Forum - View topicANN 2018 Reader Survey Feedback
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Spider
Posts: 9 |
|
|||||
It may not matter to the goals of the survey depending on the intended use or the data as a whole (general feel of user-base etc), it may consicsely satisfy them. Though I mean to suggest that my responses may not be fully valid given the confusion; suggest that I had hoped it would have asked me different/flexible-but-not-write-in/clearer-in-some-case questions; and that I suspect even I could not decipher my own feelings on advertisement nor content desire (separately) if provided the raw data that results from my answers (clarified below). My fault may be in assuming it might affect existing content beyond the direct questions like 'do you want more articles on X' or that that increase may decrease others quantity/quality (given the context of revenue or any unfound assumptions on my part. To be more clear then the above: If like model trains do I want to see adverts on the site, sure if it's under consideration. If i like stores with adult Japan related items, do I want to see them in adverts (maybe not, but let's say sure), but do I want to read articles about them on ANN, or any site mixed along side non-adult things, (or see such ads on ANN specifically), no not really. Even if I have a high interest in them, do I want to see such articles in place of or at expense of industry news or things that I get from ANN that are greatest here? Most certainly not. Is it still useful to know my high interest even if distinguishing what was just said above, using just the survey results is not possible, sure I agree it's still useful. (Would I be indifferent if I could easily ignore them, probably yes. Indifferent if I can't ignore/filter them (at work lunch break or linking friends to other articles on ANN), then no. This last bit is not as important to critical goals but a smaller minor example.) Some of what I'm 'highly' interested in might not align with what I individually want out of ANN. (Maybe I get <insert - doujin/anisong music scene info example> elsewhere and want to be sure it's made known that pursing that will not be in my interest of my attraction to ANN and not worth competing for. Or similar reasons in vein with what I've typed above so far. Though seeing adverts for such things of interest may mean I'll still very likely end up clicking on or still wanting to see them here. If asking for a single instance of 'do we -reject- this one article on anisong' of course I probably don't mind it, so my interest obtained by the survey as it is now is still very valid, yes.). Will ANN find it useful to know that distinction or is it worth showing stores with music CDs if no wealth of articles exist on it to pull in more external users and clicks, I do not know or presume to know without background, but would personally want the option to tell that from the survey data while looking at options, but that is just my opinion.) For me it is not so much that every possible topic (regardless of majority/minority interest) need be considered/included, but that ability to express what I may want on priority out of content of (reason to visit) the -site- not ads or interest (for standard, already established article categories) was not easy to express. And the questions i answered that might serve dual purpose might lead to expressing/interpreting the wrong intent. I could choose to just not answer them due to that, but then do I feel apathetic/indifferent, no (I do want to express something). That something might be irrelevent and is subjective and not my survey, so it's ok. But in the end yes I still agree that I know not the full intent or use of the questions/data, I just felt that more-clarity and questions/intents could have been obtained via different questions or question formats, but that that was just out of my reach or not considered to have been asked. Of course if a writer/potential-writers want to do more gaming articles, or there is a trend of that possibly being big(popular), then the direct question is shortest to the intended question (sometimes also to the desired outcome). Though it would miss the aforementioned, 'not at the expense of', or 'that there might be something unexpected but much bigger' that was unknown that could be explored. And again, of course asking about all the other categories might be wasting questionee's time or giving a false sense of caring about those details, if that data will be ignored or tossed, and it probably isn't necessary to avoid bias in the formal sense in this case. Asking about only a few specifics such as, do you want gaming articles, along side what's actually the survey's priority, is still perfectly fine in my opinion within this context of discussion. I wouldn't call that bias or wrong, it's direct intent of something being considered and that is good. (Random generic direct example: spoiler[asking if I'm interested in a new system with improvements to a specific subset of problems, I might say 'yes, sure'; also asking if I'd be interested in such a system if using it would be optional, I might say 'yes definitely sounds good'; but if an implementation of such a system is already partially in the works and I know I -definitely- don't want -that- specific implementation, then if you don't ask me that or if the problems it solves are/aren't worth yielding, then how will I know or express that fact with only those comments. Asking for what I might like in such a system, or which existing one could ascertain that (as long as triggering my bias is ok, otherwise use additional generic questions to guide the decision trying to be made using the survey).]) I agree a survey should be short on utmost priority (balanced by payoff for questionee) or that the option to skip be available and structured to get through quickly. (While yes I'm personally willing to spend much more time, getting enough feedback is much more a priority indeed.) I do appreciate that the questions were tailored (to specifics as well as past/on-the-fly write-in answers) and to be concise/short, that's not without a small/least effort by any means. Regarding my comments in previous posts that mention considering 'caution' in interpretation, they were higher and vaguer but condense my (mostly irrelevent?) concern over applying generic-interests to what should determine desired content -from- ANN as a single site of many other consumables - Certainly it's over-thinking, but with dual purpose questions where most feel about advertising or may incite that type of response to the question, but that also seem content related - that is where frustration arises for me when not possible to answer more directly about content when things that 'depend on context' are proposed, or when I'm directly asked about only one type of content that is under consideration. I as a questionee don't need to know the intention of the survey and likely not even that of individual questions at times, though I do feel I need to know the context and possible interpretations of the questions (mostly when