| | Author | Message |
|---|
cloudhugger  
| | #1 posted November 1, 2005 at 4:43pm (EST) |
Is this right? If I take serious consideration to suggestions to make my survey better, and edit my question, I know I get another 24 hours, but I lose all the reasonable votes I got before? If I have 4 reasonable votes and one nitpick, and I consider the suggestion would make my question better and change it, that leaves the board wide open for the same thing to happen. No wonder people don't make corrections or reword it to make it sound better when it will eventually pass with 5 ok votes. I have seen many say that they voted it reasonable just to get it out of there.
So why would anyone bother to make a quality survey if it's much easier to ignore any and or all suggestions? If I would have just let it ride, it would have eventually made it (maybe???) but it would not have been as better. (Maybe)
It's tough enough being a bullseye for 24 hours, let alone set yourself up for another round.
| cloudhugger
| | #2 posted November 1, 2005 at 4:46pm (EST) |
Does it no longer say 'updated' when a change is made?
I know if I see if some one udates their survey, I look at it again, and I have noticed I do not see that word lately. Are we not doing that anymore? | bill 
| | #3 posted November 1, 2005 at 6:28pm (EST) |
I changed it to not reset the 24 waiting period... but the votes do all get cleared. They sort of have to...
Are you saying it should be changed? to what? | cloudhugger
| #4 posted November 1, 2005 at 9:10pm (EST)
edited November 1, 2005 at 9:11pm (EST) |
I'm afraid I don't have a ready solution, or an idea of what to do about that. If it does not get reset, how long before it gets nuked because of not enough votes?
And what about my question about the 'updated' part. Does that no longer show up? I thought that was ideal to let qualers know that something has been changed. Does it at least say 'new'?
Thank you for your prompt response. | cloudhugger
| | #5 posted November 1, 2005 at 9:15pm (EST) |
And also, my point about it saying "updated" is the people that made suggestions before will know that it is changed. Otherwise they might skip past it becuse they already looked at it. | bill
| | #6 posted November 2, 2005 at 6:04am (EST) |
cloudhugger wrote:
> If it does not get reset, how long before it gets nuked
> because of not enough votes?
6-7 days. I figure that's long enough...
I do see surveys that die in qual, but they seem like surveys that people are particularly interested in. I've thought that it might be cool to have a topic in the forum that posts deleted surveys, so people can see them and kibitz over them if they want. We could at least see what's going on that way. I'm not really sure if there's a problem here.
Maybe, I'll set that up....
> And what about my question about the 'updated' part. Does that no
> longer show up?
I'm not sure I remember clearly. There used to be more stats shown when qual info was more public. It would count numbers of each type of vote and display them. But, when I changed it to not show qualifiers what other qualifiers were doing, I pulled some of that out. Perhaps, "updated" was broken by that? This would have been months ago, though.
I just took a look at the code and it seems like it will still say "updated". Here's what I think it does: If you haven't made a qualifier vote at all on a new survey, it will say "new". If you have made a vote, it will say "updated" if your vote is marked "old", and "voted" otherwise.
I haven't really used qual in a while, though. So, I'm not sure if this is actually what is happened. But, I think this is the intended behavior. Have you been using qual and finding that it doesn't say updated? | bill
| | #7 posted November 2, 2005 at 6:07am (EST) |
I just did some testing and it does, indeed mark a survey "updated" when the creator edits it and you've previously cast a qualifier vote on it. I think the system is working as intended. | cloudhugger
| | #8 posted November 2, 2005 at 9:05am (EST) |
When I would go to qual, I haven't seen the word updated in months. But I could only assume that no one was updating their questions, and letting them ride out the time till a few would pass it. Hence my whine at the beginning. And the surveys I wrote in the past few months were either passed right away or I didn't get any suggestions I could use so there was no need to update. This last survey in qual now had some good suggestions, so I used them and that is when I noticed that it doesn't say updated. When users go to qual, they don't want to spend a lot of time there, so they will hit each one once and that's it. A few return, but most don't. So it is eliminating any returns, sepecially the 2 who gave the suggestions that I used, they may not go back and see it. | cloudhugger
| | #9 posted November 2, 2005 at 9:09am (EST) |
I checked, there are enohg reasonables, but the rating is too low.
hmph. | bill
| | #10 posted November 2, 2005 at 9:54am (EST) |
Are you talking about this survey:
http://surveycentral.org/survey/22847.html
It's hard for me to be sure what's going on. Is your theory that qualifiers don't revisit a survey after it gets edited accurate? I don't know.
