Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote:
> This is a good thing to watch for, but I don't see how it relates to the
> idea of having "share" buttons.
>
> Wikimedia projects already have towering, monumental PageRank. And our
> URLs can already be submitted to social media, and there are obvious
> opportunitie
On 7 October 2010 19:39, Paul Houle wrote:
> There probably are thousands or tens of thousands of 'sharing' sites out
> there, and you can't draw a clear line between ones that are "big
> enough", the ones that are somebody's web-spam project (it isn't hard
> to make a flock of electric sheep t
Op 7 okt 2010, om 21:34 heeft Andrew Gray het volgende geschreven:
> On 7 October 2010 14:23, Krinkle wrote:
>
>> Main reason being that, although the buttons are highly useful (and I
>> can't imagine any big usercase in which they would be unwanted),
>> so aside from that they are also in a
Thanks for all your thoughts on social sharing... clearly you know this
field really well.
I just want to distinguish what Wikimedia would be going for (at least
in my opinion) versus a typical ad-revenue-driven site.
On 10/7/10 11:39 AM, Paul Houle wrote:
> As for social sharing, that's mor
On 7 October 2010 14:23, Krinkle wrote:
> Main reason being that, although the buttons are highly useful (and I
> can't imagine any big usercase in which they would be unwanted),
> so aside from that they are also in a very visible area that lots
> of scripts, tools and applications do or cou
Hi guys,
To dig up an old thread.
Op 27-8-2010 23:25, Platonides schreef:
> There's http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Social_Bookmarking (with
> the above mentioned issues).
>
> But I think that Maarten refered to something different, like a box with
> html code or bbcode to embed it.
> W
As for the inconsistency in the icons (eg. not the same 'style').
I'll see if I can find alternatives all from one set tomorrow (or
anyone else feel free to propose or edit yourself):
eg. pick one of the below:
* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tango_project
* http://commons.wikimedi
On 10/6/2010 9:55 PM, Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote:
> Yeah, that had its uses, so why was that removed? Deemed annoying?
>
> I've tried to research what's the best way to do "share this" buttons
> and there isn't any clear data or consensus on this. Collapsing the
> various share icons into one popup
On 7 October 2010 09:05, Magnus Manske wrote:
> By popular demand here :-) I have re-enabled the larger top/side
> icons. It is easy to switch back and forth between them. Maybe a user
> option? Or would that be overkill?
I'm all in favour of keeping them on the left, though a user
preference to
Op 7 okt 2010, om 10:05 heeft Magnus Manske het volgende geschreven:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Liam Wyatt
> wrote:
>>
>> On 7 October 2010 01:55, Neil Kandalgaonkar
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/6/10 4:44 PM, Krinkle wrote:
The clear icons to the right were better in my opinion withou
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
>
> On 7 October 2010 01:55, Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote:
>>
>> On 10/6/10 4:44 PM, Krinkle wrote:
>> > The clear icons to the right were better in my opinion without being
>> > disturbing or overwhelming.
>> > What is the motivation / reason for the
On 7 October 2010 01:55, Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote:
> On 10/6/10 4:44 PM, Krinkle wrote:
> > The clear icons to the right were better in my opinion without being
> > disturbing or overwhelming.
> > What is the motivation / reason for the change ?
> > Taking in account that the UsabilityInitiative
12 matches
Mail list logo
