Q7: What era or eras of hockey were your favourite to watch? (Multiple responses accepted)
Once again the early 90s NHL were the favourite era of a plurality of voters. This may reflect their age demographics, or maybe the early 90s NHL was really that entertaining.
Q8: Please rate the following sources of information in importance to your opinions on this project from 1 to 5, where 1 is not important at all and 5 is extremely important. (Please respond for those players for whom the category applies. For example, if you have only watched 20 of the players in the project play on TV, and you would give TV viewing an importance of 3 in evaluating those players, please respond with 3.)
9. Please rate the following aspects from 1 to 5 in terms of how important they are to you when rating players, where 1 is least important and 5 is most important.
Q10: Comments/feedback/suggestions?
There were several comments about the project. I'll summarize them here - if anyone wants to go into more detail they can post it themselves, either here or in discussion about future projects.
First, there were several positive comments - participants who had a lot of fun, learned a lot, etc.
There were also several comments about ways in which participants felt the project could have been better. Even within these responses there was quite a bit of diversity of opinion.
(Note - these comments came from a total of four participants.)
- Discussions could have had better flow to the conversation.
- Limit the discussion to participants.
- Non-participants questioning the motives of participants and accusing them of bias - should there be a code of conduct for non-voters who post in the discussions?
- The project would be better if people spent more time doing research to prove their points and less time arguing.
- The screening process should be stricter.
- There should be a knowledge test on the history of hockey for participants.
- Too many people were presenting only part of the picture when arguing.
- Too many voters were unwilling to change their lists.
- Too much influence by the screening committee/ATDers on the original lists.
- Too much questioning of other posters motives by participants, contrary to the code of conduct for participants.
I hope everyone involved can take this list as constructive criticism/suggestions. To me, these projects are among the best things on this site. Thanks a lot to all those who contributed their time and effort!
Previous participant surveys
For the sake of comparison, here are links to the participant surveys for previous projects.
HOH Top 60 Defensemen - Participant Survey
HOH Top 40 Goalies - Participant Survey
HOH Top 60 Centers - Participant Survey
