# Furry Survey 2010



## WishingStar (Feb 11, 2010)

Sorry if this has gotten posted already.  I used search and found no results. 

http://www.klisoura.com/furrypoll.php


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 11, 2010)

so its time again to ruin the survey with BS taking I presume


----------



## Ricky (Feb 11, 2010)

_*WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE A SURVEY???
*_

[yt]tbFpkDKf0Ao[/yt]


----------



## WishingStar (Feb 11, 2010)

Ricky said:


> _*WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE A SURVEY???*_


LOL. XD  Somehow I knew somebody would post this.


----------



## Aden (Feb 11, 2010)

Took it, hooray.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 11, 2010)

WishingStar said:


> LOL. XD  Somehow I knew somebody would post this.



Because surveys are annoying and the Animaniacs rock?


----------



## Ratte (Feb 11, 2010)

took it

weee


----------



## Ravefox_twi (Feb 11, 2010)

Took it, it was, um interesting?


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 11, 2010)

the '09 one seemed a lot longer....oh well, guess they don't want to know that much about me


----------



## CynicalCirno (Feb 11, 2010)

Took it.
Told in comments that:
People that believe that they are animals or believe they are an animal spirit inside a human body should be sent to madhouse, they are not a part of the fandom and they are in the same level and plushophiles and zoophiles.
I also herd that some mods are like that.


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 11, 2010)

I BS'd it cause I feel like screwing up the survey this year too


----------



## Ricky (Feb 11, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> People that believe that they are animals or believe they are an animal spirit inside a human body should be sent to madhouse, they are not a part of the fandom and they are in the same level and plushophiles and zoophiles.



Ignorance is bliss, my friend.

Enjoy your bubble.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Feb 11, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Ignorance is bliss, my friend.
> 
> Enjoy your bubble.


They should be sent!
Are you implying that more than half of the furries should besent to a madhouse of that reason? NOOOOO!!!!! Hon da wa


----------



## Ricky (Feb 11, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> They should be sent!
> Are you implying that more than half of the furries should besent to a madhouse of that reason? NOOOOO!!!!! Hon da wa



I was alluding to the fact that they are here regardless.

But yes, I agree _at least_ half of all furries should be sent to a mental asylum.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Feb 11, 2010)

Ricky said:


> I was alluding to the fact that they are here regardless.
> 
> But yes, I agree _at least_ half of all furries should be sent to a mental asylum.


I don't care if I call people that think they are animals even if they are serial moderators. Good opinion is harsh opinion. I'm trying to make logic stay a bit sane with the mix of spices that is the standard here.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 11, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> I don't care if I call people that think they are animals even if they are serial moderators.



Well, if you have their phone number then go right ahead.

I don't see a problem with that.



> I'm trying to make logic stay a bit sane with the mix of spices that is the standard here.


It's always good to keep logic in check.  He can be a pretty crazy guy.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Feb 11, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Well, if you have their phone number then go right ahead.
> 
> I don't see a problem with that.
> 
> It's always good to keep logic in check.  He can be a pretty crazy guy.


I don't have their phone number.
I don't use phones really much.
Everything internet.

Who can be a pretty crazy guy? Mr. Standard Serial Killer MurrPurr Moderator?


----------



## Marietta (Feb 11, 2010)

Took it. But they should really add Asexual to the orientation list.


----------



## Bernad (Feb 11, 2010)

I took the survey.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 11, 2010)

Somebody sticky this


----------



## Seriman (Feb 11, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Somebody sticky this


^This.

I took it too.


----------



## Dass (Feb 11, 2010)

I see as with last time asexual is not an option for orientation.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 11, 2010)

I actually spent a while last year trying to figure out what the statistics for this year will probably be...  lemme just say you're going to be very very surprised.


----------



## foxmusk (Feb 11, 2010)

done and done


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 11, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> I actually spent a while last year trying to figure out what the statistics for this year will probably be...  lemme just say you're going to be very very surprised.


cause a lot more folks gonna Bull shit it (like I did) and screw it up?


