Test of 2019 Picnic spot Survey

[graham]

There are 14 picnic sites excluding day visitor centres so that is going to be an awful long and confusing slider. If individual criteria, are going to be used, then what about a separate poll for each one. Would probably be easier to set up too.

Having zero for not applicable totally distorts the results when calculating averages. People can't vote on places they have not been to and it is wrong that these places score zero. Scoring should be 1 to 10 and left out (blank) if not applicable. ie 9,9,9,0,0 would score 5.4 but should be 9.

[RogerFraser]

There are 14 picnic sites excluding day visitor centres so that is going to be an awful long and confusing slider. If individual criteria, are going to be used, then what about a separate poll for each one. Would probably be easier to set up too.

Having zero for not applicable totally distorts the results when calculating averages. People can't vote on places they have not been to and it is wrong that these places score zero. Scoring should be 1 to 10 and left out (blank) if not applicable. ie 9,9,9,0,0 would score 5.4 but should be 9.

graham was also worried about the length of the slider as there isn't a way to layout vertically or at least I haven't found that option .Multiple surveys for each one would be easier to navigate

Was thinking to exclude all 0 votes from final calculations but if separate surveys per site then leaving 0 off the options would make sense as people would only vote for sites they have been to

[graham]

graham was also worried about the length of the slider as there isn't a way to layout vertically or at least I haven't found that option .Multiple surveys for each one would be easier to navigate

Roger, I was thinking multiple surveys for each criteria so you would have perhaps about 5 running. Multiple surveys for each picnic site would be 14 - too many?. In both cases the slider would be considerably shorter as a lot of text could be omitted. You would only need to state the rating criteria or the sites but not both.

Eliminating zeros at the end works fine.

Was there any agreement on whether or not to include day visitor sites? Would be a pity to exclude places like Shindwedzi.

[Lisbeth]

What graham says has sense and there is another advantage too...I think; we can simply do polls, have more options and leave out the survey sheet

[RogerFraser]

If we changed it to work like suggested then a poll for each criteria may be easier to manage

[Lisbeth]

Can we leave out the "Day Visitors Picnic Sites", if not they will become too many or only include the most popular ones like "Shingwedzi"

[graham]

If we changed it to work like suggested then a poll for each criteria may be easier to manage

Wouldn't a poll leave you with a bias towards the popular sites?

If you can get the results into a spreadsheet without having to retype them, then it is easy to program the results, including eliminating zeros and blanks. The less "manual" work the better.

[Lisbeth]

If you use a spreadsheet and update it after each poll it isn't much of a job and then you can use your brain to eliminate zeros and blancs

[Richprins]

One must remember that the more detailed info via categories etc may be useful to Kruger, and counts as a bit more of a research than just a poll.

(They will never admit to reading our stuff but those on the ground do indeed! )

[Lisbeth]

RP, I don't think you have read properly all the posts. With a survey made as a poll, we can include many more options, the only backside is that we must do a poll for every picnic site. At the end the result will be fair and clear.