Subject:
|
Re: Bulk Bricks and LEGO auctions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:44:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
473 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes:
> >
> > > We have just launched a new session all about Bulk Bricks at
> > > http://www.LEGO.com/myopinions.
(Good questions snipped)
> Good questions about the way the functionality works. This same questions
> have come up in the past:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=3051
>
> Check out the answers over there, and if I missed anything in the original
> post, please let me know.
Hello Jake,
First.... thanks for a quick response.
Next.... I do want to address something that still stands out for me, with
information taken from the posting you noted above. I'm not trying to be
argumentative, but rather am concerned that you folks aren't getting good
data. From out here in the left field bleachers, it seems like you're
setting things up for inaccurate results.
At one point (in posting #3051) you say, "Plus, imagine having to sort
through thousands of answers and having to read and agree/disagree with
every one! That would take forever and the number of people answering the
survey would drop to almost none."
I have to wonder... are there really thousands of answers to all these
questions? Or are there just dozens and dozens of poorly worded answers?
What about sitting down and paring down the answers to a solid list that
covers at least 90% or more of the possible responses.
Example:
There are only so many answers to a question like, "Why don't you buy bulk
bricks from LEGO?"
- Too expensive
- Shipping costs too high
- Duty costs on entry to my own country too high
- Not enough selection of parts
- Not enough selection of colors
- Not the right break down of parts/pack
And perhaps a few more.
But there can't realistically more than a normal average person could look
at on a single webpage. If there are many dozens or more, then perhaps some
of them are just different wordings of each other. So why not give a
respondant the choice of all 30, 40 or maybe 50 possible answers. This
still isn't an impossibly long list.
The main reason for my concern over the choices isn't what happens when a
die hard LEGO fan responds, it's what happens when Joe Consumer responds.
Here's an example of that:
Joe logs onto a survey to find the following question:
"What is the next set you think LEGO should release as part of its LEGENDS
reissue series?"
Now let's assume for the moment that the company already has a list of 50
sets that are available to rerelease due to availability of parts, packaging
etc. But with your current system Joe sees only 10 items on the list. Joe
picks through the list and picks out his 5 favorites that are shown there.
But Joe (like me most days) is having a bit of brain lock and doesn't even
remember that his all-time favorite set isn't one of the ones on the list.
so not only does he not pick it, but acutally can't remember it at the
moment in order to add it to the list.
So he votes and clicks to move the next page. As it turns out, Joe's
all-time favorite set is #3 on the voting list. But he hasn't cast any
votes for it. So the question becomes, aren't you sometimes splitting good
votes among answers that aren't really the ones that people wanted to pick?
On the surface it might seem that by offering random answers to each person
you are getting unbiased results, but it seems to me that you may possibly
be setting the system up to give you false data. Joe picked set #99999 and
set #88888 as two of his top answers on his list of 5 answers. And each of
those sets got a vote. But when he saw set #55555 on your taly list later
he remembers that he *wanted* to vote for that set... if he had only
remembered and known it was a possible answer.
I'm not sure if I've made my point, or just made a tricky issue more
confusing. :)
Hopefully there can be some compromise between the current system and one
which offers each person a more complete and inclusive list of possible answers.
Bottom line... I think these interactive opinions are great. You are moving
in a positive direction. And if anyone's ever read a single posting of
mine, you know that I don't say that often about the LEGO company. ;)
Keep up the great work.
Allan B.
- Expert Builder website
- http://www.apotome.com/builder
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Bulk Bricks and LEGO auctions
|
| <above section all snipped> (...) I am glad someone not only shares my view, but also has good enough examples to give credence to the argument. I think people, others and myself, have posted this before on Lugnet when they still had the "old" page (...) (23 years ago, 14-Feb-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | Re: Bulk Bricks and LEGO auctions
|
| <snip> I agree with Allan and Kerry and Ben. The survey technology, while catchy and sexy and pretty to look at and all that, is, in my view, fundamentally flawed. There needs to be a way to compress similar answers together and revote or reweigh (...) (23 years ago, 14-Feb-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Bulk Bricks and LEGO auctions
|
| (...) Allan, Good questions about the way the functionality works. This same questions have come up in the past: (URL) out the answers over there, and if I missed anything in the original post, please let me know. Thanks! Jake --- Jake McKee Sr. (...) (23 years ago, 14-Feb-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
