I recently got a letter from Ipsos, the polling people. They must be spending like nobody's business, because they included a dollar bill in their envelope. Sure, that's not a whole lot for me individually, but that can add up in a hurry. See Riemann Sum. They're taking a gamble, knowing that direct marketing like this has an abysmal return rate, like in the single digits of percent. Perhaps it helps a little sort-of guilting people into taking action. After all, you got paid a dollar, shouldn't you in turn provide some value for this back to Ipsos?
To quote Herb Tarlek: OKfine. I did really want to participate, measly $1 payday notwithstanding. So I sat down at my computer and typed in the URI provided for the online "version." First, I will warn you, Ipsos, you need better IT people...MUCH better IT people. It is extremely easy, at least at the topmost level, to program defensively around things like content blockers (see NoScript). If you are going to have dependencies like JavaScript, you darned well better make sure those dependencies are there and working. And that applies to any subsequent levels too, such as that JavaScript file you just had the browser fetch specifying more code to be fetched, or you using JavaScript to insert more into the DOM to trigger other JavaScript to be loaded. It's just not all that hard to pick a function or variable from these inclusions, then inside a try/catch block, referencing these objects. Even if you think it's not "worth it" to expend resources to program defensively like this, consider that even "normies" are getting ever more privacy conscious, and will seek browser settings and extensions which try to block as much as feasible.
After entering in the code number they sent in the mail, I was greeted with a page that didn't seem to be working right/as intended. So sure enough, I went to my NoScript icon, and found that I probably needed to let through (at least) the first level of JS loads. That in turn came up with a page, paraphrasing here, that it looks like either a.) we already have enough people who have answered the survey, or b.) there was an error.
Huh. OK. I've encountered this before, the design of certain sites just will not work in my browser of choice, even if I turn off or disable the page-altering things, like uBlock Origin, NoScript, Tampermonkey, and Stylus (maybe others). So, I keep Brave around for just such circumstances. As many know, Brave is Chrome/Chromium/Blink/V8 based, but also tries to be the browser of choice for many wanting to preserve privacy. The difference for the profile I normally use is, it doesn't have any of these aforementioned tools installed which make the modern Web a lot more tolerable. It's pretty much, allow most if not all JavaScript, and only block those things which the Brave people find objectionable. Mind, the Brave people want as few sites as possible to break outright because of their privacy preserving measures. So this usually does the trick. Usually.
But no, same result, I put in my code, the page dutifully informs me that the survey is done, looks like you, Ipsos, don't need my opinion. OKfine. At this point, you have gotten me to stop caring. Your message mostly clearly tells me this. You've sapped my willingness to retry. Until....
...Until some days later, I received a postcard-sized piece of mail from you urging me to take the survey. Whiskey tango foxtrot. Uhhhh...which is it? Are you done with that survey, or do you want my input? Okey dokey, let's run Brave again. I put in my code. I get told once again that either the survey is over or there was an error. Once again, you have sapped my willingness to retry.
There is something FUNDAMENTALLY wrong with this. I do not know why you have chosen NOT to make "survey over/not needed" and errors distinct. It reminds me of the old DR/MS/PC-DOS error "bad command or filename." Surely you, command interpreter/shell, DO know the difference, and could tell the user which is the error, but the programmers who programmed you are too lazy to make the distinction. If you, Ipsos, REALLY do want people's opinions, why are you not making the distinction, and for true errors, reporting so and urging the participants to try again later?
So, what choices do I have? You have an email address where I can ask questions. Yeah, no thanks. I get enough spam as it is, I don't need to give you yet another address to which either you or some other entity you're working with to send additional emails. You also list a toll-free number and a +1(202) number. You don't answer either of those with a human, you instead want me to leave a name/other identifying information and my number. Again, no thank you for the same reason, I get enough calls from entities I don't want to talk to, and I really have no assurances that my email address or phone number won't be given out to anyone else. You only make assertions about the contents of the survey ("And don't worry, everything you say in the survey will be kept confidential").
This needs serious refactoring. If nothing else, if it would indeed be part of your standards and practices, you could also tell people in these letters and postcards that any emails, email addresses, conversations, and phone numbers are also confidential. Don't take the lazy way out, make errors distinct and report them as such. It shouldn't be a bunch more effort to code more defensively. And for gawd's sake, do not just simply tell the user "something' went wrong, tell them EXACTLY what went wrong, or at THE VERY, VERY LEAST, provide something on the page, like a link which will change "display: none;" into display: block;", that explains PRECISELY what went wrong so that users will have more incentive to give you the data you want by making adjustments (for example, allowing more to pass through NoScript, or turning off extensions temporarily).
You want the data (as in, survey takers), you have to put in more effort to get the details right.
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when the speaker or writer chooses not to follow those rules.
"Jeopardy!" replies and randomcaps really suck!