I like Ted’s proposed option 3. - Good thinking! Two identical surveys and we combine the responses for the analysis. Survey 1: @apache emails, personalized invite links, no duplicate replies allowed, response rate tracking Survey 2: completely open for social media and other channels
> On Nov 6, 2019, at 3:43 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 1:20 PM Georg Link <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> >>> On Nov 6, 2019, at 2:19 PM, Justin Mclean <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Georg, >>> >>> Thanks for clearing up how that will work. >>> >>>> To send out invites through LimeSurvey, it requires creating a >> “participant table”. >>>> Every participant is assigned a token, to track whether the participant >> responded or not. >>>> Again, the responses are anonymous and no link between the participant >> entry and the response is stored. >>> >>> I assume we know if the participant responded but can’t match that to an >> individual response. That may not quite be as anonymous as some people >> expect. >> >> To avoid tracking who responded I see two options, assuming we want to >> send emails through LimeSurvey: >> >> Option 1: >> We can send everyone the same URL with the same token from the dummy >> participant. >> >> Option 2: >> We can leave the survey open, without a participant table. Thus >> eliminating the need for a token. >> The invites are sent from a “dummy survey” that we don’t actually use but >> instead we include the URL to the real survey. >> No tokens, no tracking, full anonymity, to information about response rate. >> >> > Option 3: > Build a participant table and send with separate tokens per participant, > but don't record the correspondence (that let's us avoid duplicate > submissions for committers). > At the same time, run a separate (but with identical questions) survey for > social media with no tokens to allow wide spreading. > > This allows us to compare the social media results against the deduplicated > committer results. That should make any spamming of the social media branch > fairly apparent.