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 12, 2010)

Crysix Corps said:


> cause a lot more folks gonna Bull shit it (like I did) and screw it up?


I hope not, I use this to map trends within the fandom.


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 12, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> I hope not, I use this to map trends within the fandom.


shave off 1-5% on everything then, thats is believe to be the BS percentage on everything.

and yes its why last year the beastiality portion grew due to trolls ruining it


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 12, 2010)

no.
I'm busy right now.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 12, 2010)

Crysix Corps said:


> shave off 1-5% on everything then, thats is believe to be the BS percentage on everything.
> 
> and yes its why last year the beastiality portion grew due to trolls ruining it


I never forget margin of error.
Dragoneer should put this up on the main page the Fender journal or news or whatever it's called, hey one of you mods on here try talking to Dragoneer about it.
Cause those statistics are actually important and the more people doing it the better.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 12, 2010)

Dass said:


> I see as with last time asexual is not an option for orientation.


You know why isn't that on there anyhow?


----------



## Bando (Feb 12, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> You know why isn't that on there anyhow?



No clue.

I did it. All done! :3


----------



## Riptor (Feb 12, 2010)

OK, got that taken care of.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Feb 12, 2010)

Done.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 12, 2010)

Seriman said:


> ^This.


It really does need to be sticky or put up on the main site, more people=less margin of error=more accurate


----------



## Ratte (Feb 12, 2010)

i don't want a shitton of stickies up there like before.

i'll try to work around this.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 12, 2010)

Ratte said:


> i don't want a shitton of stickies up there like before.
> 
> i'll try to work around this.


Try talking about getting it on the homepage for fa cause last year a couple of pricks kept revoting continuously to get zoo stats up.


----------



## Tycho (Feb 12, 2010)

There wasn't a survey option for "Is CynicalCirno is a moron?".  I am disappoint.


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 12, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Try talking about getting it on the homepage for fa cause last year a couple of pricks kept revoting continuously to get zoo stats up.


and the fact folks other than furries are doing it to screw it up for the lulz


----------



## Tycho (Feb 12, 2010)

Crysix Corps said:


> and the fact folks other than furries are doing it to screw it up for the lulz





u bored?


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 12, 2010)

Tycho said:


> u bored?


no, are you?
*goes back to play Global Agenda*


----------



## Mentova (Feb 12, 2010)

What is the point of this?


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 12, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> What is the point of this?


no one really knows, never really KNOWS


----------



## Aden (Feb 12, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> What is the point of this?



SCIENCE


----------



## Mentova (Feb 12, 2010)

Aden said:


> SCIENCE


Is it science? or _SCIENCE! 
_
This is crucial and will decide if I take it.


----------



## Ravefox_twi (Feb 12, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> What is the point of this?


To give furries something to do other then poke each other for at least a minute.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 12, 2010)

Ravefox_twi said:


> To give furries something to do other then poke each other for at least a minute.


I still can't figure out what the hell is going on in your avatar.


----------



## Ravefox_twi (Feb 12, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> I still can't figure out what the hell is going on in your avatar.


Me, the little red fox, is eating that wolf... in cartoony fashion!

edit: I've been trying to find something to replace this avi... no luck yet.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Feb 12, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> I still can't figure out what the hell is going on in your avatar.


Isn't that crying eyebleed?
Because it looks so gay and cute.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 12, 2010)

Ravefox_twi said:


> Me, the little red fox, is eating that wolf... in cartoony fashion!
> 
> edit: I've been trying to find something to replace this avi... no luck yet.


It looks like a radioactive fox that sprouted a second tail is biting the dick off some sort of horrible grotesque gray thing.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Feb 12, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> It looks like a radioactive fox that sprouted a second tail is biting the dick off some sort of horrible grotesque gray thing.


