Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ReplyBot


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Symbol delete vote.svg Denied.

ReplyBot
Operator:

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: Yes

Function overview: This bot reads Template:A930913Test1 for messages and places the message on the talk page using Template:A930913Test2. Will rename templates, named for now for no interference. This would save bandwidth and user time over TalkBack.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): had a bit of discussion on it.

Edit period(s): I'd suggest running with intervals of 5 mins to look for new templates. (Or manually until other people use it.)

Estimated number of pages affected: Right now only I'll probably use it on a few pages I use, but if others use it, it could increase slowly or could snowball.

Exclusion compliant (Y): Uses nobots function in botclasses.php so should behave. Opt out button on posts linking to the bots template.

Function details: This is similar to a talkback but all discussion happens on one page. When someone replies and suspects the user not to be watching the page, the template 1 can be used to let the bot notify the user without having to navigate to their page. This will save the user time.
 * When using talkback, the user's talk page must be opened, then new section or edit clicked, the edit page downloaded, the talkback message typed and submitted. With this way, the user never leaves the page; they wrap their message in the template, the bot picks it up, marks it and notifies the user on their page using template 2 (which includes the reply). Since the reply is included on the page, if it's a dead end convo, the user need not navigate to the page and find the message, saving time and bandwidth.

Discussion
This is by no means the final bot, and I welcome any suggestions. You can even reply to me here to test out the bot. Use  for your reply. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 05:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Needless waste of resources because the user is too lazy to notify the user themselves. Suggest speedy decline. Q  T C 05:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I second this. βcommand 05:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, if you see the full description above, and also bear in mind the overheads (sidebar, headers, footers, etc.) which the bot does not download, I submit that it will actually save resources. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 06:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * page view are a lot cheaper than revisions. edits must be dealt with via the master server while the page views can be handled by either the squid or one of the slaves. βcommand 06:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Bearing in mind that the user would otherwise still edit the talkback onto the page? 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 06:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * its also very easily exploitable thus poses too much of a risk. βcommand 06:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was thinking perhaps to have a protected page of a list of users who exploit and abuse it for the bot to read. Any other suggestions? 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 06:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that early attempts at abuse have failed. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 08:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Bandwidth is really not an issue it used to be. All effort should be directed towards usability instead. First of all, the design should be revamped so that it is immediately apparent for the editor that this is the bot message/template. I would not in 1000 years mistake talkback for anything else. Humans are too picky and if I have to spend 2 seconds realizing this was a bot message, I am as good as never using this again.
 * Secondly, the whole point of these messages is for me not to keep 1000 watchlisted talk pages. I would in theory never wish to edit anything than my own talk page. So if I could reply on my own page and have the other user reply on his and we would both get each other's messages via bot templates, that would be useful.
 * Finally, bot messages are cold and impersonal. No matter how much effort you put into friendly message, I'm not going to read half of it and your page will shift very low on my priority list. I really doubt single target bot invitations are the best way to go. If one wished to notify the user about something, they should do it themselves. (Unless you are also proposing group notifications, which will bring an array of vanadlism issues.)
 * Sorry, I'm being harsh, but you ought to prove that this is worthwhile. I still like the concept, though. — Hellknowz ▎talk 12:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but unless you can prove there is consensus, this task shouldn't be approved. I suggest you go to WP:VPR and bring it up for a larger community forum. If there proves to be concensus, you can come back here and re-open the request, or make a new one. Tim  1357  talk  21:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.