Confirmed users, Bureaucrats and Sysops emeriti
2,974
edits
Evangelism/WebsiteCompatibilityInternational: Difference between revisions
Evangelism/WebsiteCompatibilityInternational (view source)
Revision as of 15:46, 11 March 2009
, 11 March 2009→Feedback
m (→Feedback) |
m (→Feedback) |
||
| Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
* Having per-country lists of problematic websites (cross-run with the list of the most popular websites of that locale) would be a very effective way of proactively getting support articles written, possible by the same team of people that test these websites. (djst) | * Having per-country lists of problematic websites (cross-run with the list of the most popular websites of that locale) would be a very effective way of proactively getting support articles written, possible by the same team of people that test these websites. (djst) | ||
** Yep - that's in the list here. We'll need data from somewhere else to cross-match, but if we have country data it will be pretty useful to make things actionable. (blizzard) | ** Yep - that's in the list here. We'll need data from somewhere else to cross-match, but if we have country data it will be pretty useful to make things actionable. (blizzard) | ||
* This all looks good but I think we're perhaps missing an opportunity to use our mozilla.org/com traffic to really drive the message directly to broken sites. What about a more highly visible "wall of shame" for these broken sites? One could imagine a tool not unlike the beginning of spreadfirefox where we identify target broken sites ask contributors to help us find webmaster emails and perhaps even more aggressive than that by adding a "email the site and tell them to support standards" (localized) form once we do have an email address. The form email could have stock text that included advertising for the "RSS feed for your site in reporter occurrences" and links to the most common problem types and their solutions (I think the old devedge had some list of documents for common issues.) | * This all looks good but I think we're perhaps missing an opportunity to use our mozilla.org/com traffic to really drive the message directly to broken sites. What about a more highly visible "wall of shame" for these broken sites? One could imagine a tool not unlike the beginning of spreadfirefox where we identify target broken sites ask contributors to help us find webmaster emails and perhaps even more aggressive than that by adding a "email the site and tell them to support standards" (localized) form once we do have an email address. The form email could have stock text that included advertising for the "RSS feed for your site in reporter occurrences" and links to the most common problem types and their solutions (I think the old devedge had some list of documents for common issues.) ( Asa) | ||