Furry.
You are.
NO U


----------



## Ravefox_twi (Feb 12, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> Isn't that crying eyebleed?
> Because it looks so gay and cute.


You said it's cute. Now your my new assslav..... I mean Best friend.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 12, 2010)

Crysix Corps said:


> and the fact folks other than furries are doing it to screw it up for the lulz


Yeah I really wish it was on Fender's journal, cause having 8500 people do it means around 5% margin of error but having 20,000 furries equal fairly accurate


Heckler & Koch said:


> Is it science? or _SCIENCE!
> _
> This is crucial and will decide if I take it.


_SCIENCE!_


----------



## RoseHexwit (Feb 12, 2010)

I voted. :3


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 12, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Yeah I really wish it was on Fender's journal, cause having 8500 people do it means around 5% margin of error but having 20,000 furries equal fairly accurate
> 
> _SCIENCE!_


problem is...theres alot of us who dont watch Fender or the other one, and not even Neer


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 12, 2010)

Crysix Corps said:


> problem is...theres alot of us who dont watch Fender or the other one, and not even Neer


I mean the main page you know the home page


----------



## Ratte (Feb 12, 2010)

there we go.

stay on topic, guys.


----------



## ShadowWolf401 (Feb 12, 2010)

Ricky said:


> _*WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE A SURVEY???
> *_
> 
> [yt]tbFpkDKf0Ao[/yt]


lol wow, haven't see that in years


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 12, 2010)

Ratte said:


> stay on topic


stay on topic!
stay on topic!
I can't shake him!
>Hey guys what do think about republicans?
fuck
:V


----------



## pheonix (Feb 12, 2010)

I took it like a week or something ago.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 12, 2010)

I was bored so I took it. I feel like a fuckin' tool now...


----------



## RoqsWolf (Feb 13, 2010)

Answered it, damn I've changed from when I took the '09 survey XD


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 13, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> stay on topic!
> stay on topic!
> I can't shake him!
> >Hey guys what do think about republicans?
> ...


 
They're kickass, and cute.


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 13, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> I mean the main page you know the home page


how many folks really care whats in that lil box on the side


----------



## cheeriocheetah (Feb 13, 2010)

I'm debating whether to feel proud of completing my second annual survey.  Gyuagh...


----------



## Disasterfox (Feb 13, 2010)

I wonder if anyone important reads this shit
poor bastard


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 13, 2010)

Crysix Corps said:


> how many folks really care whats in that lil box on the side


Not many, but the more furs answering the survey the more accurate the survey gets.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Feb 13, 2010)

WOOOOOOOOOOOO

Fun survey.  8O

(not really)


----------



## Pako ng Pusa (Feb 17, 2010)

Took it, it was ok :3


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 24, 2010)

When does the survey end and the results posted?


----------



## kyle19 (Feb 25, 2010)

I just took this in December, and my answers have changed completely.


----------



## Klisoura (Feb 25, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> When does the survey end and the results posted?



The survey ends in "December" in the "government standard time zone," which means it actually ends in the first or second week in January. 

The results are posted when I have time to go through them, which hasn't happened yet, unfortunately. I've been talking with various people who are interested in throwing it at SPSS or some other number-crunching apparatus, but so far that hasn't panned out. Barring that, I've started sifting through the 2009 data and I hope to start writing it up... soon.


----------



## Willow (Feb 25, 2010)

I took it


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Feb 25, 2010)

I took it :3


----------



## TreacleFox (Mar 5, 2010)

so far, its says 78% of furries are male D:


----------



## Fuzzy Alien (Mar 5, 2010)

Great, the first fandom I'm a part of that is actually male-dominated... and it's this one.


----------



## TreacleFox (Mar 6, 2010)

0.8% of furries put there gender as "other" -_-


----------



## TashkentFox (Mar 6, 2010)

Done.


