[Theforum] Re: questionnaire
A. Erickson
amanda at gawow.com
Wed Oct 31 17:35:42 CST 2001
Ron luther said:
> * I'm not seeing any reason not to have anonymity.
Well, I guess I was thinking that there may be cases where we want to
followup or get clarification. Though, I suppose we could also have a
checkbox which requests anonymity verses (um -- word?) publicity.
I was also thinking about a way to figure if the box was getting stuffed
with multiple entries.
> BTW - what's the "goal" of the study? [I can punt around some ideas
in
my head driving to and from work if I have a clearer idea what we want
to know.]
I think originally, the admin group was worried that people were finding
thelist to be hostile. That kicked off a massive debate about whether we
hostile or not (we may have been hostile while debating). I think the
consensus was that it was stupid to argue about it that we should just
ask the group. *However* there was a sense that asking thelist in an
email whether they were hostile or not would not produce an accurate
sampling of the group.
At present, I think we are in a time of transition. I think it is
important to guage the level of interest in evolt, enjoyment of
participation and usefulness of the group and the amenities as a whole.
Whether we can do this through a questionaire... I don't know.
Does that help?
- amanda
___________________________________
amanda at gawow.com + http://gawow.com
More information about the theforum
mailing list