This survey is a little odd and I could see where people might not be all that excited about it. That's my subjective opinion, though.
One of the original qualifiers did come back and revote on it. But, 3 others have not been back. I don't know why. 4 others have voted on it as well. As you say, you have the reasonable votes to get it to pass. The issue is that its rating is too low. It's low because one of the reasonable qualifiers also gave it a "bad" rating. If just one other person gave it a "good" it would pass. It's possible that you yourself could do that, but perhaps that's not allowed in qual.
Others have suggested that I remove the rating requirement on qual surveys. But, it is there for a reason. I do get the impression that it's rarely used. Let's look at some stats:
For all the surveys currently in qual (21), there are 105 "no opinion" ratings, 6 "good" ratings, and 28 "bad" ratings. hm, I guess it's used more than I thought. There are 7 different users who have used "bad", so it's not just 1 or 2 users doing it. 5 different users have used "good" as well.
I think there's a fair bit of evidence that shows qual is working here. I'm sorry your survey is being held up. I know how frustrating that can be, believe me. But, people like having a say in what surveys get qualified or not. I think your survey isn't the strongest, so it's struggling a little. But, I think there's a good chance it will pass.. you just need one person to say it's "good". | cloudhugger
| | #11 posted November 2, 2005 at 10:25am (EST) |
Really, really attempting simple explanation here...my bad...
Bill. I was just using my survey as an example. Because it pointed out to me that when I upgraded, I didnt see the word, so I thought about all those surveys I made suggestions to and said 'needed work' and never checked them again because it didn't say it was 'updated'. When there are quite a few in there, I would only check the 'new' to save a little time. So those surveys never got me to look again, that is the sentiment behind my question. I am not talking about wanting my survey to get through, I am not harboring any frustration here, either it does or it doesn't, that wasn't the point. I was thinking about everyone here, not just me and my momentous survey. (in simple defense of my survey, I will add that I just like to have strange ideas once in a while, it is like exercising the brain, using left side, right side...the brain acts differently with quizzes or everyday household items, and to wrap it around different ideas keeps some of the cobwebs out of the dusty corners that are rarely used). Enough about me....
The rating system is fine, qual is fine, all the users voting are fine, I just wanted to know why I don't see the word 'updated' anymore.
You still with me, or did you wander down another path of confusion.? | cloudhugger
| | #12 posted November 2, 2005 at 10:26am (EST) |
And you're fine too bill. | bill
| | #13 posted November 2, 2005 at 11:18am (EST) |
Oops, I guess I got side-tracked there... it's so easy for me to fall into rambling about what's wrong with qual. OK, lets focus on "updated".
Here's the thing. As far as I can tell, it's working. I've done a few tests now, and it works.
Just now, I signed on as you and created a test survey. In the Unqualified list it then showed up as "new". Then, I went into qual and posted a comment (as you still). At that point it changed to show as "voted". Finally, I edited the survey (still as you). Looking at it in the Unqualified list, it shows as "updated".
It's still there if you want to take a look... e.g look on http://surveycentral.org/SurveySelector/44.html for "test 2"
I'm not sure why you didn't see it say "updated" before with your trucker survey. Depending on the order of things, I think there's probably some explanation. If you didn't "vote" on it in qual (which doesn't really make sense when you're the survey creator, but just posting a comment counts), then it would have stayed in the "new" state for you. Editing it then, it stays as "new". Then commenting after that, it would chang to "voted". To get "updated", you have to vote, then the survey has to be edited by the creator.
"updated" is a per-user thing, if the user viewing the unqualified list of surveys had voted on a survey that has since been edited, it should show it as "update". As far as I can tell, that's working. I'm not sure why you haven't been seeing "updated" surveys. That's interesting. It could be the people edit their surveys less since the changes in qual over the summer, I'm not sure. | darkshadowsseeker
| | #14 posted November 2, 2005 at 12:48pm (EST) |
bill wrote:
> Oops, I guess I got side-tracked there... it's so easy for me to fall
> into rambling about what's wrong with qual. OK, lets focus on "updated".
>
> Here's the thing. As far as I can tell, it's working. I've done
> a few tests now, and it works.
>
> Just now, I signed on as you and created a test survey. In the Unqualified
> list it then showed up as "new". Then, I went into qual and posted
> a comment (as you still). At that point it changed to show as "voted".
