So i just got back from the department's summer barbecue. I'm pretty drunk, haha. I need to code the stuff. It should be doable in that I'm not that drunk or whatever, but it might not get done tonight.
Also I must answer myself before I look at anything!!
Anyways, thanks to all who responded. I hope to at least have some results tonight but it might be a few hours.
As I mentioned, don't worry. I think there's a pattern I can follow.
Don't worry!! I haven't looked or anything, but it'll be normalised so basically if you don't have a super strong opinion about most questions, that's the way to answer!
Really? Which one was funniest.
Thanks! I get you on the questions of morality. Actually I added them last to bulk up the philosophy aspect, which to be honest is not something I know/care a lot about. The thing is though I didn't want to just add questions that I liked but wanted to keep it broad if ya know what I mean. (More below.)
I guess my advice is really pick and choose like any questions you can answer if you think you can pick out more than 25 or so.
Also there's the possibility to slice and dice the data in various ways afterwards, so even if you don't give an answer (but try to answer all) that's info too: that you don't like the question.
I'm open to suggestions on ways to summarise the data by the way (so long as it doesn't have any danger of revealing individual answers).
Yeah, I completely hear ya! I really fought with that somehow, like I wanted to add more answers to fill in the grey areas, but a major usability point was to keep the answers to as few as possible, particularly for the advanced version where folks have to evaluate answers. Also I had to anticipate that more answers makes the similarity algorithm a lot more complicated, like if there's 5 answers, then there's 25 possible pairs of distance to give a score to, you know? So keeping it mostly boolean was a pragmatic choice because I'm the most grey motherfucker around.
![]()
Bookmarks