Research talk:Comparing most read and trending edits for Top Articles feature

Familiar

I'm not sure I understand the point of RQ2 and RQ3. It's better to provide new information and combat the filter bubble, right? But as the limitations say, it's hard to extract any representative information. --Nemo 21:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

We had a notion that one of the primary use-cases for the "top articles" feed was to show people timely, relevant information, so we were interested in learning whether we were showing people things they might have heard about elsewhere, and want to know more about. And then there was the issue of cross-cultural relevance issue: I suspected that a feed consisting solely of items that people were editing would not have as much cross-cultural relevance as things people were reading, because the editing population skews heavily towards North America and Western Europe. I think the best of all worlds would be a model that included both sources of signal: what people are reading and what people are editing, to provide a mix of somewhat-familiar and intriguingly novel recommendations. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd like something different, for instance if a lot of people are viewing articles of an oil spill suggest the article about an oil spill 10 years ago which is not receiving many edits or views. Always encourage what people are not doing, not what everybody is doing right now. Nemo 09:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You're an editor, Nemo. Do you believe that your interests are representative of a general reader? I certainly don't believe that we should be designing the explore feed for your interests--or mine. We're too niche. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)