5 ms·

If you are surprised why the “Personal Appeal” banner is consistently doing so well – well, it looks like this: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spec

by ugh 16y ago

If you are surprised why the “Personal Appeal” banner is consistently doing so well – well, it looks like this: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NoticeTemplate/view&template=2010_testing50 http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NoticeTe... and the alternatives look like this: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NoticeTemplate/view&template=2010_en_testing36 http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NoticeTe...

jasonjei 16y ago
I'm amused by the fact that I'm drawn into the picture of Jimmy Wales. It just looks so inspirational; for what reason, I'm not really sure.
- iliketosleep 16y ago
  the reason? photoshop
  - sliverstorm 16y ago
    (and a decent photographer)
  - mapleoin 16y ago
    Photoshop is only the means to reach the end goal if you know what that end goal is. What colors, what lighting techniques etc. Give me the source photo and photoshop and I probably couldn't get there in a week, simply because I don't know what elements in that photo are the ones that move people. Also more important I think are the posture and the look on Jimmy's face which should probably be attributed to good photography.
- aniket_ray 16y ago
  Personally, I found it the "Jimmy Appeal" banner the most irritating and invasive out of all the different methods they've used. Because of this (negative emotion), it was the only appeal that really affected me. So this morning I was wondering whether Wikipedia folks do test the impact of different methods. I was also wondering how an attractive looking model would affect the contributions. Certainly worth the experiment.
  - gojomo 16y ago
    They should try 'the parked domain girl'.
alanh 16y ago
Yes. Showing a face (or to a lesser degree) demands MUCH more attention that text and simple graphics.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  I don't think that was the point being addressed. I think the point was that the personal appeal banner was better designed and much higher contrast (greater use of color, larger font sizes, gradients, etc.), whereas the other banners are lower contrast with smaller fonts and far more ignorable, regardless of the presence of a face.

by ugh 16y ago

jasonjei 16y ago

I'm amused by the fact that I'm drawn into the picture of Jimmy Wales. It just looks so inspirational; for what reason, I'm not really sure.

iliketosleep 16y ago
the reason? photoshop
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  (and a decent photographer)
- mapleoin 16y ago
  Photoshop is only the means to reach the end goal if you know what that end goal is. What colors, what lighting techniques etc. Give me the source photo and photoshop and I probably couldn't get there in a week, simply because I don't know what elements in that photo are the ones that move people. Also more important I think are the posture and the look on Jimmy's face which should probably be attributed to good photography.
aniket_ray 16y ago
Personally, I found it the "Jimmy Appeal" banner the most irritating and invasive out of all the different methods they've used. Because of this (negative emotion), it was the only appeal that really affected me. So this morning I was wondering whether Wikipedia folks do test the impact of different methods. I was also wondering how an attractive looking model would affect the contributions. Certainly worth the experiment.
- gojomo 16y ago
  They should try 'the parked domain girl'.

alanh 16y ago

Yes. Showing a face (or to a lesser degree) demands MUCH more attention that text and simple graphics.

InclinedPlane 16y ago
I don't think that was the point being addressed. I think the point was that the personal appeal banner was better designed and much higher contrast (greater use of color, larger font sizes, gradients, etc.), whereas the other banners are lower contrast with smaller fonts and far more ignorable, regardless of the presence of a face.