Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2013 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Le Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:29:47 -0700,
John Meyer <> a écrit :

You made a survey without a survey statistician on your team.  Did you
send out a request for such a person on the mailing lists to advise
you before you put together the survey?  Did you have a clear and
concise question that you wanted to answer before you developed the
survey questions?  Did you run the questions by an aforementioned
professional in the staff and check for confirmation bias?

No. And apparently you have little awareness of how our project works.
But  you make a couple of valid points. 

I am not a professional statistician, and that's just what I
spotted.  I have covered surveys as a journalist in my previous
career, though.  And I also am a veteran of setting up business
projects.  A survey statistician would have a lot more to say I am
sure.  And we're not even starting on the analysis.  In fact, I'd
throw out the analysis and the results and start anew.  First off,
define "users" (end users, evangelists, business users?) and state
the overall purpose of your survey in a single question.
I regret some of the tone of the previous e-mail (first e-mail prior
to coffee), but there's nothing here to work with.  You've got 300
self-selected users with at least two major questions in one survey
that you did not break out by region, sex, profession.  You want
results, you need good data underneath.

You know, aside being rather inaccurate, you're welcome to run another
survey. We're always looking for more volunteers. And I'm glad to help
you on this, so please go ahead.



On 11/12/2013 7:04 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Le Tue, 12 Nov 2013 06:57:20 -0700,
John Meyer <> a écrit :

On 11/10/2013 11:46 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:

As there were some exchanges about the survey here and as I
advertised it on this mailing list as well, I thought you might be
interested by my initial analysis:

Thank you for your participation!

1.  The survey seems to be a Self seLected Opinion Poll (SLOP), so
I'm taking it with a grain of salt the size of the Sears Tower.
There's no margin of error included in the poll either and based
upon the sample as being from the mailing lists (where people are
generally active anyway) I'd say it's fairly skewed.
2.  The conclusions are generic, wishy-washy and are based on
guesses and assumptions with no hard underlying data.  How much in
contributions has LibreOffice raised?  Does that fit in with what
the survey said? Where is the Quality Assurance in the web site?
And why would an end user be interested in that?
3.  User support and quality assurance do not require too much
time or technical knowledge.  Remind me not to hire you for either
of those tasks in my business.  Those are things that professional
companies hire entire other companies to do.

I'd give this project an F in a freshman statistics class, and
would not base any strategy off of this "survey"

Thanks John, I'll take it  from your comment that
 1) you are either a survey professional and you only wait for the
next survey to contribute your time designing it


 2) you will contribute the costs of hiring a market research firm
the next time we need a survey. 

Allegedly, I and none of the other people who designed the survey
are professional survey designers. 


Charles-H. Schulz 
Co-founder, The Document Foundation,
Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details:
Mobile Number: +33 (0)6 98 65 54 24.

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.