Some of you may have received a private message asking you to participate in an online survey.

If you received it, it would have come from someone with the username "SurveyResearch2008".

The individuals who are conducting the survey asked our permission before they sent out the invitations using the DU private messaging system. They briefly explained the nature of the research, it seemed like something worthwhile, so we gave them the OK.

For the record, we have not read or participated in the survey itself. We did not sign-off on the text of the private messages that the researchers sent. We did not give the researchers any information about anyone on Democratic Underground. We do not know to whom the invitations were sent, nor do we know how the researchers decided to whom to send them.

The survey is completely voluntary.

Skinner
DU Administrator

This is what this "researcher" you just posted about posted in a reply to those with privacy concerns on a thread here on DU...tell me this person isn't GROVELBOT gone WILD!

---

SurveyResearch2008 Donating Member (13 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Nov-01-08 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #89
95. It may seem so at first glance

But remember, this is public data. Anyone can read posts on open online forums (like DU) or other sites (like Wikipedia), not just researchers. It's the virtual equivalent of sitting outside on a park bench and watching people walk by and talk to one another.

In fact, for the purposes of human subject protection, that activity is considered to be so low risk to the participants that researchers are typically not even required to submit a human subjects protocol to their institution's IRB. It's considered to be a data collection method similar to working with archival data (like searching and collecting items from newspaper archives or anonymized medical records).

You may also be interested to know that this is an extremely common method of data collection these days for social scientists. For instance, Facebook has a division populated with social scientists who do things like track interpersonal data from users and write applications whose main purpose is to test the social effects of different things on Facebook users. I personally know people who are currently viewing and scraping interpersonal data from places as widely varied as anti-phishing sites to Usenet groups to World of Warcraft guilds.

In other words, there are scientists all around the world studying probably every major website out there (including this one, obviously), and you may not ever know about it. Since I participate in several online forums myself, it's entirely possible that someone has even studied me. :-)

And I guess this is why there's that old adage about "never put anything on the Internet you wouldn't want someone else to know about". Just like you shouldn't do anything out in public that you wouldn't want someone else to see, because you never know who's sitting on that park bench over there. :-)


----

Surveyor's repsonse on thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4351711&mesg_id=4352307

my reply to the Surveyor on the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4351711&mesg_id=4352443

"In fact, for the purposes of human subject protection, that activity is considered to be so low risk to the participants that researchers are typically not even required to submit a human subjects protocol to their institution's IRB. It's considered to be a data collection method similar to working with archival data (like searching and collecting items from newspaper archives or anonymized medical records)."

Having participants complete a survey is VERY DIFFERENT from reading and observing posts or sitting on a park bench or collecting newspaper archives as far as an IRB is concerned. If someone fills out a survey (even anonymously) they are an active participant. If someone's posts are observed and tabulated, that is passive participation. ALL survey research involving human subjects requires IRB approval. The IRB may determine that the research is so low risk that it is exempt (as was my master's research - an anonymous survey) but any time you are collecting data from humans you have to submit an IRB application. The potential liability for the University is too great to allow researchers to determine themselves whether a project is exempt or not.

Thanks Skinner.

"folks are watching." After all...if you are walking your dog and just happen to see........BEWARE...the EYES ARE UPON YOU! :rofl:

Woohoo! Job creation!

lol

"Every step you take!"

I think it's taken. :evilgrin:

Sounds OK to me. I'd be interested in the results when it is complete.

but whatever.

Some just get outraged over anything. My god.

DU'er mention it.

Skinner, I don't think you should allow/condone this.

You are just opening up DU to being a media "lab rat" in the future.....which will send all of us genuine contributors ~ monetary and intellectually ~ scurring AWAY.

YOU control this board. I think you should squash this little bug. I don't see how DU has ANYTHING to gain from participating in this survey (unless there is an element you aren't telling us DU'ers about). Why would you agree/go along with this intrusion? Do you believe interlopers all have benevolent intentions????

*sheesh* :eyes:

information on this site, they are on just about every other site. I was a sociology minor in college (granted, it was twenty years ago!) and the internet is a gold mine for them. DU is probably aready a "media lab rat" and likely has been for awhile, we just haven't known it.

