LL has issued another e-mail survey and it is, in a word – bizarre. It appears to be aimed towards users new to Second Life – as I actually received it via an account I set-up to poke my nose at the “new” Destination Islands, and I’ve yet to receive anything through my main account. However, given the way LL break-up mail-outs over several days, this may yet change.
A bland e-mail announced the survey, giving very little information away:
The survey e-mail
Following the link lead to a question:
Question
Quite reasonable for a start. Except responding to the question pops-up this:
The End
That’s it. The entire survey.
I’ve no idea what it is in aid of. Are LL tracking avatars sitting on the Destination Islands? If so, why? The last time I created a “throwaway” and attempted to leave it on a Destination Island, it appeared to get randomly shunted on – why I logged to check on DI progress, I wound up on the grid itself. So it doesn’t seem likely this is to do with sweeping-out the Destination Islands. As it is, the current throwaway is still on a DI, and I’ll be checking again later today to see if it does get shunted elsewhere.
If this is a means of measuring user retention, then it seems somewhat … brief.
One really cannot say any more than that. Will update this post if there are any developments and / or if I get the survey via my main account.
Anyone else received the same?
Now I want to remake Roxy Music’s “More Than This.”
-ls/cm
I’m still in #SLMusicals mode with the words, “Another survey, another post” running through my head to the tune of Evita’s “Another suitcase, another hall”. This one seems quite strange (the survey, that is!).
I wonder, perhaps the survey is to determine how many people are just anchoring screen names? For example, I thought I’d go ahead and grab an alt with “Yordie” (Resident) but someone had snapped it up. Many of the “cool” names have been snapped up but there’s not sign that the avs ever do anything.
Hmmm. Interesting, but can’t see how this helps. People can lie – answer “yes” rather than “no”; the survey doesn’t ask for frequency of log-ins, just “more than once” – so using it as any form of yardstick would at best be pretty rough-and-ready.
I didn’t receive the survey, btw. Maybe it was to test if the emails are valid too?
Surely they can glean this from their own logs?
Is it possible that the survey was only applicable to people who selected the answer you did not, so the remainder of the survey was omitted after that question?
It would make more sense than a one question survey to determine something they already know. Unless it’s to determine how many people lie on surveys.
True… silly me for not having considered that…
I need to stop blogging while watching the Tour de France!
I suspect the survey gets longer when one answers: no. Then one is likely asked why not. After all they already have data on who logs in and how many times. They do not need to collect info on whether someone has or has not logged in. They can tell you how many times you’ve logged in and for how long. What they can’t know or collect data on is why someone did not login a second or more times.
That’s what came to my mind, too, but if they already know the answer, why ask it? If they knew SusanJayne had already logged in multiple times, how does it help to get her to take the survey? Maybe the email was sent based on data collected before SusanJayne had yet revisited. Or maybe it’s measuring base level response rates to the survey–just whether the recipient would go to the survey site–comparing one-timers and repeats (although I’m not sure how that would be useful to know).
Katharine made the same point vis further questions – and it’s a fair one.
The fact that they have data on the number of log-ins is a given. However, that tends to fall down because I have logged in “more than once” with SusanJayne – what I haven’t done is left the Destination Island (as I’m using her as a placeholder to see what (if anything) develops there by way of decent help for new users). So really, the data aspect is moot and needn’t be plumbed.
And even while survey more than likely does delve deeper into the “why not” if people answer “no”, it actually risks only addressing one side of the picture in terms what is / isn’t working for new users in terms of encouraging them to log-in “more than once”. Would it not be better to also ask additional questions where the answer is “yes”, and thus try to build a better understanding overall as to why some people do try SL “more than once”, where others don’t?
For example, did those who stayed long enough to log in a second or third or forth time do so because they happened to find themselves in a position where they did receive help from more experienced users quickly? Or does the reason they persevered have nothing whatever to do with any help they received on passing through a portal, but due to other factors?
In other words, by comparing both sides of the question – “why did you long in more than once” as well as “why didn’t you log in more than once” – LL might potentially better define what is / isn’t working and what needs to be “fixed” to encourage more people to keep on logging-in to SL far better than simply focusing on one side of the issue on its own.
ETA’d as managed to publish this response when intending to save the draft.
It’s a bit of an odd question, especially since anyone willing to take the survey may have already logged in more than once, and on top of that, “more than once” could mean anything as little as twice.
Now that’s interesting. I have a handful of old ‘bot accounts (properly flagged as ‘bots as per LL’s request) which were part of an in-world metrics system for some old customers, and I forgot to delete those accounts. So I wonder if LL will send the survey to any of those. If so, I’ll answer “No” just to see what happens next