Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

May I suggest you don't require the participant to fill out the apportionment section twice?  The first go-through is already annoying enough in requiring one to do the math by keeping up with one's total and then weight each answer in currency amount.  I wouldn't have changed my original answers (I am a biologist, and follow endangered species coverage) so it was a nuisance that there was no "same as above" option.   Also, too many choices of donation size makes the process really slow.  Perhaps better to have the choice be binary - donate or not donate.  It would still be clear that, say, most people care more about tigers than snakes.  And you wouldn't force people to endlessly scroll back and forth to remember what their amounts were in the first apportionment.  JMO.

Edited by TheVat
Minor fix
Posted

I looked at it and even started to fill it out. But then I realized it's not really about species identification, but resource allocation. However, as a Canadian, I can't relate to the subject in the way that's being asked; I'm not even familiar with those organizations. I suppose it's more relevant to residents of the UK.

I agree with TheVat in that the questionnaire could be streamlined and still produce meaningful results - from a larger sample, if you include people like me who opted out because of the format.    

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.