• Don_alForno
      link
      fedilink
      Deutsch
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      The person evaluating the poll will take away “person likes option 1 most” not “person absolutely wants none of these in their browser, ever”. That’s the issue. You should not phrase questions in a way that assumes parts of the answer, at least not if you want useful results.

      A better way would have been to let us rate features 0 to 10 and just accept if people thought their feature ideas are all shit.

      • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        It’s not a better way to rate from 0 to 10. It takes way more effort from the user and leads to more people dropping out. And in the end, the result is the same in aggregate. If your opinion is popular, more people will vote like you because the sets of 3 are random. In a survey of thousands, individual opinions don’t matter. No one is going to evaluate the answers one by one.

        • Don_alForno
          link
          fedilink
          Deutsch
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          It takes way more effort from the user and leads to more people dropping out.

          Then make it 0 to 3 or 0 to 1 for all I care. You missed the point, which is: If I want or don’t want feature A doesn’t influence if I want or don’t want feature B, and linking the two distorts the results of the poll.

          in the end, the result is the same in Aggregate.

          Not if you include the human factor of the decision maker, who can twist “wanted less” into “still wanted a bit” as a justification if they want a certain feature for different reasons than user benefit (like, say, a “privacy friendly” but indeed not at all privacy friendly mechanism to give data to add networks). That doesn’t fly with “0 points”.