April Community Survey Results

[tilly 5115]

2 hours ago, 吳憾戰士14 said:

Ban Leowarrior

 

[Archbishop 1784]

Seriously like what was the point of even making a survey though. I have yet to see any actual change come from one of these surveys, where the majority of the written feedback suggest it is a problem or needs to happen, nothing is ever done as a result. 

[Blundermore 2741]

I concur. Ban Leowarrior. 

 

I dunno what that will solve but the people have spoken!

[Peter Chivay 2494]

You guys really (and I mean desperately) need to make these surveys more efficient and less arbitrary.  This is an absolute nightmare from a management point of view. How can you expect to fix problems when you're getting even spreads like 32-28-27 percent on all your graphs? 

 

Remove things like 'Strongly' and 'Highly' and let people make true choices about what they think is good or bad, you're giving too much lee-way and thats what makes this way too inefficient. I know there are probably people who are on the fence about liking things but thats the beauty off it- actual thought!

 

Have a minimalist mindset and maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to get a general idea of what the community wants through these things.

 

Also, given the sample size, restrict it from 1-10 down to either 1-5 or 1-7, you'll get a much more accurate representation of how the community feels about the various teams that way, rather than 100 votes being spread across a ten point scale. 

 

[Treaty 1353]

Yea, I agree donators should be able to freely name items and such, add descriptions, etc. Seems like a good idea.

[Jonificus 2763]

Why isn't the AT mentioned in the survey though?

[Telanir 6975]

11 minutes ago, Tommy Shmurda said:

You guys really (and I mean desperately) need to make these surveys more efficient and less arbitrary.  This is an absolute nightmare from a management point of view. How can you expect to fix problems when you're getting even spreads like 32-28-27 percent on all your graphs? 

 

Remove things like 'Strongly' and 'Highly' and let people make true choices about what they think is good or bad, you're giving too much lee-way and thats what makes this way too inefficient. I know there are probably people who are on the fence about liking things but thats the beauty off it- actual thought!

 

Have a minimalist mindset and maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to get a general idea of what the community wants through these things.

 

Also, given the sample size, restrict it from 1-10 down to either 1-5 or 1-7, you'll get a much more accurate representation of how the community feels about the various teams that way, rather than 100 votes being spread across a ten point scale. 

 

 

I disagree, not everything is white and black and 'good/bad'. People are making true choices, we can see approximately how strongly people believe in a certain principle. There is a lot to be learned from the gravity of your conviction on a certain issue. I agree that 1-10 is too broad, it should be a 1-5 list instead (nobody is familiar with a 1-7 scale) as the key here is finding the critical balance of giving enough choice while not diluting it with unnecessary numbers.

 

When you talk about highly contested results or controversial topics that get even spreads that indicates to us as a staff that we should investigate a certain topic further rather than put our hands up. If we cannot get clear results from the polls then we look to the text response or request additional input at a later date. These polls are at the very least mildly insightful and should continue.

 

You're doing a good job Leo, as a tl;dr I do support the notion of a 1-5 staff ranking.

[Free The Hobbits 859]

Just now, Telanir said:

 

I disagree, not everything is white and black and 'good/bad'. People are making true choices, we can see approximately how strongly people believe in a certain principle. There is a lot to be learned from the gravity of your conviction on a certain issue. I agree that 1-10 is too broad, it should be a 1-5 list instead (nobody is familiar with a 1-7 scale) as the key here is finding the critical balance of giving enough choice while not diluting it with unnecessary numbers.

 

When you talk about highly contested results or controversial topics that get even spreads that indicates to us as a staff that we should investigate a certain topic further rather than put our hands up. If we cannot get clear results from the polls then we look to the text response or request additional input at a later date. These polls are at the very least mildly insightful and should continue.

 

You're doing a good job Leo, as a tl;dr I do support the notion of a 1-5 staff ranking.