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Mar 7, 2010)

guess im one of the 0.8% of the others ppl


----------



## anthroguy101 (Mar 8, 2010)

CannonFodder said:
			
		

> stay on topic!
> stay on topic!
> I can't shake him!
> >Hey guys what do think about republicans?
> ...


The Furry Survey in classic right-winger conspiracy talk:
"NUUUU, THE FURRY SURVAY IZ A G00BERMET CASPIRASEE 2 TRACK UR IDENTITY AND STEEL UR FREEDUMZ!!!"
Sorry, I had to post this due to the mass hysteria going on about the Census.


----------



## Niemand (Mar 8, 2010)

Stargazer Bleu said:


> Guess I'm one of the 0.8% of the, 'other's people.


=_=


----------



## Liam (Mar 10, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> the '09 one seemed a lot longer....oh well, guess they don't want to know that much about me


Now how will they know how many people furries go around chopping down trees with flaming axes?  How?


----------



## Klisoura (Mar 11, 2010)

It's technically longer, actually. I wanted to pull some questions, because it gets longer every year, but the panel of people I ask to comment on these things said that I shouldn't. So. For comparison's sake, the first year closed with 7023 responses, for 1.8 MB of data. Last year closed with 9024 responses, for 4.4 MB of data. This year there are 1900 responses so far, but the database is already up to 2 MB.

I would like to thank everyone who has taken the time to complete the survey. I know it doesn't seem like much, but the more (factual!) info there is out there on the fandom, the better, ne?

Also, here's a (warning -- 3.5 MB) HTML file mapping convention attendance. I don't know if anyone will find it especially interesting, but I wanted to compare how much overlap there is between conventions (now that I have this info). "h" is the percent of people in the con represented by the row who went to the con represented by the column, and "v" is the opposite. Unsurprisingly, the big overlaps are from AC, FC, and MWFF. 

Anyway, thanks again, folks.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 11, 2010)

I am proud to say



I DID FUCK AROUND ON THIS SURVEY

15 times =3


----------



## Shaanroo! (Mar 11, 2010)

Took it~

But I was so tempted to screw it up...


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Mar 11, 2010)

ZOOPHILE?! WTF AT 15%! You guys make me sick! Ewww


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 11, 2010)

Dragon-Shark said:


> ZOOPHILE?! WTF AT 15%! You guys make me sick! Ewww


blame the Chans for doing it for the Lulz



wait it was 15% last year also
but the years before it was much smaller


----------



## Klisoura (Mar 11, 2010)

Not really. On the somewhat shaky presumption that the survey constantly samples the same groups of people, the percentage dropped from 18.4% in 2008 to 13.85% in 2009, which is statistically significant at 99%. It has since increased to 15%, which is debatably significant at the 90% confidence level, but not at 95%. Alvarez and Freinhar's most common estimates of control prevalence are between 10%-15%; neither the 2009 nor the 2010 numbers are statistically outside of these bounds.

David Rust found 2% in 1999, but he was doing in-person sampling and the numbers are accordingly much, much lower. A 2008 refresh of his data by Kyle Evans placed the prevalence at 17%, which is not statistically different from the numbers in my survey.


----------



## anthroguy101 (Mar 14, 2010)

I took it, and it is done.  I voted and I will count.  The accuracy of the votes will remain in question.


----------



## traffictragedy03 (Mar 14, 2010)

I also took it but I don't think I did any good.


----------



## Blitz-Runner (Mar 15, 2010)

Took it, the results were interesting.


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Mar 15, 2010)

Just looked at the current results. I wonder how many put answers just to be funny, out of ppl who put honest answers.


----------



## iBolt! (Mar 15, 2010)

Took it... apparently the 2009 results were still up >_>


----------



## TreacleFox (Apr 4, 2010)

Completely heterosexual: _(20.87%)

:|
_


----------



## Slyck (Apr 4, 2010)

Completed!

git er duuuun


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 4, 2010)

seems folks still BSing that survey


----------



## TreacleFox (Apr 4, 2010)

We need to get a bunch of people to do it and say there straight females who are 20 -.-


----------



## Fuzzy Alien (Apr 4, 2010)

I think having such an even spread between hetero/bi/homo among furries is really awesome, personally. I wish the rest of society was like that.


