With the start of AFTv5 Stage 2 we lost the ability to identify which experimental bucket a user is assigned to when a feedback record is created in the aft_article_feedback table. This information is now only available in the clicktracking logs. This is due to a confusion between "design" and "bucket" in the DB which I previously reported. These two notions were interchangeable in Stage 1 but are different in Stage 2 (since we're using only Option 1 as a design but we still bucket users in 3 different experimental groups). Because we don't make a distinction in the DB between a proper bucket id and the design id we cannot accurately analyze the volume and quality of feedback submitted by users in each of the 3 experimental conditions.
As a result, after discussing with Fabrice, Aaron and Oliver, I would like to make this request for a change to the aft_article_feedback table:
- we rename the current "af_bucket_id" field to "af_design_id". We keep using this field for storing the AFT design identifier (i.e. 1 from now on)
- we keep the af_link_id field as it is now. We use it to store the link that was actually clicked by the user (if any) in order to display a widget (i.e. 1, 5 or 0 from now on). All feedback submitted from the bottom-placed widget will have a value of 0 regardless of which bucket the user is assigned to.
- we introduce a *new* INT field called af_bucket_id to store the actual experimental bucket condition the user is assigned to. We can still use INT values (1,2,3) to represent the three OptionA, OptionE and OptionX buckets.
Version: unspecified
Severity: major