jnf
commented
10 years ago I feel like, at the end of the day, this is an issue of miscommunication where we either didn't anticipate or explain adequately how respondents should treat the 'previous speaking experience' question. I don't like the idea of introducing complexity to cover a miscommunication.
With an incident rate approaching 50%, it's very obvious that we need to reconsider how we're collecting and using information. I should probably follow up with this on the mailing list, but my current thought is to move the 'prev exp' question into the personal information blind and reword it to something like 'give us some links/details on your previous speaking.' Then, we add a much more general question to the Balancing Information blind, something like, "Have your spoken at conferences before? How many, roughly?"
To me, this is a better solution because it leverages core/existing concepts in the app (that questions and blinds are malleable and customizable) and focuses on the real problem (miscommunication).
We just marked a large set of proposals as safe for review. However, depending on we how handle the "Balancing Info" section, many of the proposals may not be safe for review at the next blind level if we have to scrub them of previous talk titles and links.
Perhaps we should have a many-to-many between proposals and blind levels so that we can say whether or not a proposal if safe for review at each blind level.