----------



## Akita The Antelope (Apr 4, 2010)

I took it, theres nothing better to do, I like taking surveys for a very odd reasom


----------



## yummynbeefy (Apr 4, 2010)

Fuzzy Alien said:


> I think having such an even spread between hetero/bi/homo among furries is really awesome, personally. I wish the rest of society was like that.


in my area there are lotsa gay and bi guys it seems

i kinda wish there was less of them cuz i get mistaken to be gay all the time for some reason


----------



## Taylor325 (Apr 4, 2010)

Marietta said:


> Took it. But they should really add Asexual to the orientation list.



You should have mentioned that within the comments, if you haven't.

I took it, I honestly don't see why... I'm bored xD (Hence why I'm here)


----------



## OxfordTweed (Apr 15, 2010)

Bah. I tried to take the survey, but I don't consider myself a furry, so I got bored of it.


----------



## Wyldfyre (Apr 15, 2010)

Fuck that.


----------



## demoneyess (Apr 16, 2010)

>.> interesting..


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Apr 16, 2010)

Zeddish said:


> Bah. I tried to take the survey, but I don't consider myself a furry, so I got bored of it.


 Gasp! A flying whale avy! NOMNOMNOMNOM, BITCH! Me Japanese, me hunt whale!


----------



## Shaui (Apr 17, 2010)

I COMPLETED THAT SHIT

I had some fun too


----------



## Shaui (Apr 17, 2010)

By the way, LOOK HERE! http://www.klisoura.com/ot_furrysurvey.php
Teh survay resultz


----------



## themnax (Apr 17, 2010)

oooooooopsie


----------



## themnax (Apr 17, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> They should be sent!
> Are you implying that more than half of the furries should besent to a  madhouse of that reason? NOOOOO!!!!! Hon da wa



maybe the 20% of furrys who seem to be anti-environment but more like 70 to 80% of mundanes.

and  there's nothing loonie about spirit allies.  what's loonie is arbitrary  narrowness.  but reality doesn't have to give a dam whether anybody  likes its being nearly infinitely diverse or not, it's just going to go  on being so anyway.  people can kill each other for refusing to deny and  beat their heads against this, but nothing can or will stop the nature  of reality from continuing to be unimaginably and for all practical  purposes limitlessly, diverse.


----------



## DolphinSpirit (Apr 17, 2010)

What a waste of time.


----------



## Klisoura (Apr 19, 2010)

Stargazer Bleu said:


> Just looked at the current results. I wonder how many put answers just to be funny, out of ppl who put honest answers.



This question doesn't have a definite answer, outside of people who put "did it for the lulz" in the comments section, but there's no reason to think it's particularly high or, for that matter, statistically significant. Why? Three reasons:

First, _the numbers_ don't suggest anything is amiss. In the real world, one of my job responsibilities is market segmentation analysis, and I've done a fair amount of work in creating surveys and interpreting their results. People are not as clever in throwing off results or submitting erroneous answers as they seem to think. But this would suggest that they even try in the first place, and 

Second, _it's not worth it to anyone to forge_. Because the survey is, as *DolphinSpirit* says, "a waste of time" and fairly involved, most people who would try to do so give up part of the way through â€” these you can tell because they're mostly blank, with maybe a profanity or two thrown in the comments. Even the act of creating a response that would give anybody pause, instead of being automatically rejected, takes some time and most people, I've found, seem to think that being an asshole isn't worth that much.

Thirdly, _the results_ are consistent. The current survey hit fursuiters first, and so the numbers are slightly skewed to those (this will even out as more people take it); last year's survey, which had the time to get nicely saturated, tracks with every other survey of the fandom, including the one the students from UC-Davis did and Kyle Evans' refresh of David Rust's 1999 survey. 

