-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 344
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add survey results #1520
Add survey results #1520
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks smooth
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A few items, but overall great work!
- Readers do not want anything in the newsletter generated by AI | ||
- Contributing to the newsletter could be easier. If you've got ideas on how to make this happen, please [let us know](https://github.com/rust-gamedev/rust-gamedev.github.io/issues/1519)! | ||
|
||
We will now go through the results in the same order as the questions were asked. The full analysis and data is open-sourced on [GitHub](https://github.com/janhohenheim/rust-gamedev-statistics/tree/main/jan-hohenheim-2024). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just to check, how clear was it to participants that their data would be made public?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not at all. However, this data does not include any identifying information. I recorded no email address, age, gender, employment, location, name, project affiliations, or anything else.
The only thing that might come close is the free-text feedback form, but no one wrote anything remotely private in there.
Coming from academia, this kind of data collection usually does not require consent to open-source the results.
Answered all the feedback. @AngelOnFira, ready for another round :) |
Mirroring my comments from Discord to here.
I don't think this is a particularly fair or accurate summary of the situation.
This is burying the lede that negative responses (Not Okay) far outnumber positive responses (Good, Love). Furthermore, the fact that there were two positive responses and only one negative response will likely skew results in the positive direction. You can't just lump the neutral responses (Okay, Don't Care) in with the positive responses in your analysis. It is, at the very least, misleading. I'm a bit frustrated by the article in many ways. I think it's inevitable that, when the people doing the review of the survey were the people pushing for the thing that everyone told them not to do in the survey, fair and accurate explanation of the reasons people disagreed with the idea are kind of impossible. One final point:
If the LLM summaries are a relatively small part of the newsletter, and opposition to including them is so vocal and widespread, it should, at this point, be a dead and buried conversation. |
Some points to address:
|
The last two commits address criticisms raised by people who did not feel represented by the summary given. I hope it's better now :) |
Part of #1505
Rendered
Repo for all data and statistics: https://github.com/janhohenheim/rust-gamedev-statistics/tree/main/jan-hohenheim-2024