> Finally, I edited the survey (still as you). Looking at it in the
> Unqualified list, it shows as "updated".
>
> It's still there if you want to take a look... e.g look on http://surveycentral.org/SurveySelector/44.html
> for "test 2"
>
> I'm not sure why you didn't see it say "updated" before with your
> trucker survey. Depending on the order of things, I think there's
> probably some explanation. If you didn't "vote" on it in qual (which
> doesn't really make sense when you're the survey creator, but just
> posting a comment counts), then it would have stayed in the "new"
> state for you. Editing it then, it stays as "new". Then commenting
> after that, it would chang to "voted". To get "updated", you have
> to vote, then the survey has to be edited by the creator.
>
> "updated" is a per-user thing, if the user viewing the unqualified
> list of surveys had voted on a survey that has since been edited,
> it should show it as "update". As far as I can tell, that's working.
> I'm not sure why you haven't been seeing "updated" surveys. That's
> interesting. It could be the people edit their surveys less since
> the changes in qual over the summer, I'm not sure.
 Oh bill you are so fine! Won't you please be my Valentine?   | cloudhugger
| | #15 posted November 2, 2005 at 1:32pm (EST) |
Tad bit early Wolf, aren't you..? | darkshadowsseeker
| | #16 posted November 2, 2005 at 1:36pm (EST) |
cloudhugger wrote:
> Tad bit early Wolf, aren't you..?
I don't believe in waiting until the last minute.  | cloudhugger
| | #17 posted November 2, 2005 at 1:41pm (EST) |
"updated" is a per-user thing, if the user viewing the unqualified list of surveys had voted on a survey that has since been edited, it should show it as "update". As far as I can tell, that's working. I'm not sure why you haven't been seeing "updated" surveys. That's interesting. It could be the people edit their surveys less since the changes in qual over the summer, I'm not sure."
OK, bill, that would explain why I didn't see it on mine.
Then this gets back to the 'why bother' part
Stay with me on this...
I haven't seen any updates from any survey writer in a while, and I read the advanced stats, and creators are practically ignoring suggestions. Poor quality, simple punctuation changes, poor spelling and the wrong use of words seems to be getting through. I don't have any suggestions or ideas to solve this, just bringing up an important point. Why would the creator bother with trying to make it better if they can just sit it out and it will pass with enough time. I am sure it frustrates the qualifiers a whole lot more with being ignored constantly with suggestions on improvements, than it would be for a survey writer to have to go the extra yard.
It's not about me, it is about quality here. Thanks. | cloudhugger
| | #18 posted November 2, 2005 at 1:42pm (EST) |
wolf359 wrote:
> cloudhugger wrote:
>> Tad bit early Wolf, aren't you..?
>
> I don't believe in waiting until the last
> minute.
to you! | bill
| | #19 posted November 2, 2005 at 4:15pm (EST) |
cloudhugger wrote:
> I haven't seen any updates from any survey writer in a while,
Updates are occurring. In the last week, 35 surveys were qualified. Of those, 15 of them had "old" qualifier votes (thus, they had been edited after a qual votes was made). That's 43%... not bad.
> I read the advanced stats, and creators are practically ignoring suggestions.
Do you have examples of this? I'd be interested in looking at them myself.
> Poor quality, simple punctuation changes, poor spelling and the wrong
> use of words seems to be getting through.
Well, yes. I don't disagree with this. Such things bother some people more than others. When I made the changes to qual a few months ago to make it more lenient, I was kind of assuming that minor errors like this would get through more easily. So, I guess it was intentional. This is not to say that I wouldn't rather see minor errors corrected. But, I wanted to stop surveys from dying in qual because of minor errors.
> Why would the creator bother with trying to make it better if they can just
> sit it out and it will pass with enough time.
Surveys still die in qual, it happens. So, we're only talking about a few surveys here that squeak by because they aren't that broken. I don't think what you are suggestion is happening that often, but feel free to try to prove me wrong. I'm probably one of the people who don't tend to notice minor spelling, grammar of punctuation mistakes. So, I may not realize how often it's happening.
> I am sure it frustrates the qualifiers
This concerns me. Qualifiers play an important role and I don't want to alienate them.
In the past, and I still think it happens, I've found qualifiers to be overly harsh on new surveys. Thus, I made the changes that I hoped would make it easier to qualify surveys. The trade off is that minor errors get through more often now. I still think that's a good trade-off, though.
