Proposal that people who post questions via the Kudoz system be obliged to provide context

ildiko wrote:

With all due respect, the way I see it is that those who became non-members freely chose to do so, which makes me wonder if their goal was to make this a better place or to be right... In my opinion, if their priority had been to improve this site to benefit this community, they would still be here, able to contribute. I fail to see why we should invite to participate in bettering this site those who do not consider themselves part of it.

writeaway wrote:
Please don't confuse non-paying with not caring or not being involved. These people are non-paying members, not non-members.

ildiko wrote:
In my opinion, if their priority had been to improve this site to benefit this community, they would still be here, able to contribute. I fail to see why we should invite to participate in bettering this site those who do not consider themselves part of it.

Cetacea wrote:
Like many other non-payers, I am still here, and I am still contributing.

I'm just not marked as a member anymore, since that distinction is reserved for paying members, which is why I decided to refer to myself as a non-member, too.

However, I've always failed to see how paying membership fees would make any contribution more meaningful.

I've decided to withdraw my financial support because I don't support the current site policy anymore. That has nothing to do with either my willingness nor my ability to answer terminology questions or participate in professional discussions.

Helen Shiner wrote:

Based on points earned (only one measure, I know), of the top 20 current (last 3 months) contributors to Kudoz in the German-English section, 8 are non-members. 12 of the top 20 all-time contributors to the French-English section are non-members. I imagine this is replicated throughout other language pairs.
...

I would hope that the survey will be extended to all contributors to Kudoz. If this is not the case, I guess it tells me something about how this contribution is valued.

cmwilliams wrote:

How valid will this survey be if many of the top contributers to Kudoz are not allowed to vote?

Charlie Bavington wrote:

Note to the survey analysts - first survey, Q9 - I really, really, really hope you are cross correlating that with the questions before. I responded truthfully that, out of the last 10 questions I had answered, none were lacking context. That is because, a question or two before, I had told you that I refused to answer questions where I felt the context was lacking. So for the love of God and proper statistics, do not just count me as someone who feels all questions have proper context by virtue of Q9 in isolation. If Q9 had read how many of the last 10 questions I looked at lacked proper context, the answer would probably have been about 7.

Katalin Horvath McClure wrote:

So, I assumed whoever created the survey meant "what do you do when you look at a question that lacks proper context".
(...)
I decided the probability of this being such a control question was low, and instead, they meant the same thing, "questions you answered" really meant "questions you looked at", and I answered according to this interpretation. (I think I said 4 was lacking context.)
(...)
And I think these two questions were very important.

philgoddard wrote:

When can we expect to see the results?

Ernestine Shargool wrote:



I've been away/busy with visitors etc over the holidays. Just been catching up with work stuff today. Was there a deadline for answering? If so I was too preoccupied with other things to notice it. I imagine other colleagues may have missed it for the same reasons. Is there any chance of extending the answering time?

One of the reasons I didn't respond to the survey immediately was that I found some of the questions/possible answers ambiguous, as pointed out by colleagues on this thread.

I believed I would have some time to consider the questions/replies carefully and perhaps ask for enlightenment...