I am suspicious of the honesty of the loop survey, and I'd like to test my suspicions with your help.

I came across this idea via Freakonomics:

The seventh chapter discusses how to let problems sort themselves out using the principle of a "self weeding garden" and a multitude of ways people tricked others into revealing their true intentions. The chapter uses a multitude of examples, such as explaining the logic behind the story of King Solomon and his threat to chop a baby in half and David Lee Roth's pickiness over brown M&M's.

I propose when we answer the loop questionnaire, we phrase or use a phrase that will have to return in the results. The answer MUST be helpful/reasonable in it's own right. I do not intend to sabotage the survey, doing so is counter productive and lessens the impact of our feedback

The point is to check if there is a connect between answers we submit and what answers we get shown.

Suggestions for 'Brown M&M' phrases below as answers please.

  • 6
    Frankly, I think we have enough real issues with things. Its worth picking one that we can agree on, and trying to ensure we post it. It has to be legitimate, actionable and makes sense. I half suspect as long as bothered, we could get some traction on getting issues there organically. Its not a question of a canary, its encouraging people to vote, so speak – Journeyman Geek Feb 13 at 12:18
  • 6
    Little problem: even without having to bring my personal view of the issue what you are doing now is basically elaborating how you will just pretend to cut the baby in half to see which woman actually cares for them in front of the two women. Even if your theory was true, do you really expect this plan to work when you plan your strategy in the house of the ones you are trying to trick? If the results were made up, nothing is easier than make up another one related to the phrase you chose, and then claim whatever value you need because "meta is only 0.000000000000000000001%" – BlueSoul Feb 13 at 12:36
  • 2
    @JourneymanGeek I could have been clearer: If we all decide that thing X is our priority, then we should all write Thing X in the same way in the same field. People have asked if there is some bad text parsing like "I don't see the community as unwelcoming" is being put into the "Community is unwelcoming" bucket, and similar. – Pureferret Feb 13 at 12:56
  • 3
    @BlueSoul this is the point of making our feedback helpful/reasonable in it's own right. If we say "We want thing X" in a consistent way, either they are forced to display it (and acknowledge they agree ot it as it's helpful) or they obviously lie about it (X people pledged to write "Thing X", why is it not in the list of things.... or why is Thing X there but a massive gap to the next item?). Whether they know about it is irrelevant if phrased well. – Pureferret Feb 13 at 13:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .