refer you to the previous topic on this
Behold: Forum:The_"Random_Page"_button:_a_discussion_of,_and_a_vote_there_on; where some people had some opinions not dissimilar to those above.
The good news is that the thing that was stopping my version of it working has been fixed, apparently. So it maybe can be done now. It's still a problem that pages with custom CSS won't have it loaded, and pages from other namespaces won't get their namespace logos. But special:random doesn't even do other namespaces, so it's not much of a problem. If you're curious, it picks its random article from a list of the most popular categories. So it doesn't necessarily always pick "good" articles, which I think might put some people off - it needs a sense of proper randomness. More categories/whole namespaces could easily be added and weighted differently. I believe that special:random is weighted towards newer articles, which is why there's so often pretty bad. Not sure how well it'd work, or if it'd be better overall, but you can see how it might be.
Oh and Cajek your random featured article template doesn't work properly, it won't give any article that starts with T or later. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 07:26, 07 Jul 2008
- Ahh, you mean:
| “ | It is, yes, but wikia need to make DPL work properly first. There's one specific bug that's holding it all back, but I haven't been able to find anyone to report it to. For those interested, the problem is that DPL won't give you more than 500 results. | ” |
- -- Spang
- Thanks for sharing that information with us Spang. Now we understand the problem which exists with having a random feature button. I wonder if there would be a way to pick the best 500... That old forum did appear to mostly be discussing getting rid of the Random button. At NO point did Cajek or myself suggest that we do that here. We were suggesting that both buttons be in the navigation menu. I think we mentioned that... Also, did anyone else notice that one Dr Skullthumber appears to have changed his opinions somewhat regarding this issue from that last forum? MrN 11:54, Jul 7
- Well, it's similar enough to be the same. Also, I also mentioned above that that bug is fixed now (i didn't realise it had been fixed, hence the "not possible" above), so it is mostly possible now. As seen here. That's probably as close as you'd get. Also, two different random buttons is probably a bad idea. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:02, 07 Jul 2008
- What about a random button button? Wouldn't that be awesome? Question? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Stole code from Spang's thing to create my new User:Cajek/randomfeatured, which includes, I guess, a thousand featured articles? It randomly generates as many featured articles as Spang's but without all the extra crap he has. • <23:25, 07 Jul 2008>
- Well, it's similar enough to be the same. Also, I also mentioned above that that bug is fixed now (i didn't realise it had been fixed, hence the "not possible" above), so it is mostly possible now. As seen here. That's probably as close as you'd get. Also, two different random buttons is probably a bad idea. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:02, 07 Jul 2008