The survey lies at this weird nexus of furries wanting people to know more about them and wanting to volunteer information on the one hand (that tendency towards sharing is what permits any academic look into the fandom, incidentally, when those appear from time to time) and on the other a deep paranoia that people are trying to make them look bad. All I can do to allay the latter is to point out that there is no reason to believe that the numbers are non-genuine; for that matter, while I can't speak to the quality-control efforts of the Davis students or Kyle Evans, I imagine those to be genuine samples as well.

Note that this is not to say that they are universally _accurate_. The fandom tends to compartmentalise, a little bit; you can get several hundred respondents whilst still being inside just a few cliques that will give you a skewed perspective. As I said already, I know that the current year's survey wound up hitting a group of fursuiters early, and that has skewed the results somewhat, though this effect is already abating. All I can say is that, with the exception of those organic differences, I've never been given any reason to believe that there are more than a handful of people who _want_ to provide malicious information, and while it would be the height of hubris to suggest that _no_ false answers have been given to the survey, I believe the number to be vanishingly small.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 19, 2010)

^Yeah, all joking aside it is accurate and consistent.


----------



## ntswm2 (Apr 21, 2010)

Took it.


----------



## Tao (Apr 21, 2010)

Did it. I suppose it'd be interesting to see all the different opinions of furries on stuff like what was on the survey.


----------



## ToeClaws (Apr 22, 2010)

Voted.

Do wish they would tweak it more.  The who sex section kinda needs to be divided into two approaches - how important it is to the fandom in terms of art and stories (because we all know that's what like 70 to 80% of the content of the fandom is), and how important it is to the person in real life.  I think those are very different numbers.


----------



## Klisoura (Apr 22, 2010)

I have gone back and forth in terms of whether or not the questions should really even remain â€” as you point out, they mostly just tell people what they already know. I agree they could be reworded somewhat more clearly. How would you phrase them?


----------



## ToeClaws (Apr 23, 2010)

Klisoura said:


> I have gone back and forth in terms of whether or not the questions should really even remain â€” as you point out, they mostly just tell people what they already know. I agree they could be reworded somewhat more clearly. How would you phrase them?



If I were to do it, I think I'd just break them down to reference self and fandom separately.  For example:

_How important is the implication of sex (be it art, stories, RP or other) in the furry fandom to you?

In reference to the above question, how important do you think it is to the fandom in general?

What is your favorite form of sexual representation in the furry - RP, art, stories, other (specify)?

How important is sex to you personally (IE, real physical intimacy with mate/other)?

In reference to the above, how important do you think it is to others in the fandom?

How strongly do you consider the fandom an influence in your real life sexuality?_

Something like that - it separates the two aspects of sexuality and how it relates to the fandom and the individual, which I think would show a lot of difference.


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Apr 25, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> Took it.
> Told in comments that:
> People that believe that they are animals or believe they are an animal spirit inside a human body should be sent to madhouse, they are not a part of the fandom and they are in the same level and plushophiles and zoophiles.
> I also herd that some mods are like that.



This.

Actually, if they're not dangerous, they don't have to go...  but i'm suspicious...  they could be dangerous.


----------



## Apollo (May 5, 2010)

Done.


----------



## KAiZA (May 6, 2010)

Fenrir Lupus said:


> This.
> 
> Actually, if they're not dangerous, they don't have to go... but i'm suspicious... they could be dangerous.


*wow
*I sure hope you make laws someday

also it completely baffles me how any significant percentage of furries could describe themselves as "authoritarian"


----------



## Werecatdawn (May 24, 2010)

Took it, my voice has been heard/seen.

Now where is my cookie...

I was promised a cookie...


