maybe then add "run time", too? Anyway, they are a indicator, but also very choppy (see T53294)

I have no objects to also showing runtime.
They may be choppy but it defiantly saves people time as the alternative is clicking into every filter!

Looking at the abuse filters more today I think the time taken to run the filter is probably a far more useful thing to have in the table than the conditions used!

Change 201177 had a related patch set uploaded (by Dragons flight):
Adds average AbuseFilter run time to display table

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/201177

I like this, and I'd like to propose a slightly different approach: add to the table a column named e.g. "health", with a coloured percentage showing the "health" of the filter, i.e. how its run time and used conditions are good. This would also need to hardcode two separate tables for run time and number of conditions, something like (for conditions):

• 0 <= # <= 2 - good
• 3 <= # <= 6 - so and so
• 7 <= # <= 10 - bad
• # > 10 - fixme!

Then combine time and conditions and scale them to a percentage, which may have colours like green for 80%+, yellow between 40 and 80 etc.

I would find useful to have the conditions used on the main table. Runtime would be a plus, but the conditions used should be there. On small wikis you can afford going filter by filter and checking the conditions used. On large wikis where optimization is a must in order not to exceed the condition limit identifying expensive filters is critical. If we're going to expose more information, please expose both or, at least, the conditions used. Thanks.