I’d like to introduce us first - we’re Speedit and Noreplyz, working as your wiki’s assigned global Discussions moderators! We want to offer our help shaping and growing your Discussions community, and use that added manpower to improve the atmosphere. In the meantime, we are happy to assist in just moderating until the forum has been concluded.
What we can offerEdit
As said on Discord, we wish to work on this as a project with you all. We’ll go by the responses we get here, and take on your moderation guidance at Discord. Note that as global Discussions moderators, we have only a few months to turn Discussions around. Our goal is to make the Discussions forum a more attractive place to moderate in this time, and that will drive a lot of our input in this discussion.
At this point, we understand that the Discussions right now could be more satisfying for all the users involved. The users would likely appreciate content and conversation. Meanwhile, the moderators would like to cultivate high-quality Call of Duty conversation. It would help the wiki for users to “stick” in Discussions and be attracted into editing.
To overcome these issues, we can “seed” content like wiki blog posts on the main wiki (like this one). With the WWII release, there are plenty of news articles we could base good conversations around (be they from gaming websites, or FANDOM). There’s other material—like trailers, tweets and easter eggs—that we’d be interested in seeding, if possible.
What we can suggestEdit
In light of having limited time to help, we also have alternative approaches to suggest with Discussions users, which we’d like everyone to vote on:
- Locking without immediate deletion.
- This gives opportunity for a moderator to reply, potentially guiding the user to correct their mistake in the next post. The suggestion could reduce the desired level of quality, but that issue could be mitigated with a mod edit adding a notice, then deletion after a day.
- Allowing Questions and Answers threads.
- This allows for linking to wiki articles, and potentially explaining wiki culture to the users if and when any misconceptions arise. In a later stage of the project, the category could be converted into an article suggestion box and wiki discussion area. Though it is very early days, such a full fledged category would help pervade the wiki culture in Discussions.
- Editors or admins posting CoD news and updates into Discussions (this ‘vote’ being on how willing or likely you’d be to do this).
- Posting news helps create a “feed” of fresh content for the app. It looks good to newer users, and is easy for CoD fans to interact with. This effect will naturally improve the quality of posts in Discussions, and lead new users to make higher quality discussion. This suggestion is most likely to attract users who are passionate about CoD, of which some could be recruited for editing and moderation positions.
- Allowing users to create Looking for Players posts and Favourites posts in a separate category.
- This being suggested as an alternative to #1, as it is potentially more convenient to app users who may not stumble on the “Looking for Players” megathread. If general discussions become of a higher quality, posts about favourite weapons could become more in-depth too. This suggestion could free up time, which could be used to focus on seeding content more.
We’d like the War Room to reach a consensus in a couple weeks about what suggestions would be implemented, and give input on the other ideas offered. In the meantime, we are able to offer our help patrolling Discussions under your direction. We hope to co-ordinate the main project through the Discord server, starting in December. Later on in the near future, we plan to revisit the War Room and discuss the following:
- Adjusting categories. This is to make sure they’re all being used often.
- Updating the guidelines, to fit the wiki and community’s needs.
I'll address your suggestions directly.
- We already do this for the same reasons you provided, or at least, we try.
- I'm not sure what this really means outside of what already gets posted in Discussions. We don't disallow posts that have questions in them. Additionally, we've been trying to incorporate linking wiki articles into as many responses as possible throughout the life of Discussions. I'm also wholly unopposed to having a category specifically for wiki article discussion, but as of now, that almost never happens.
- This seems like a no brainer. Full agreement.
- This has been one of the more controversial points throughout the use of Discussions. I don't necessarily agree with your point about it being an alternative to #1, however, because I think they play to each other quite a bit. Currently, we disallow posts looking for players save for those we create monthly, and then link to those monthly threads in any new LfP posts. We then lock the new post so that anyone coming into Discussions can hopefully see how it's done. Of course, this is all just a big workaround for the fact that there is no way to sticky a post, a feature which absolutely should have been part of Discussions before launch, and the lack of which just isn't acceptable after all this time.
