Do you think qualifiers actually read through the surveys they are "helping" along or do they just use the opportunity to vent their hostilities?

I can see that you (the survey creator) have quite an opinion about this. Do you feel wronged by our nitpicking and care for detail?
Here is my personal view on it. The internet is a cesspool of illiteracy, stupidity, and lack of care. By being, as you see it, harsh in qualification, I am trying to keep SC from becoming just another example of this internet idiocy.
If you come up with creative survey ideas and use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation then there is no reason your surveys should not get qualified. If, however, you do not, then don't let the door hit you on the way out. You are welcome to be as offended as you like, but illiteracy and idiocy don't belong here.

Some folks are smart... others are dumb. Some folks like sweets... other like salty.

I view qual the same way. Not everyone is like me; nor are they going to agree. We all come here for our own reasons. It just sucks and is stupid when people don't see everything my way - the right way. *snicker*

Yes, yes... Solo is here. No need to worry anymore. Everything is going to be okay.

> I can see that you (the survey creator) have quite an opinion about
> this. Do you feel wronged by our nitpicking and care for detail?
> Here is my personal view on it. The internet is a cesspool of illiteracy,
> stupidity, and lack of care. By being, as you see it, harsh in qualification,
> I am trying to keep SC from becoming just another example of this
> internet idiocy.
> If you come up with creative survey ideas and use proper grammar,
> spelling, and punctuation then there is no reason your surveys should
> not get qualified. If, however, you do not, then don't let the door
> hit you on the way out. You are welcome to be as offended as you
> like, but illiteracy and idiocy don't belong here.

Wow! Aren't you off your rocker... Enigma has been the undisputed BEST Survey Creator ever since I joined Survey Central. "I can see that you [the nitpicker] have quite an opinion about this." I'm right there with you when it comes to your criticisms about maintaining site integrity and quality loyal-members, but look at how your "Qual-itude" has made you aggressive towards a previously unidentified, long-standing, consistent and proven Master Survey Creator. Some folks like to be mean and spiteful... qual is designed perfectly to accommodate those folks because they can remain justifiably 'un'-biased with their critiques, regardless of how totally out of line and harsh they really are.

I'm not actually sure what "Yes" means here.

Some qualifiers are really trying to help. Sometimes that means trying to help the survey creator, sometimes it means trying to help SC. Sometimes qualifiers seem to mostly be venting, yeah. But sometimes survey creators write idiotic, time-wasting surveys.

It's not a black and white issue. It's not that all the qualifiers are butt-holes, and the survey creators angels, or vice versa.

Everyone needs to chill the fudge out. So what if there are spelling errors in a survey? Why does it actually matter? What's the big deal if all the capitalization isn't correct? Or if the survey doesn't have an "Other" option? Or if you're blind as a fruit bat and haven't driven in years and this is yet another survey about cars?

The qualification process asks you to vote on whether a survey is "reasonable", "needs work" or is "hopelessly flawed". That's reasonable folks - not perfect - not written exactly the way I would write it myself if I could be bothered to take time from harshing on the survey creators. Just reasonable. Do you understand what they're asking? Is there a reasonable spectrum of answers for the survey?

In the forum, I just called out four people who voted hopelessly flawed on the algebra survey. Granted, the survey kinda sucks. But hopelessly flawed? What the hell? How can you defend that kind of vote?

At the same time, survey creators need to lighten up as well, not take everything so personally, and be aware that they're using a bunch of people's time when they pose a survey question, so they might put some effort into making it a good question.

If the qualifiers could stop being a bunch of arrogrant pricks then maybe - just maybe - they'd find that they could have a more positive impact for people who aren't as educated as them, aren't God's gift to grammar, by toning it down a bit.

BTW, reading through the qualification comments on the algebra survey, I thought joalis did a very nice job there.

And reading your deleted alarm clock survey, jdupres was completely out of line, as far as I'm concerned.

You don't need to satisfy all the qualifiers. It's really okay to stand up and say - "Nope, you're not getting that. I'm not making that change. I don't want to. Tough." And your survey will pass even if not everyone votes for it.