If qual turns off people from creating surveys because the people qualifying are too nit-picky, I think that's worse than a few surveys with minor mistakes getting through.
Though, as I mentioned earlier, I would like to see those minor mistakes fixed. So, perhaps we can come up with a way for the mistakes to get corrected... even, after the survey is qualified. I personally have the ability to do that, but I'm not on the site that much. So, potentially, we could enlist some SC regulars who are good at spotting and correcting minor mistakes (without disrupting or changing the meaning of the survey) to make these corrections. | cloudhugger
| | #20 posted November 2, 2005 at 5:04pm (EST) |
I understand the trade off, you are right about that.
I am looking for exmples, oh one is from spawn, never mind that one, oh, another fron nox...
for the record I am not picking on anyone, these are examples
http://surveycentral.org/survey/22835.html
http://surveycentral.org/survey/22823.html, http://surveycentral.org/survey/22774.html,
http://surveycentral.org/survey/22791.html,
Alot of the ones I recall were from dilguy and friends, so I won't waste the time with them.
where's wolf when you need her? | darkshadowsseeker
| | #21 posted November 3, 2005 at 12:15am (EST) |
cloudhugger wrote:
> I understand the trade off, you are right about that.
> I am looking for exmples, oh one is from spawn, never mind that one,
> oh, another fron nox...
> for the record I am not picking on anyone, these are examples
> http://surveycentral.org/survey/22835.html
> http://surveycentral.org/survey/22823.html, http://surveycentral.org/survey/22774.html,
> http://surveycentral.org/survey/22791.html,
> Alot of the ones I recall were from dilguy and friends, so I won't
> waste the time with them.
> where's wolf when you need her?
Right here, Mon Capitan.  | cloudhugger
| | #22 posted November 3, 2005 at 1:20am (EST) |
wolf359 wrote:
> cloudhugger wrote:
>> I understand the trade off, you are right about
> that.
>> I am looking for exmples, oh one is from spawn,
> never mind that one,
>> oh, another fron nox...
>> for the record I am not picking on anyone,
> these are examples
>> http://surveycentral.org/survey/22835.html
>> http://surveycentral.org/survey/22823.html,
> http://surveycentral.org/survey/22774.html,
>> http://surveycentral.org/survey/22791.html,
>> Alot of the ones I recall were from dilguy
> and friends, so I won't
>> waste the time with them.
>> where's wolf when you need her?
>
> Right here, Mon Capitan.
I think it feels like I am drowning here...
http://surveycentral.org/survey/22854.html
This is a new one. So far most of the answers to the question match the suggestions that were ignored.
I'm done now. Don't know what else to say, I'm tired | darkshadowsseeker
| | #23 posted November 3, 2005 at 1:30am (EST) |
cloudhugger wrote:
> wolf359 wrote:
>> cloudhugger wrote:
> |>> I understand the trade off, you are right about
>> that.
> |>> I am looking for exmples, oh one is from spawn,
>> never mind that one,
> |>> oh, another fron nox...
> |>> for the record I am not picking on anyone,
>> these are examples
> |>> http://surveycentral.org/survey/22835.html
> |>> http://surveycentral.org/survey/22823.html,
>> http://surveycentral.org/survey/22774.html,
> |>> http://surveycentral.org/survey/22791.html,
> |>> Alot of the ones I recall were from dilguy
>> and friends, so I won't
> |>> waste the time with them.
> |>> where's wolf when you need her?
>>
>> Right here, Mon Capitan.
>
> I think it feels like I am drowning here...
> http://surveycentral.org/survey/22854.html
> This is a new one. So far most of the answers to the question match
> the suggestions that were ignored.
> I'm done now. Don't know what else to say, I'm tired
If you look at the surveys of this person, you'll notice that not only do they seldom listen to suggestions, but seem fixated on particular subjects & websites. Fixations that the majority of of don't seem to share. | bill
| #24 posted November 3, 2005 at 8:31am (EST)
edited November 3, 2005 at 8:31am (EST) |
Regarding the "Do you believe in spells? survey...
I think it's pretty clear that the survey creator is talking about magic spells. In the context of "Do you believe", it's very likely they meant magic. I think the spirit of what the creator was asking is clear enough.
So, here's a case where I feel the a couple of the qualifiers are being too picky and annoying about it. To the point where you even let the qual remarks spill-over into the survey itself (that's a big no-no, in my book). Shame on you!