----------



## Klisoura (May 25, 2010)

:\ I regret to inform you that there are no cookies. Please accept my humblest apologies as, despite my best efforts to stop them, the Anthropomorphic Research Institute's Baked Goods Entrapment and Coercion Division continues to make empty promises of cookies and I know this is probably a disappointment to you.

The cake, also, is a lie.


----------



## Corwin Cross (May 25, 2010)

Klisoura said:


> :\ I regret to inform you that there are no cookies. Please accept my humblest apologies as, despite my best efforts to stop them, the Anthropomorphic Research Institute's Baked Goods Entrapment and Coercion Division continues to make empty promises of cookies and I know this is probably a disappointment to you.
> 
> The cake, also, is a lie.


I got a data cookie. Thanks! Oh, and great survey!


----------



## ProjectD (May 27, 2010)

I took it, It was allright.


----------



## Felicia Mertallis (May 27, 2010)

did it already


----------



## K'in-Balam (May 29, 2010)

Took survey, poked them about the Asexual issue, and also called them on using correct terminology in their species list... or at least not using _made up_ species names that are actually ambiguous colloquialisms and are in common use for more than one species / genetic mutations. Whatever happened to scientific surveys being scientifically accurate? *sigh*

Although I was pleased with the way they handled the sex-vs-gender issue.

 \\\


----------



## Klisoura (Jun 1, 2010)

Well, I'll note that, your lament aside, it is you, and not I, who have chosen to apply the label "scientific" to my survey. I suppose I appreciate this assumption; it is not, however, a station or pretense I have ever assumed for myself.

That said:

The purpose of the species _list_ is very simple: it keeps me from having to manually check thousands upon thousands of entries, when the vast majority fall into about twenty-five different categories. The need for nuance is why I include the "other" box. 

The purpose of the species _question_ is also simple: to survey people as to the animals they choose identify with. Its purpose is not to create a phylogenetic taxonomy. The list itself is comprised of all those species who had more than 20 respondents self-identifying that way when I built the first survey, and as such includes many animals (not species) that are morphologically, but not genetically, distinct (for example, different dog breeds).

When I assembled the species list, just over 60 people described themselves as a panther. Only one person described themselves as a melanistic anything, and therefore regardless of what the appropriate term might be in genetic biology, the correct term for a survey of people's identification â€” as opposed to a test of their taxonomic abilities â€” is nonetheless "panther". 

At other times, I have taken some liberties in groupings, generally entirely phenetic. The Greek-derived suffix _-oid_, for example, is frequently used to create groupings of animals that are _like_ something without necessarily being _related_ to something (you may find this insufficiently cladistic, which is a fair point, but anyone looking for biological rigour in the furry fandom is being set up for disappointment).

The word _reptilian_, for example, would suffice if I was talking about members of the Linnaean class "reptilia," the alien creatures who secretly control our government, or fans of the Strokes. Dragons and dinosaurs, however, while certainly being reptile-_like_, are perhaps not taxonomically _reptiles_ (or, that is, I am not prepared to make such a grouping of my own accord). I have therefore chosen the term "reptiloid," which you may consider to be neologistic, I suppose (it probably is in the sense I am using it), although its meaning is relatively clear.

Similarly, _mustelid_ refers to those animals within the mustelidae clade, incorporating the otters, weasels, and badgers. The _musteline_ clade is narrower, consisting solely of badgers, martens, polecats, weasels, and so on. You will note that this does not include, for example, skunks. Hence the superfamily _musteloidea_.

I can already hear you arguing that this is arbitrary and paraphyletic. This is not indisputably true, however, as for example Ulfur Arnason, Anette, Gullberg, et. al. in "Mitogenomic Analyses of Caniform Relationships" (_Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 45.3_, December 2007) and Jun Sato, Mieczyslaw Wolsan, et. al in "Deciphering and dating the red panda's ancestry and early adaptive radiation of Musteloidea" (_Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 53.3_, December 2009). Arnason and Sato treat _musteloidea_ as that group which includes the mustelines, otters, skunks, procyonids, and ailurids, and you will note it is this sense that I have used.