People are making too broad a choice here Telanir. In fact every bit of data collected in this is worthless, I know nothing looking here because nearly everything is a bell curve split between average and ok.

 

As such, the new poll has been made on a 3 point scale, bringing it to a very narrow yes, no, indifferent scale and giving the GM and Admin team a clearer and more concise outlook on how the community views the staff and wants changes.

[Blundermore 2741]

I have to agree. This is a pretty wishywashy way of going about things, there are a million and one answers to the questions of life but you can't deal in trying to make sense of all of those questions. You need to be more defined in your answers. If people don't have a strong enough opinion they can stay neutral. Otherwise they can pick a definite answer. 

When asked if you want to order from a waiter at a restaurant you don't give them a drawn out opinion on whether or not you're ready to order, you just say yes, or no. The same could be said here.

These surveys are meant to determine if there is a problem, not how to solve it as well. That comes after you worked out you have a problem to begin with. 

[luv 3469]

26 minutes ago, Jonificus said:

Why isn't the AT mentioned in the survey though?

Wonderful question.

[WuHanXianShi14 0]

52 minutes ago, Tommy Shmurda said:

You guys really (and I mean desperately) need to make these surveys more efficient and less arbitrary.  This is an absolute nightmare from a management point of view. How can you expect to fix problems when you're getting even spreads like 32-28-27 percent on all your graphs? 

 

Remove things like 'Strongly' and 'Highly' and let people make true choices about what they think is good or bad, you're giving too much lee-way and thats what makes this way too inefficient. I know there are probably people who are on the fence about liking things but thats the beauty off it- actual thought!

 

Have a minimalist mindset and maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to get a general idea of what the community wants through these things.

 

Also, given the sample size, restrict it from 1-10 down to either 1-5 or 1-7, you'll get a much more accurate representation of how the community feels about the various teams that way, rather than 100 votes being spread across a ten point scale. 

 

Well as I was taught (major in market research) to always include options between 'highly important' and 'important', etc. For a more detailed analysis, the option to read between the hierarchy is there. However, if you wish you summarize, you can simply add up all the respondents from the bottom and top halfs of the spectrum.

 

For multiple choice questions, we can simply add up all the 'strongly agrees' and 'agrees' and put it under the general 'approval' pile, and for the scale questions, adding up all the 1-4s and 6-10s gives us the total percentage of people who approve and disapprove.

 

By just adding up, The end result is the same as if we'd provided respondents less options to reply with. But this way, we can choose to summarize, or we can choose to go into more detail. We keep our options open, so its a win-win.

[oblivionsbane 714]

Can we get some spoilers? That takes forever to scroll through.

[Nathan_Barnett36 1564]

Forged results.

[WuHanXianShi14 0]

46 minutes ago, oblivionsbane said:

Can we get some spoilers? That takes forever to scroll through.

I tried, trust me. I tried. I put spoiler tags for every section and it did this weird thing where they all just conglomorated under the spoiler of Appendix A and there were like 7 layers of ever shrinking spoiler bars within spoiler bars within spoiler bars.

 

IDEK with these forums

[Peter Chivay 2494]

2 hours ago, 吳憾戰士14 said:

Well as I was taught (major in market research) to always include options between 'highly important' and 'important', etc. For a more detailed analysis, the option to read between the hierarchy is there. However, if you wish you summarize, you can simply add up all the respondents from the bottom and top halfs of the spectrum.

 

For multiple choice questions, we can simply add up all the 'strongly agrees' and 'agrees' and put it under the general 'approval' pile, and for the scale questions, adding up all the 1-4s and 6-10s gives us the total percentage of people who approve and disapprove.

 

By just adding up, The end result is the same as if we'd provided respondents less options to reply with. But this way, we can choose to summarize, or we can choose to go into more detail. We keep our options open, so its a win-win.

 

But why bother doing all that extra work in the first place when you can just put approve/disapprove, agree/disagree? I was talking about efficiency, not detail. Two very different concepts.