Interesting comment and no, I (the survey creator) doesn't feel particularly wronged. When someone - and no, I am not speaking of myself here, has an option for "I have something else to say about this topic" there is no reason for a qualifier to insist on there being an option for "other". It's like a mechanical criticism this "other" thing. Not every survey needs an option for "other'. If the survey creator doesn't add an option for "other" they get ragged on in the survey itself which I was always told was wrong. I agree with a lot of what you say about illiteracy and etc. but I have seen surveys that were not good at all (having bad grammar and spelling etc.) pass while others get deleted for reasons that have nothing to do with grammar, punctuation etc. It's not what is said a lot of the times BrightBlue but rather how it is said. I like this site as well, I just don't see your equating educating someone on what is expected of them and "don't let the door hit you on the way out."

ZING!!!!

Judging by this survey, I'm going to have to say no, they don't read through them. This is not a yes or no question, so why are those the first two options? The rest of the options aren't really any better. But I don't think it's the qualifiers who are really responsible for this.

You know, I have to say, the quality of surveys (I'm mostly talking about wording, grammar, appropriate options) has really declined lately. I think the blind qual system is making things worse.

What bothers me the most is when people keep asking for extra options and there is Other. Everything not covered above can go under Other.

I don't know and I don't care.

I very rarely take part in "qual" and when I, myself, have one pending, I take it very seriously and will modify my survey to accommodate the suggestions.

I take each survey at face value and consider the source when I see "creator."

> And reading your deleted alarm clock survey, jdupres
> was completely out of line, as far as I'm concerned.
>
> You don't need to satisfy all the qualifiers.
> It's really okay to stand up and say - "Nope,
> you're not getting that. I'm not making that change.
> I don't want to. Tough." And your survey will
> pass even if not everyone votes for it.

Romkey, I loved your responses and analysis! Sometimes I'd like to answer back and say, "That's when you use the fudging "Other." with a period."

Me too. But what I think is worse, is when people want "I don't (watch TV, own a car, have a pet, etc)" when there's a "no" option in a situational type of survey.

hm. ive noticed the qualifiers (me included) have been tough but fair. I havent had a problem with any comments about my surveys.

As for the question, I have no idea. I would assume that it has happened before.

No matter how it's done, someone will dog.

I think there's a lot less of that going on now than there used to be. Have you seen what passes for a reasonable survey in the past few months?!!

I used to participate in qualification but the mean spiritedness of the qualifiers has turned me off.
Once upon a time not too long ago I too thought I would doing a good deed by helping qual surveys until that fateful night (I got yelled at by bill) and since then I have banned myself from qual until I learned the fine line between helpful and analistic. It was determined that there is a type of phenomenum where perfectly normal helpful and wonderful people turned into survey nazis in charge of creating the perfect survey race. I didn't realize this had happened to me until it was too late, and I may have hurt some feelings () maybe, but after a long intense spanking from bill I saw what had happened to me. I was able to sit back and see it happen to a few others. It seems once some people go through that door, and they don that hat, they become one of them and the virus grows. I have not been able to think of any way to rid the naziqual virus without taking out any of the healthy beings in there, so perhaps letting it known that this will continue to be fun ...or else.
http://surveycentral.org/forum/Site_Feedback/topic...
for the whole sad tale...: (very humbling for me)
Hmmm, the reply doesn't quite match the question here, so I will now answer the question...I believe they are reading it, and they do want to help, I don't think that they are using qual as the place to vent. No, I do not agree with that %100. They can vent anywhere on this site, it's just easier to ignore in a survey rather than the creators seem to maybe take it too personally. And how can you take it more personally if you know they don't know who wrote it.
Damn, it's like dropping a fresh piece of meat in a tank of pirahhna.

The internet on my desk is not a cesspool of illiteracy and stupidity, or lacks of care. I tend to stay on respectable sights.
I may miss punctuation, and make up my own words, and miss a few words spelled correctly, but that does not mean I am an illiterate stupid cesspoolian.

That is quite the opinion you have. The doors are not locked, and anyone can come and go. I could leave right now because someone in qual was nitpicky and irrational, but I will either take the initiative and make my survey better or ignore a qualifier because I choose not to. Some of the qualifiers take it too personally when the SC does not do exactly what they suggest, and then they get a HF. That is harsh.

I understand you feel the need to make this a better sight, but you are not the only one here, you are maybe taking on too much responsibility for yourself, and maybe let the rest of the community give you a hand. I don't think Survey Central will completely degrade into a cesspool if you are not putting in your 159%.

