Normal people have friends and family and would like to use social media to stay in touch with them.
Normal people stay in touch with their loved ones even if they are not on the same platform. You do not need everyday group chat noise for that.
Normal people have friends and family and would like to use social media to stay in touch with them.
Normal people stay in touch with their loved ones even if they are not on the same platform. You do not need everyday group chat noise for that.
Oh come on, that’s like “all politicians lie”. There is “I record every millisecond of your private life to sell to anybody with a fat enough wallet” evil and there is “I am raising prices this year because I can” evil. The two are not the same.
It takes way more effort from the user and leads to more people dropping out.
Then make it 0 to 3 or 0 to 1 for all I care. You missed the point, which is: If I want or don’t want feature A doesn’t influence if I want or don’t want feature B, and linking the two distorts the results of the poll.
in the end, the result is the same in Aggregate.
Not if you include the human factor of the decision maker, who can twist “wanted less” into “still wanted a bit” as a justification if they want a certain feature for different reasons than user benefit (like, say, a “privacy friendly” but indeed not at all privacy friendly mechanism to give data to add networks). That doesn’t fly with “0 points”.
The person evaluating the poll will take away “person likes option 1 most” not “person absolutely wants none of these in their browser, ever”. That’s the issue. You should not phrase questions in a way that assumes parts of the answer, at least not if you want useful results.
A better way would have been to let us rate features 0 to 10 and just accept if people thought their feature ideas are all shit.
That’s already suggestive. What if you want none of them, and strongly so?
Only 63%?