1

Ok, we have the Patrol Coach for RCP, but is it possible to create a Tips Coach? Lots of tips that newbies are editing into articles are irrelevant/offensive, so I thought a coach could help that problem. Feedback?

2

@OoT2D There is already a tips coach.

3

? I’ve never seen it.

4

Why don’t we have one base Coach for all Community Dashboard activities?

5

how would that even work? a cleanup greenhouse coach? can’t imagine…

6

Recent Changes Patrol and Tips Patrol lend themselves well to having automated coaches because editors are presented with binary choices: approve the edit/tip, or don’t approve the edit/tip. If the user makes the wrong choice, the coach steps in with feedback. With tools with Categorization and Cleanup/Copyedit, the editor has to come up with the material himself, i.e., find the right categories, do the cleanup/copyedit. The edits are more subjective and there is no clear right or wrong (no binary choice). Different editors are going to edit the articles differently according to their style and sense of what the article’s potential should be. With that in mind, there probably isn’t a practical way to produce a coach that would be very beneficial for these tools. In addition, Recent Changes Patrol and Tips Patrol are two of the most popular tools that new editors get directed to. Particularly with RC Patrol, it is important that new editors get feedback on what to patrol and rollback, because it directly impacts the quality of the articles. If a user patrols a bad edit, it may stay that way for some time until another editor notices it and fixes it, so the coach is useful in training new patrollers. Likewise on Tips Patrol, it is important to train new tips patrollers in what we expect from a good quality tip, so the “bad” examples can be inserted and users “tested” on these via the coach. All the Greenhouse type edits will go through RC Patrol, so there is always the opportunity for the patroller patrolling those edits to roll them back or improve upon them if need be. In reality, we can all be “greenhouse coaches” when patrolling—if you see an editor who needs some help understanding the purpose of the tool, send them a friendly coaching message and offer to help! Personal attention will go a lot farther than an automated coach in these situations.

7

+1 GREATEST answer

8

Spellcheck coach?

9

I think it’d be rad to get more Coaches up and running! Like Jeff said, that’s a rough thing to do on a “deep editing tool” like the Greenhouses; personal and specific feedback is probably the winning approach there. I could see this being useful on Spellchecker and other vote-style tools, though, as it is on RCP and Tips Patrol. It’s not a terribly easy feature to build, especially on a wiki where content is constantly changing, but a couple of folks at the wikiHaus are looking more into these kinds of possibilities. Some ideas include more Coaches that give feedback to new editors, example questions that help keep track of who’s likely making conscientious votes (and who’s being more careless or probably just clicking “yes” to everything or “no” to everything), and maybe even some future system to weight votes based on that reliability. I don’t think we’ll see huge leaps there right away, but it is something on the docket for experimentation… fingers crossed!:slight_smile:+1 to Jeff’s point about personal attention being key, though! With any new editor, I think we can do a world of good by just giving a little friendly feedback when an edit hasn’t been ideal, as well as thanking them for the good edits they’re making along the way. Other edits are the best “Coaches” we could have, really!

10

I understand that some tools can’t really have coaches.:slight_smile:Thank you @Isorythmic . But as you said @Anna , more coaches can be added for voting tools. If we do do this, could we consider having one universal coach, maybe the “wikiHow Coach”?

11

@OoT2D Well, I think the only option left is correct incomplete tips ourselves :3

12

Please do not bump threads

13

@WikihowSaver You mean reply after a long duration right? I had a doubt about that. After how many days should we not message in a discussion? Thanks for the help and sorry about the mistake.

14

@Vishwavijay You shouldn’t bump threads that are at least one week old already and have sunk.