We're certainly glad to have the help here, but I can't say I'll be holding my breath for a full turnaround in activity in Discussions. There simply isn't enough user activity to sustain the kind of ecosystem we're looking for. Joe 04:13, November 15, 2017 (UTC)
- I'm in a similar boat to Joe for points 1-3. But the reason we don't allow users to make their own favourites and looking for players post is due to the amount of spam it creates. We've had it where one user makes a post looking for players, received no replies and then another user made another post right above. And these are commonly users that don't come back. I think what Fandom fails to see with a feature like this is that all communities are different. Yes it works great on Wookiedpedia, because the community there is interested in lore and story, so there's always something to "discuss". This is Call of Duty, all people care about is spouting their account name and leaving. Very rarely do we have users return. Not many people are interested in Call of Duty story, so that really just leaves the multiplayer. So most of the users we get are only interested in that, leading to nothing but posts about looking for players and occasional posts on weapons (which also get very few responses). This feature has our name on it. So if people are seeing this feature first, and it's just a bunch of posts with poorly written posts asking for players, they're going to assume our content is going to be poor. As Joe said, it seems appalling that the feature has been out as long as it has, and yet still has not implemented a sticky function. Right now, we're working with the resources we have, and the resources we have are broken. As and when the feature can be brought up to a respectable standard, we can start using it as intended. Until that time, we'll use it to the best of its ability. 13:23, November 15, 2017 (UTC)
- In fact, now I can present some evidence of this happening.
- As you can see, I've made our "monthly looking for players" post, and the first user looking for players after it just makes an entirely new post looking for players. This use also lacks an avatar which makes it seem like they made an account purely for that comment. Our discussions is not one that attracts users that want to stay and discuss things, it attracts people just looking for someone to play with and then leaving.
22:55, November 15, 2017 (UTC)
- In fact, after I got this pic, another user added a looking for players post, so we had 2 users with a looking for players post right above the thread specifically for them. Both these users were linked it, however neither returned to do so. 16:00, November 16, 2017 (UTC)
- For points 1 and 2, the reason we have added these is because we've noticed some removals aren't very lenient, but could be more lenient to help push change into Discussions. I've seen many questions deleted because "that's what Google/the wiki is for", when it takes a few minutes to bring up the wiki page and provide them a link or a proper answer.
- 3 and 4: I think that keeping LfP posts is the only way you can establish a large audience and kick it to life. Leaving low quality LfP posts in one category means that posts can be moved into the LfP category, and users can uncheck the category if they do not want to see LfP posts. Maybe in the future, when there are more users using Discussions, we can bring up the rules and move LfP posts off Discussions.
- And so, point 3 is then the only way you can actually get people coming back and posting high quality content. Admins need to set the example, and the rest will follow and create their own posts. Even if it's not update or game related, sharing gameplay or achievements through video or screenshots is also captivating and keeps users interested. noreplyz talk 23:04, November 17, 2017 (UTC)
- We'd like to start this from December 1st. Are there any further questions or objections with our outlined changes? Also, you guys should also feel free to take a break over December. We'll make sure to review our progress in the new year. 03:26, November 29, 2017 (UTC)
- To be more exact, since taking over as moderation again,I've deleted 17 posts I feel are of poor quality, or are simply repetitive questions, or should of been put on a different thread. And this was without choosing to load further comments, this was just on page 1. this feature requires generates more requirement for moderation than good posts. 22:54, January 3, 2018 (UTC)
- This. Wikia forced a failed feature on us that we don't want and now we're stuck with it. Sam's right - it's just lowered our image.
- On behalf of the entire wiki: GET RID. 17:41, January 3, 2018 (UTC)
- Hullo. Apologies for the long delay with replying. I think there indeed has been some uptick in activity, and that there could be much more in the way of "stickiness". Will co-ordinate with Nore and our staff sponsor about it; a change of tack is in order.