It's just a survey. Academic research -- not commercial.

And it's voluntary.

You REALLY should not allow this.

You should surely understand your DU 'audience' at this point.

....and this 'academic research' :eyes: is "not cool"

Don't give in, don't give up. You all have done a helluva TREMENDOUS JOB - REALLY, REALLY, REALLY through these past tumultous 8-10 years! :applause: :applause: :toast: :toast:

Please don't 'give up' or 'fall down' when we only have a few more yards to go!!!!

HOLD ON!

Peace :hug:
M_Y_H

As a former "Sr. Research Scientist" I can say there's no merit in your concerns. :shrug:

If the survey sends you packing, then I'm not sure what we'll do without the constant "the sky is falling" complaints from you. :eyes:

And since when does academia only use a specific way of testing? People make and test all sorts of different tests all the damn time.

I hate surveys

and, I don't trust them...there's always a hidden agenda.

I certainly hope so. If DU didn't commission the survey, and is receiving no benefit from the survey, I'll be irritated that I spent time working on it. I had intended to help DU, not be a guinea pig for a marketing firm (or a social scientist).

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--added the social scientist bit.

And DU did not commission the survey.

It's academic research.

in college. "it's all just academic research baby" , "Just take off that shirt..."

:evilgrin:

:rofl:

However, when I was a freshman in college, I was called to answer some questions about breasts.

I was happy to comply. Best telephone interview ever.

Will DU have access to the results? In other words, will DU at least reap some benefit from my efforts?

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

I do not know if we will have any information other than that.

and participate if we want to in a survey asking for our individual opinions if we feel like it.


SURE!

It isn't fair! Why can't I be outraged too?

lol

:hi:

:)

OMG! What did I answer? I forgot!

*snort*

It was okay. People doing research need to have data. It's that simple.

and discard you like a husk.

:)

:spray:

:rofl:

There's a dearth of sociometrics on the "on-line community" and it'll take a while for the schools to get a handle on the dynamics. I'm always glad to participate in legitimate research.

:shrug:

Some people are really overreacting.

Seriously you don't conduct a survey by PMing "contact the researchers at the above address before writing Skinner or EarlG" unless you're measuring susceptibility to being scammed; if they asked for a credit card number it would have looked no more suspicious at ~3 in the morning (I didn't get the PM, but that's when Oscar's caretaker brought it up); I mean I'm glad it's an academic endeavor, but it has to be as useful as polling people on the street in a fake looking police uniform (unless you're gauging response to transient authority figures). It also means real scam artists can use the "Don't bother to ask Skinner first" line without any way for people to know it's a hoax/prank/sales pitch (without breaking DU rules by posting about it, or bombarding mods or admins for one-on-one guidance), so it creates a real Catch-22 to let single digit posters speak in Skinner's name without some kind of heads up.

If they get more than X messages, one of them will post to the forum.

:shrug:

So it became one of those "All Cretans are liars" propositions, if the PM was true you were supposed to take Skinner's pre-approval on faith, which had never really happened before in my memory, so getting a private request asking for personal if anonymous information seemed rather fishy to people the weekend before election day ("Seems like Skinner should/would have mentioned something like this." -A.Schwarzenegger, "It seems like Skinner would say something about this" -GloriaSmith, "Wouldn't any reputable polling people have gone to Skinner first themselves?" -janx, "Sounds fishy to me." -Hokie, "At the end it says not to post about the details of it. So I won't." -"Sidney J Mussburger" source). It just seems like poor precedent to vest newbies, or anyone for that matter, with the implied authority to send mass mailings of dubious purpose without advance warning; it wasn't even clear if they had enough posts to start a thread on GD.

Skinner or someone, even if it meant I was a big PITA for doing that, if I had an urgent concern. But, that's just me.

The survey might have done better next weekend when everyone isn't so distracted and keyed up.

I like surveys, as long as I am not asked to provide identifying information. What is the harm? DU provides an accessible unique population. Progressives who are internet savvy spanning multiple age groups, incomes, geographical locations etc. I would participate in the study if they asked as long as I wont be getting a bunch of junk in my incoming email in the future.