You said:
> What type? Dizzy? Sitting for a spell? Someone who cares about english and spells the
> words correctly? Either give a small sentence or two about what you are referring to, or give
> us something more than just yes no and other. I don't think other really covers this.
Oh come on... you're just being pedantic and sarcastic here. Dizzy, sitting, English... none of those make any sense. The survey creator was right to ignore you. Your complaints are absurd.
Actually, in this case, the survey was edited, some original comments about capitalization were addressed by rewording the question. The creator did respond and correct a minor issue.
I see this sort of thing happen to qualifiers, especially over time. The tendency for some people is to become more picky, to the point where the objections get a bit absurd. It happens to good people, too. wolf359 is a good example. Nice, helpful person, but in qual she became super-picky over time. Decent surveys were dying because of her. Eventually, the best solution to me was to remove her.
Sorry for rubbing this in your face. I think you know, I like you. I know you mean well and are a good person. But, I think you're going down the wrong path with this. I hope it's not too late for you to change your attitude about it. Lighten up a little! This site is just for fun. | cloudhugger
| | #25 posted November 3, 2005 at 10:28am (EST) |
OK, bill, I see what you mean. It's like going through boot camp, after getting the crap beat out of you in qual for a while, and seeing everyone get the crap beat out of them. it tends to set up a precedence.
To use me as an example, then, is good to see that this is not the spirit of SC, and maybe this trend of pickiness and ignorance can take a walk, so to speak. It's not fair to the survey writers, also, all those examples above were rated low.
The common thread is a low rated survey often reflects what was in the suggestion box's. Qual is better than before, I remember feeling like I was being bullied into changing my question altogether. And reading back several years, it was pretty rough here. So I stand corrected and I offer my humble apologies to any I may have offended. I am not sure why I asked the question in the first place, seemed to have gotten lost, but I humbl;y learned my lesson.
| LindaH  
| | #26 posted November 3, 2005 at 11:17am (EST) |
Sometimes it's obvious what the survey creator means, and people like to "play dumb" to get the creator to be more specific, when they don't need to be. The spells survey and working age adult survey are two perfect examples.
Of course they meant magic spells. No one would ask if we believe in dizzy spells. Of course they meant working adults. It's implied! This isn't writing class, it's a fun survey site. If you know deep down what a survey creator intends, why even act like you dont? Are you advocating on behalf of less intellegent people? | cloudhugger
| | #27 posted November 3, 2005 at 11:24am (EST) |
As I pointed out, the survey answers reflect what was said in qual. In my arrogance, I was trying to help them to get better answers/ratings. I already apologized, I was wrong, I already got yelled at, bill pointed all that out already. I am glad that it was pointed out that I was being arrogant, I hadn't realized it until now and I humbly accept that. | LindaH
| | #28 posted November 3, 2005 at 11:29am (EST) |
Oh, ok. There are a few people here who do that, though, and it's been going on a while, and I notice it. I wanted to vent.  It happens in "real life" too, and I have always thought it seemed silly for people to pretend not to know something, in order to pressure someone to say more. | cloudhugger
| | #29 posted November 3, 2005 at 11:38am (EST) |
Like I said earlier, I got swept up by that. I am offering myself up to the SC gods as a sacrifice to make it stop. I think why I started this was to point out that the writers are getting beat up, and the surveys are getting low ratings I just didn't realize that instead of being a solution I was part of the problem. I'm not going to point fingers and say 'see, they're doing it too' because I don't do that, yet I hope that after this it may be part of the solution. | bill
| | #30 posted November 3, 2005 at 11:51am (EST) |
I agree with cloud's point about the precedence thing. I get the impression that the effect grows over time. This is part of the reason I why I change it to hide qualifier's votes from all but the survey creator.
I've seen this sort of effect in other places. I think groups of people tend to gravitate toward being more strict in their criticism over time.
If I was really clever, I would have some way to compensate for this effect.
I also agree with what joalis said about "playing dumb"... | LindaH
| | #31 posted November 3, 2005 at 1:18pm (EST) |
cloudhugger: I used to be too nitpicky in qualification too. (Spelling, punctuation, etc) | cloudhugger
| #32 posted November 3, 2005 at 2:20pm (EST)
edited November 3, 2005 at 2:21pm (EST) |
I am sure we are all doing the best we can, there is a fine line between trying to be helpful and being anal. I'm glad I am now aware that I was being analific. |
Topic Page Hits: 1 today (62 in the last 30 days) |
