Yes by actually participating here, saying what you think and letting the other members get to know you a little better, your credibility goes up.
Mine goes whichever way the other members feel it should go for them.
I didn’t bother to use more intelligent terms and phrases to relay what I found in that sites privacy statement. I read what is there, read between the lines and relayed my interpretation.
If I want to sway an audience I will stand in front so I can be seen and heard. If I get a brow beating like the ones you have given me then fair enough.
There are people who think they know a person from what they see, and then there are the ones who actually do because they took the time and effort for each person involved to learn.
In the prepper world trust is a big deal. I’m not the sharpest crayon in the box or the prettiest. But because I don’t get picked as often as some others, I have more there when needed and if another colour needs backup, I’m right there.
Normally, if I have burned a bridge, it's because I found a troll under it.

I do apologize for my sharp tongue. Welcome back to the forum.

-Asking questions like "rate my personal preparedness" is very subjective. You may get skewered results because it depends not on the actual preparedness of a person, but his/her perception. I may think I'm ready to weather out anything....Another person may look at my plan and say "woah, you are way underprepared for even the most basic emergency." They could have more knowledge or experience to make that statement. I may not realize I'm lacking in certain areas but sitting on my laurels think I'm in good condition.

I understand what you're saying; however, the point of the self evaluation was to draw an inference from the respondents perception of the quality of their overall preparations. For example, a person may have only one month of food and water and rate themselves a 9/10. This would, to me be indicative of their overall sense of preparedness and a notion suggesting that they feel 1 month is ample... Similarly a person on an acreage or farm with a large number of renewable resources (animals, rivers etc) may only have 1 month stored food/water but feel very self sufficient and capable of relying more on their environment for those basic needs and therefore their overall rating may be higher. I probably could have asked it differently but the intent of that 'overall rating' was just to allow preppers to self evaluate.

-A bit confusing on questions re: vehicles where bikes could be used for mobile lodging, etc.

Thanks for the input, I can clean it up a bit... although reading with some more of the comments, I'm more compelled to just take it down and save myself the effort.

Draymen

Yes by actually participating here, saying what you think and letting the other members get to know you a little better, your credibility goes up.
Mine goes whichever way the other members feel it should go for them.
I didn’t bother to use more intelligent terms and phrases to relay what I found in that sites privacy statement. I read what is there, read between the lines and relayed my interpretation.
If I want to sway an audience I will stand in front so I can be seen and heard. If I get a brow beating like the ones you have given me then fair enough.
There are people who think they know a person from what they see, and then there are the ones who actually do because they took the time and effort for each person involved to learn.
In the prepper world trust is a big deal. I’m not the sharpest crayon in the box or the prettiest. But because I don’t get picked as often as some others, I have more there when needed and if another colour needs backup, I’m right there.
Normally, if I have burned a bridge, it's because I found a troll under it.

I do apologize for my sharp tongue. Welcome back to the forum.

I won't waste time in picking apart your statement above, I think I understand what you're trying to say even though you didn't quite say it. You are drawing an inference from reading a privacy statement.... I get it, but I can tell you that ALL privacy statements are deliberately vague, it's primarily for the protection of the vendor/supplier in most cases (a kinda of buyer/user beware). You can read all sorts of things into it... I myself, don't tend to toss chicken bones on the ground to determine my next course of action... I'm more of a logical sort and my research needs specific answers to specific questions, I don't rely on inference as much as some but when I do get a 'gut' feeling I still listen. I'm not sure if you're 'gut' feeling (for lack of any actual research on the survey website) was caused by a premonition or a bad turkey sandwich.

In any event, the comments have been engaging. Some more than others. Despite the unfounded criticism from you [Quietman], I do respect what you are trying to convey, just not your methods. Better ways to help drive value into things than to be an armchair critic with no illustrated experience on the topic matter [creating surveys]. I'm not an expert myself, but I've at least proven I attempted something with the goal of helping the community... as with all things though, use at your own risk. Your constant attacks at this contribution without any true substance truly makes you the troll... not sure why you don't see that. In any event...

I will be deactivating the survey down immediately.

Sorry for those who have contributed, if you are interested in the results to date, go ahead and send me a PM and I'll respond in a week with the results.

Regards,

Draymen

You've got stars on some of the REQUIRED things to fill in .

Such as the Participant Data area. Many people will find this giving out too much info
on themselves. I don't see that this info is needed in the first section.

Why do you need to know about city ? Many people will fill in a bogus city.
you might get better results by asking for province and also not making
these fields mandatory

That was a discussion item from a preppers meeting we had in Calgary prior to the development of the survey. At the time, the input was that, this information was not too private but useful for setting up demographics... how many people are prepping only for themselves, how many people have dependents, what is the relationship on food stores (for example) vs the number of dependents people have... do people stock more/less if prepping only for themselves... and so on. Lots of results were available based on that data, simply to observe the trend.

The survey was only intended for the Alberta forum so it made absolutely no sense to ask for the province... I'm sure I could have worded it different or provided a dropdown list using (northern alberta, southern alberta, central alberta)... in the end, by definition (see FOIP) the city you live in in and of itself does not constitute private data and it was felt that was harmless... I did and expected to get 'bogus city' names; however, where the city or region could be identified, that data was used, if it was clearly a bogus city, any formula used to derive geographical information (number of dependents per prepper in a region/city for example) was excluded, while the meat of the responses was still included in the overall aggregate results.

Thanks for your interest...