The reason I am not changing the questionnaire is that it is now ready for publishing in Revolutions
I didn't seriously expect anything else.
A shame as one of the key advantages of the internet is the ability to change things like this immediately. It might just be correcting a typing mistake, or eliminating a silly idea that reflects badly on the site, or just reacting to feedback to refine the page and improve the usefullness of the data returned.
A prime example is "do you use the internet ?" It looks silly on a web page and the answer for that respondent is already defined anyway. It's in the same class as a survey by phone call asking if you have a telephone.
although you insist your comments are constructive you haven't actually suggested any questions that we should ask.
The problem here is not that you haven't asked enough questions, but that in some cases you've limited the range of answers possible or allowed too wide a range of answers to make data analysis straight forward.
I must also point out that had you been a member, an individual one like me, you would have had a copy of Revs where the seminar was advertised in all its glory many times, including all the attendance options.
But I'm not a member, although you'd like non-members to attend and, hopefully, become part of the AWGB, correct ?
We actually know what the problem is we have 4000 members and less than 5% want to come, or are not prepared to come.
or weren't able to attend.
Is members failing to be interested enough to attend 'The problem' ? or is it just insufficient numbers of people attending 'The problem' ? there's a significant difference there.
Or did you just misjudge how much you should charge ? which is a different problem again.
You may have decided that members failing to attend is the main cause of the loss, but you can't be sure of that. Just getting 40 non-members to attend would have allowed you to break even, one more would have seen you in profit.
The questionnaire is designed to find out why.
I don't have an easy answer to that, but I hope you've surveyed those that did attend their views and whether they would have been prepared to pay enough to have broken even.
If the questionnaire is specifically aimed at the 95% of AWGB members that didn't attend, you shouldn't make it public.
As I don't know what the correct answer is to any of the questions I hardly see it as an exercise in confirmation bias.
The problem with confirmation bias, is that the creators of the survey aren't aware of the bias. Sometimes it's easier for an outsider to see that a survey is going to give erroneous information, than the authors.
I'm also interested in your comment that we won't get the information that would be useful. With respect, how do you know what information we will find useful?
As I've said, sometimes it's easier for an outsider with any preconceived ideas or prejudices to see what information would be useful than for people tied up with precedent.
Graham if you aren't bothered which month then the answer to the question is "any".
Except that isn't a possible answer.
Start to see my point now ?