Love all the talk of conspiracy generated by this. Bottom line, don't give personal info if asked and don't participate if you are not comfortable. Simple enough, or at least it should be. :eyes:

I doubt I'll do the survey though.

That's why I did it.

The list just keeps on growing.

"We are randomly selecting both threads from three forums and participants in those threads using a random number generator."

But I still feel snubbed.

:hug:

:grr:

Is there any intrusive personal question I can PM you that will make you feel better?

:hug:

Good grief, I even scan the 911 forum sometimes, but people in this thread take conspiracy theory tinfoil hat to a NEW LEVEL--we need a new forum---for people who look for ulterior motives in EVERYTHING.

Other than the penis question, it was a pretty dull survey. :)

No way would I not help out these people. Seriously, though, if it bothers you, all you have to do is..........uh........gulp................not..........participate. Sounds radical, I know.

That would be me. But it isn't just "ulterior motives" that concerns me.

Information is power. All of us are being kept in the dark -- that is, ignorant. We don't know who is doing this survey or why or how this information will be used. Random anonymous sampling of a politically allied community, data derived and compiled to create -- well, what exactly?

Social research is another name for intelligence gathering just tidied up with an academic patina. It is always better to know your adversary (aka "target audience") better than he knows either you or himself.


Edit typo

:)

Chain reactions, maybe.

:hi:

I can still remember the 90s and how much they tried to bring Generation X down. So many of us died and so many of us were sidelined with drug problems or children...all because we voted Poppy out and Clinton in. They wanted revenge for that. They still haven't given up on getting their revenge for that. They will kill our entire generation before it is all over with, mark my words. They beat Fox Mulder down and made him spend 10 solid years clipping newspaper articles all day every day. Hell, while he was still in the FBI, he got beaten down more than any lead character ever. They were showing us. Look what they did to The Lone Gunmen. Hell no, I don't trust them.

There ARE ulterior motives in everything people do. We might appear to just get up and walk, but we really want another drink out of the fridge. We get in the car and drive, but we just really want something to eat. She might pretend she is really interested in his pet 1976 Chevy Nova that still won't run after he spent thousands of dollars and 10 years on it, but she just wants in his pants. He might pretend her pants look perfect on her, but he just wants them off of her so he can get what he really wants.

There are ALWAYS actions that lead to what people really want. It's just a fact.

I'd see those phrases uttered by a DU admin.

Redstone

lol

:loveya:

:rofl:

There would be some great quotes here for use in a PhD dissertation.

I don't feel at all violated that I got the PM and filled out the form.

I DID feel violated when one of the threads that I started about Palin's nickname was picked up on put on the front page of Michelle Malkin's vile webpage.

Pretty strange to see what upsets people.

lol



:hi:

*Fake* paranoid I can handle. :)

:eyes:

wheeee!

in celebration of DAY OF THE DEAD! happy november 2nd.

I've been quite vocal about my political opinions online in many forums. I made a choice years ago that even if it meant that I would be on some McCarthyite conspiracy list I would exercise my right to practice free speech with more determination. 'They' have all the information about me that 'They' could ever want.

The problem is that they ask about particular types of people (and they define them well, but partly based on intentions), but DU participants have no way of really distinguishing people's intentions. We can only guess. I'm inclined to say that many people are called these, but few are actually them.

:kick: for visibility

Seriously, it took about 3 minutes. I did it hours ago and I have not been hauled off in chains. ;)

We are currently finished recruiting for this portion of the study. Thank you all for your patience with the mysterious PMs showing up in your inbox over the last few days. And thank you to those of you who responded - the time you spent taking our survey was much appreciated!

I would like to also apologize to the handful of you who received more than one PM about this survey - this was an experimenter error and not an effort to spam you into responding.

With the administrators' permission, we will be sending an additional series of recruitment messages 1-2 weeks following the election. In an effort to minimize confusion during this second phase, we will post a explanatory message in GD which references this thread prior to sending any PMs.

We expect to have data from both recruitment periods compiled and analyzed by mid-December. If there is sufficient interest, and again, with the administrators' permission, we would be happy to share our general findings with the DU community.

Thanks again, and see you in a couple of weeks!

They sound like social scientists and they can spell.

:yoiks:

:rofl: