@nettrom_WMF -- thank you. This has helped us refine our data retention plans.

@kostajh @Tgr -- I just noticed this task wasn't on our sprint board. Where should it be? Is it In Progress?

@RHo -- we now know exactly what our homepage discovery rates are via T245369: Homepage: discovery measurement (Feb 2020), which showed us that it can range between 40% and 75%, depending on the wiki. I think the Growth team should continue to plan on improving that number, and I actually think this task -- modifying the Main Page, or potentially even replacing the Main Page with the homepage, are good ideas. I think we should keep it open, but on ice.

@kzimmerman -- this is an analysis task that is part of a project, "Emailability", that we have not prioritized but may want to prioritize in the future. I don't think the task should be closed, but perhaps there is a better place to keep it?

@kzimmerman -- this is an analysis that we still think would be interesting and potentially useful one day, but has not been a priority in the last year. Do you think it should stay open or be closed?

@kzimmerman -- this is an analysis that we still think would be interesting and potentially useful one day, but has not been a priority in the last year. Do you think tasks of that status should stay open somewhere? Or closed?

Notes:

• users might feel confused when clicking back to Read from Edit and not seeing the Guidance panel (it feels rather abrupt).

IMHO this is OK because if the user has made a decision to exit out of editing after seeing the panel in Edit mode, they likely don't want to see the prompt to edit again in read mode. Presumably if they had exited from Edit by accident or change their mind, they would click "Edit" again where they will see the help panel with the task guidance. @MMiller_WMF might have other ideas on if we could manage this differently though when he reviews.

Okay, I think @RHo is right. We should not distract from the core workflow (but we should think about how to educate users about FlaggedRevisions at some point, or at least figure out if they tend to be confused about it). Let's change it back to the original: "saved" for FlaggedRevisions, and "published" otherwise. I'll change the task description now.

@ppelberg -- thanks for thinking about this. We have the idea for "notify your mentor" as part of the longer term of suggested edits. Here's a mockup. Our thinking here was that the user would not be pinging the mentor in an actual edit summary, but rather writing them a separate notification via a dedicated workflow that would automatically ping the mentor, after having already posted a normal edit summary.

To rephrase what I think @RHo is saying: the entire contents of the panel should be scrollable, not just the tips. Right?

@kostajh -- for the first scenario, you've got it exactly right. The user gets to the article in read mode, they see the suggested edits guidance, and they can't navigate to the root screen. Then they click edit, and they still see the same suggested edits guidance, but they can navigate to the root screen.

This issue no longer exists, so I am closing the task.

@kostajh @Catrope -- I just want to flag for you that this task needs to complete QA (@Etonkovidova), Design Review, and PM Review before it goes to users. Hopefully that can be completed in time for next week's train.

@RHo -- I wanted to make sure you saw/thought about my comment above:

Thank you!

Regarding the FlaggedRevisions

@Catrope plans to start working on this today.

@kostajh -- do you think we should consider this a blocker for guidance? Should we have it in Ready for Development?

@nettrom_WMF -- yes, that's right. This is the next priority after the newcomer tasks experiment.

Since the issue is upstream in T253149: Regression: UserSaveOptions hook no longer exposes old preference values, we will move this straight to QA for @Etonkovidova to check when the upstream issue is fixed.

@kostajh -- I don't see anything additional, and I agree with @Etonkovidova and @RHo's comments. I'm putting this in Needs More Work since it sounds like there are a couple changes.

@DED -- as we continue to work on the algorithm, a community member from Ukrainian Wikipedia (@NickK) requested that we try it in his language and see how it performs. Maybe that can be the next language we try.

@Tgr @RHo @Amire80 -- I just did some editing and verifying, and I think this is the situation:

It looks good to me. Thank you! There have been 60 suggested edits so far.

@mforns -- the data looks good to me now. Thank you.

@kostajh -- in that case, the help panel should remain open. It is reasonable that the user would toggle back and forth between reading and editing a couple times -- we've seen that behavior in EditorJourney.

@kostajh -- I think it would be best if we don't log any events for auto-advancing. Would that work? I think we're only going to want to know when the user affirmatively advances the tips, not when it happens automatically. Are we going to be separately logging impressions of the tips and advances of the tips?

@DED -- this task is ready for you to work on. I think for each of the bullet points in the task description, it would be good if you leave comments covering:

Thank you for checking out the task, @Framawiki. This is a good reminder about copyright. We do want to keep these pages around -- but I think we can probably add something to the top of each page to explain where the content came from. Do you think that's the right way to handle it?

@nshahquinn-wmf helped me fix this. Things are working now.

The Growth team will consider working on this next week.

@kostajh -- could you please review this and decide where the task needs to be?

@Ottomata -- I now have the notebook running after logging out and in again, but I'm having trouble running queries via the wmfdata package.

Thanks, @kostajh -- I do not think we should include the button at all in that final tip, even a rough approximation. Let's just go with the text.

@Etonkovidova -- since this is a user-facing feature, we need to also apply Design Review and PM Review, so I'm moving it to @RHo's column. Note that her review and my review block whether it can go into production.

Thanks, @Ottomata. I re-opened Jupyterhub, but now am not able to start a server:

@Tgr -- we are about to use this change in some analyses, so I want to confirm which date it went into effect. Is it April 2, as you predicted?