possiblly vague) so I can provide the response in context as to not be misinterpreted in what I think I'm answering. Not that that is not clear in each question here, but once I consider uncertainty over adverts vs content (when that context does matter to me) then I may have two (or a third) answer and no way to express that (including the now added concern that if I don't answer that such inaction also has an unclear consequence). Over-thinking, again? Certainly. Do I now want to express clearer desire on content? Yes. Should I not be answering about content here? Probably? As a result do I now want to be in the middle of a survey with more on content (yeah.. it's what matters most to me as a reader.) spoiler[Was changing other content levels not on the table for consideration versus just a select set of new content, maybe not but that possibility may also be what is frustrating to some; or, was there an unexpectedly popular category we'd see if asked about it? I could suggest 'rate each topic 1 to 5 for content', with dual purpose broken out to a question of same format so after the first one things are faster, though general-interest only needs aggregated count of users likely, w/ a few polarizing one's intensities asked separately if it's important data (as was already done). I don't mean to try to go that specific in 'how', but don't want to trivialize/casually-state nor devel into if it was not needed info to begin with. And don't know if survey format implementation is a big restriction, etc.] ==== Hopefully that clarifies my initial frustration during the survey, and what I mean by differentiation between what I may want from a specific site vs interests (which if the survey applied to ads alone would be much less critical to me as an individual seeking content); and maybe my unfounded concern over reduction of what I like in content here (gradual or immediate) in favor of other things (always tradeoffs when resources are limited), which I felt powerless to express when trying to honestly answer regarding my interests alone.. That's what I mean, by - possiblly if I was not confused by the intent overall (or question by question in some cases) or worried about the results of my responses then I might not have been as helpless feeling (trying to find the right questions to speak through) during the survey. I'd wanted additional/clear content questions but it may not be the goal at that moment, and hints of it (or use for guiding it) added restlessness. And I apologise if I'm ignoring any attempt to express that the above is all understood; or not absorbing any attempt to help me understand why it shouldn't be as big of a deal or concern to me. I can also agree to disagree there in some areas as I tried to express, or where assumed goal/concern did not match. Mostly I felt more could be extracted, but that's afterthought during the survey itself from the other side. 
That's probably the best I can state it but I can clarify if need or if my answer to rhetorical questions can help my coming into agreement. I won't elaborate so much in moving forward on this unless specifically desired. (As part of it is redundant to what I tried to say before, and I may be missing the mark or if each side is understood.  ; don't want to stay in a one to one discussion if not helpful)
In my case, what I want from ANN article content may not translate well to things that are advertised or that advertisers may want to invest money in advertising here; thus if I want to express what I would click for advertisements to try and be helpful and answer that part of what's asked, it could imply something in conflict with the articles I'd more strongly like to see. And not answering means I then rely on my peers (non)interests to align with my own. That may be my problem alone, though similar frustration is in not being able to directly express what article content is a priority beyond ones that were asked about. (I don't want to rain on majority interest or revenue sources if it won't affect what content I want, but will gladly express that I don't want something if it has potential to impact my interests, since I assume that is helpful to know when not everything can be predicted or considered.) The logical best/simple approach then is to not express interest in any advertisement content that might be at odds with article content interest if answered honestly, or to say 'no' to anything increasing that I have no strong opinion on. Resulting in less advertisements that I'd likely actually click on. That doesn't seem as helpful to the goal of determining/showing-off best advertising demographic in my case. Hence again where frustration arises for me. But I'm just one statistic, so that aspect may really not matter unless more common. I just think/assume it's not hard to take into account if adapted or clarified throughout the survey. Maybe easier then writing or reading all of this... bleh  . Either way it does still work well to judge general interest for Ads and one off articles that may keep me engaged untill my main draws disappear (I don't expect that to happen, but I worry myself and others couldn't directly indicate what that was. But if pulling in/back others by targeting and competing-with/supplementing other news/review sources they use for specific topic is possibly and in best interest, then the survey also does a very through job along side possible non Japanese advert demographics.) That would be the end of the extrapolation of the more informal side of things. Where instead, maybe I assumed that ANN needed to know my interests that might be outside the intersection of content I want and adverts(interests) I want/have currently (disregard car model, etc here); with the additional non-intersecting japan interests being noted for the sake of helping Ad. revenue likelyhood on my part; where otherwise I should not have done so. I still think there were many good questions too.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Aayuo
Posts: 11 |
|
|||||
|
"Assuming one or more of the following [Streaming Services] were available in your country, which ones would you consider subscribing to?"
The option I mostly miss, and the one I would subscribe to in an instant, is a service that allows me to watch all current anime shows in one place. I really do not intend to subscribe to 5 or more different services, each sapping a monthly fee, and I would still only be able to see a fraction of the season's shows - with many never actually available outside Japanese TV or DVDs. Such a one-stop service is probably illusionary, because of rivalry between studios. Some might never want to share a streaming service with a rival. But I wish one could tell these studios to reconsider and band together to develop a worldwide "Anime Japan" streaming service as the one-stop channel for all past, present and future anime shows. One can dream, no? Outside of that option, I think using fan-sub sites is the second best option - simply because they give me exactly what I want: a one-stop channel. |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group