Forum:Discord archives

From Meta Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Discord archives
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 20 November 2019 by Gaz Lloyd.

My fellow Gloopers,

In the RuneScape Wiki Discord, we currently have 29 public text channels, and about 7 archives of what were formerly public channels. The current archives are:

  • fork-discussion
  • mining-and-smithing
  • wiki-rsc
  • runefest
  • mobile
  • wiki-integrations
  • events

There are at least two more channels (#dark-mode and #mobile-wiki) that we're thinking about archiving and subsuming into #wiki-tech. There will surely be more in the future.

There's an open question about what we do with these archives, since it's useful in some cases to have the read-only versions available to users, for searching and being able to reference things that happened in the past. This has to be balanced against the desire to not clutter the channel list with too many useless channels, especially for newcomers.

The way I see it, there are four main options:

  • Option 1: Hide the channels completely, for everyone (excluding some admins, in some cases). This is what we currently do.
  • Option 2: Hide the channels by default, but let users opt in to seeing them through an emoji-react (similar to how we have a role for getting notified about events).
  • Option 3: Hide the channels by default, but let users opt in through the same mechanism. But additionally, automatically enroll anyone who has ever spoken in any of the archived channels (~200 people).
    • Option 3a: Do this auto enroll but on a per channel basis.
  • Option 4: Make them public for everyone, and put them at the bottom of the channel list under an archive category.

In all of these cases, the channels would be grouped together at the bottom under an archives category. The difference is in who can see them.

Discussion[edit source]

Support 3 - This is probably the right mix of decluttering the list for most people, and making it so people who previously were involved in conversations don't lose context. I'm okay with 4 but I'm worried about how that will impact the channel list in the long run. ʞooɔ 02:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Closed - No consensus. Template:Signatures/Liquidhelium 08:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Support 3 - Nice try Liquid. cqm talk 08:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Support 2 - It doesn't make sense to opt-in a select number of people. The whole point of opt-in is you start at zero and people can opt-in if they wish. It would be very random for a user who has said exactly one message in an archived chat to be given a new role. BTW, don't do 3a, then you'll have a role for each channel which makes opt-in even more of a nightmare. Haidro (talk) 08:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't really make sense to me – there's no inherent reason that a role configuration for this *needs* to start at zero. If we have a good heuristic for which users will care about this thing (which we do: people who've talked in these channels!) that only impacts 2% of users, I don't see why we shouldn't. ʞooɔ 09:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
You don't know that those set of users will actually care to have the role immediately, why bother pointlessly giving it out? Let them decide. Haidro (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
We should choose sensible defaults everywhere, because most people won't bother opting in or out of whatever group we put them in (most won't even notice a difference). Here, the sensible default for the users who have been active in the channels is to let them see them. I don't think that's controversial. If they specifically do NOT want to see the channels (which seems unlikely, but whatever), then they can opt out through the emoji mechanism. ʞooɔ 09:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with your first sentence but the most sensible default to me would be to let them opt-in. We've archived channels before and we've never had a case where people can't find a conversation they're looking for. Also, I think people wouldn't want to see the channels by default because most prefer a shortened channel list (and surely you agree with this, mr "archive all these channels"). Haidro (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm much more worried about how the channel list presents to new people, rather than existing/older users. FWIW, I have certainly had times where I have wanted to see discussion in old archives – I know Chess has expressed the same thing in the past, as have a few people in mining-and-smithing. And these are just the ones where people have bothered complaining. I don't think it's a super rare occurrence. ʞooɔ 09:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Support 4 or 2 I think I prefer 4 the most, but I also like the opt-in aspect of option 2. I don't think it's 100% necessary to have them be opt-in though, and hiding categories is minimal effort for users on discord to do themselves. I don't think I'd like them being where they used to be, it feels neater to me to have all archived stuff in a single category rather than multiple archived channels spread throughout general, wikis, and projects. I'm not sure how often they'd be needed anyways as they are obviously archives, so it sort of just makes sense to me to have them at the bottom out of the way. Option 4's wording made me think they weren't at the bottom of the list in a category already, and that the other options would keep them where they were before being archived, so if that's just a question of making them publicly available to read, I support that. Crow653 (talk) 08:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Support 4 - Just put it at the bottom. Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) 09:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Support 5 (combination of 3+4) - I like the idea of the channels being publicly accessible on an opt-in basis (options 2/3) if it makes sense for them, but I'd also like them to be shoved to the bottom of the list so they don't clutter the rest of the discord (4). -Towelcat (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I've clarified that in all cases they would be at the bottom. ʞooɔ 09:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
In that case, Support 3. -Towelcat (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Support 4 - People who don't want to see the archives can collapse the category jayden 10:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Support 4 - per Jayden. Meeeeerds msg 12:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Support 4 - per Merds. ThePsionic (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Support 4 - It takes one click to collapse a category, if they're at the bottom of the list they wont bother anyone and there's no need to mute them. Elessar2 (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Support 4 - per Elessar BetsanTalk 13:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Support 2 — I'm a fan of decluttered lists. With an emoji reaction opt-in, the channels are easily available to anyone without having to bother anyone that doesn't want/need to see them. Minor as it is, option 4 would still show the archive category header. --laagone talk 13:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Support 4 - 🎸🥁🎺🎹 🛒 Talk-to Kelsey 16:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Support 4 - Same comment I made in discord: it takes half a second to collapse a category you dont care about. Opt in/out is solving a problem that doesn't exist. iN008talk 14:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Support 4 - They're out of the way at the bottom of the list and it takes literally a second to collapse the section. Srylius (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Closed - Option 4 will be implemented. Gaz (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)