Probably thought it was you

There has been a tremendous imbalance in qual recently. The nitpick pucntuations and misspellings etc are not being fixed, the qualers are getting frustrated, and then the rest of the qualers are being empathetic to unwittingly create some kind of balance htere. I recall being new and my first survey was hit very hard, I was squeezing back tears because I didn't understand what it takes to be a part of a quality sight. Well, here I am, I stayed, and my written surveys have improved. The only nitpicks I get are from the fab 5 and I still keep an open mind. But if we take a little peak into the dead survey pile, and see the litteral attacking going on, it's gotta be scary to a new person.

I got totally blasted on my first survey also. I remember fixing something and then someone else would come along with another needs work. I didn't know to wait for more comments so I could fix everything at once (lol). I didn't change everything, and it got ragged on after it passed also. I stayed away for a while but I came back. I was so glad when the feeding frenzy stopped when Bill ceased allowing all qual comments to be seen... finally the demise of the dreaded "wees". The comments new users make sometimes towards the qualifiers is in direct retaliation to the rudeness of the qualifiers comments.

Well, I done been told. All of you have some very valid points. At times, I can get a little overexcited about silly things. So I apologize if I was abrasive.

I can see that I was out of line being overly critical of you, Enigma. Heck, I even wrote a survey much like this a few years ago when I was frustrated with the qual process.

So, I will do my best in the future to calm down a bit. I have the unfortunate tendency to come in here and go through qual when I'm pissed off about something else. So as a result, I can be a bit of a dog.

You're right, I was excessively harsh. I have the unfortunate tendency to do that from time to time. See my reply to Enigma.

I will try to act right in the future.

S'okay, I'm a bit of a dog too. Makes life more interesting, especially for people around us.

You are also correct. My reaction was overly harsh and not well thought out. I will do my best to achieve a greater level of balance and forethought in the future. Thank you for setting me to rights.

Indeed it does. I'm glad we're all reasonable people here.

Awwww shucks Solololo... (kicks ground) I like you and your surveys too.... BTW, did you read that book Eldest or just like the pic?

Absolutely, and that is what perpetuates the lashing out.

Did you check out my link to a feedback post about the same thing. I was humbled to be sure, I thought I was doing right, but I didn't realize I had fallen into the trap. I researched surveys and qual comments in the past, and the more things change, the more they stay the same. Most of us care about this site, because we are indeed good people.

> Probably thought it was you

I'll take that as a compliment Cloudbugger.

Solo bugger, yeah, that's all right

> You're right, I was excessively harsh. I have the unfortunate tendency
> to do that from time to time. See my reply to Enigma.
>
> I will try to act right in the future.

No worries. Typically, when I stumble, I also tend to fall and eat dirt, so... good job in regaining your balance!

> Awwww shucks Solololo... (kicks ground) I like you and your surveys
> too.... BTW, did you read that book Eldest or just like the pic?
>
>

I'm halfway through it now. I already read (Part 1) Eragon. Both are well-written... if you like dragon tales.

I like your Flower-Maze Avatar! 'Tis very cute.

I don't know, I am not a mind reader. I would say that they're most likely passive agressive and some of them probabbly didn't have sex for a long long time.

I think that bill should institute a new rule: Anyone who hasn't had sex in the last past five years (we make exemptions to people who hold of for religious reasons on case by case basis) doesn't get to participate in qual. That would help things out a lot imo.

Tis a labyrinthe. Right click it, grab the properties and mail it.

It's all good. That is why I like it here, we are allowed to...what SOlo said.

What does mailing it do?

paste it in the address bar and hit 'send'. geez, sometimes you computer nerds are so literate.

I chose other because I was thinking: "sometimes". Depends on the person. There are a few users who do use qual as a vent port, and that is mean-spirited and defeats the purpose of qual. But if a survey truly sucks or needs help, constructive criticism is the way to go.

Hallelujah!! I've been saying that ever since I made my first survey! I've also said that several times in Forum.

Dead Horse Beater!!!!

J/K.

i think some people "vent" and others participate in quals appropriately.

I don't know what others do, but I know when I go there I check it out and usually let it go. I don't do qual much any more since it's changed. I liked it the old way better.
I think Bill should appoint certain people to be qualifiers too.

Well said. I totally agree!

No, I think they take pride in SC having well written surveys.

This isn't a teenage chat site.

I used to participate in qualification but the survey creators' unwillingness to take constructive criticism has turned me off.

I dunno, why don't we ask Kate?