Subject:
|
Re: Bulk Bricks and LEGO auctions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:19:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
475 times
|
| |
|
|
<above section all snipped>
> 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
I think you hit the nail entirely on the head with this one.
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 (www.lego.com/youropinion) and pointed the flaws in
their "information gathering".
By making their initial answers vague, allowing for unlimited user input
(without any sort of review), and then by offering the user only a random
set of responses / answers (10 each out of a total population of umpteen
different (but most likely similar responses), gives them, the company
"fact" that there isn't a high response to a certain item / process
because of definite skewed survey results.
Allan, I hope what I have just said, gives weight to your argument, and
that it complements it.
BTW (Allan), I thought early in January, you imposed on yourself a ban on
posting to LUGnet....
(I guess "bad" habits are hard to break....) ;-)
Benjamin Medinets
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bulk Bricks and LEGO auctions
|
| (...) I guess I'm the type of person that looks at a system like this very selfishly. I'm wondering, as I see these issues arise, "are they really understanding what I as a customer am trying to tell them?" That's my biggest concern. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 14-Feb-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Bulk Bricks and LEGO auctions
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
