As we think about the "add a link" structured task, we want to see what we can learn from newcomers' experiences with the existing non-structured "add a link" task type in the suggested edits module. Here are some potential questions we could answer. Their ranked importance is indicated alongside them (1 is highest).
2 -- Are newcomers attracted to the "add a link" task type?
Starting April 2 (per T248106), it's random whether a newcomer encountering suggested edits for the first time will see a "copyedit" task or an "add a link" task as their first one. Before April 2, all newcomers say a copyedit task first. And as they page through, the task types alternate. We want to know whether it seems like the copyedit tasks or the link tasks seem more attractive to newcomers, in terms of which gets more clicks. Two caveats are:
- Korean Wikipedia does not have "add a link" tasks.
- Czech Wikipedia has few "add a link" tasks, and therefore users in Variant A who select certain topics may end up with a copyedit task first if there are no link tasks available for their topics.
What this impacts: if we see low attraction to link tasks, we will consider how to accent their appeal in the module once there is structure behind the task.
3 -- How does the activation of the "add a link" task type compare to "copyedit"?
We want to know whether adding a link is an accessible task type that makes sense for newcomers to do. In other words, are users who select a link task first set up for success better than those who select a copyedit task first? Maybe we should look at: for newcomers who select a link task as their first task, how likely are they to edit that article, compared to newcomers who select a copyedit task as their first task.
What this impacts: if we see low activation to link tasks, we will be able to confirm that newcomers are confused by the task, given no structure. If the activation is high, we may second guess just how much structure is necessary for an improvement.
4 -- How does the retention of the "add a link" task type compare to "copyedit"?
We want to know whether adding a link is a particularly "sticky" task type that makes users want to do it again. In other words, are users who start out adding links more or less likely to keep adding links than the users who start out copyediting are to keep copyediting? Maybe we should look at: for users who select a link task as their first task and edit the article, how likely are they to do another link suggestion on a different article compared to how likely those who select a copyedit task first are to do another copyedit suggestion on a different article? What about just moving on to more suggested edits in general, regardless of type?
What this impacts: if we see high retention to this task, we'll have confirmation that newcomers can get into a groove with adding links, and we can design the feature to promote that behavior.
1 -- How do newcomers do the linking?
When users edit via a link task, how much linking do they tend to do? Do they add many links to the article? Or just one or two? Or perhaps they just end up doing copyediting, and not linking at all.
What this impacts: if we see newcomers adding many links throughout the article, then we might design the feature to encourage them to thoroughly link the article. If we see that they tend to do just one link and leave, then we might design the feature to encourage the newcomer to get a quick win and publish a simple, small edit. If their edits frequently add no links, then we might see that it is generally not understood how to add links, underscoring the need for guidance.
5 -- Bonus: how do clicks and edits compare across task types?
While we are doing the above analyses, perhaps it will be easy for us to look at all the five task types, to see how often each has been selected in the past, and how often each has gotten edits in the past.