Re: [Fink-devel] Re: The second Version ... fink survey.

[Benjamin R. <ra...@be...>]

> From a personal point of view I cannot quite follow this line of
> argumentation. I am sure you all have seen marketing based surveys
> and they are built very differently, since they try to gauge the user
> as an individual and then ask for specific details of the product or
> project.

I think that is where part of the confusion comes.  You, as a person who
has written surveys, see it as being "built very differently".  I expect
that many people who haven't written surveys don't see that difference,
and are more likely to see a survey like this in the same way they'd see
a smarmy profiling survey, regardless of intentions, and how different
it is.

I have never written a survey, but I have been online long enough to see
that even if it does seem like the information is going to be used for a
good cause, that information always ends up somewhere unexpected
eventually, so I'm very careful about what I answer and what I don't.

Especially in a (relatively) technical target like Fink has, I wouldn't
be suprised if you get surveys back with bits missing.

I'm not saying don't do it, but I am saying that no matter how good your
intentions are, and how much you make those intentions known, there will
be some backlash, regardless.  There's too much history on the net of
crap like "click here to remove" confirming you're a valid spam
recipient address for many people to take these things at face value.