----------



## Shima Muurine (Jun 1, 2010)

Anybody else have a chuckle when they saw v.4.0.4? 

Survey not found!


----------



## FuReNzIc (Jun 4, 2010)

Well I could say the Survey was interesting but alittle... TOO PRECISE
but of course still best survey I've taken in my life 
Not like any other survey


----------



## Shima Muurine (Jun 4, 2010)

Well, it needs to be precise. 

Or, it could be incredibly vague and just be like:

YOU INTOO TEH HOTT YIFFZ?

Check yes!


----------



## K'in-Balam (Jun 5, 2010)

Ah, apologies for my assumption of it's being a scientific survey, that was mostly due to the notion of collection and study of data being a scientific pursuit. *shrugs* Pure association on my part, now I think about it.

Since the choice of 'species' included in the list is dictated by the responses received, I clearly cannot fault you on that, and am sorry I made a fuss about it. I think the main reasons the 'panther' thing made me so uncomfortable were that for one thing it confused me, (I have a big problem with ambiguity in forms, I get worried and upset when I'm not sure how to answer a question correctly - yes I'm weird) and for another it made me feel left out, as all the other species of big cat were named accurately, and mine was not. I mean, even if we go with the assumption of 'panther' being a big black cat, probably leopard or jaguar, that still leaves the yellow/golden jaguar out of the equation. But I understand now that this was not your choice or intention, since you were simply using the animals named by previous respondents.

I had assumed that you were not attempting to create a taxonomy of any kind, of course, since there are plenty of fantasy creatures and non-existent hybrids in the furry fandom. I think my pet peeve at being called a 'panther' kicked in my automatic response in such situations, to be honest. I hate it when people call me that, and it felt like the form was trying to force me to call _-myself-_ that... so yeah... Like I said, it is now clear to me that it was nothing of the sort. *shrug*

As for the other terminology, I admit I was labouring under a misapprehension as to the exact meanings of words such as 'reptilian' and 'musteline'. I had been led to believe that their meanings were more general and open. I have not come across the term 'Musteloidea', do you know of any instances of it's usage prior to 2007? I am now curious.

I must admit that I do find the words in question are made incredibly cumbersome and ugly by the addition of the suffix '-oid', but that could just be my synaesthesia. I have another question, though (of course, feel free to disregard my questions if you wish): If the suffix is Greek-derived, is the origin of the word it is being appended to also Greek? I was under the impression it was Latin. Of course, the Latin language borrowed from Greek; by which argument, it could be both. Do you happen to know if this is the case? Or is my education once again out of date? This is all stuff as it was being taught 7-10 years back, I have not had the freedom to continue studying in my leisure time as I would like - in other words, I'm just some schmuck who's interested in these things, really *grin*

Anyway, thank-you very much for taking the time to respond and explain all of this to me, I truly appreciate it as I feel better about it now that I know the reasons. Call me odd, but I find it reassuring to know such things. So yes, thank-you very much for making the effort. 


 \\\


----------



## FuyumiAya (Jun 5, 2010)

\o/


----------



## Zogar (Jun 5, 2010)

Whats the survey for?


----------



## Yotipo (Jun 5, 2010)

Might as well say I took it. Though I'm sure a big deal of survey takers  were put false info.


----------



## Klisoura (Jun 7, 2010)

There is not a great deal of evidence to suggest that this is the case. If you have reason to believe that it's so, please shoot me an E-mail and I'll take a look at it. 



Shima Muurine said:


> Anybody else have a chuckle when they saw v.4.0.4?
> 
> Survey not found!



It is possible that I may have found reason to go back and make one more change from 4.0.3 in order to do that 

<.< 

>.>

But you didn't hear that from me. I'm not a geek or anything, no way. 



Zogar said:


> Whats the survey for?



Two purposes, one political and one more academic. The academic one is simple: the fandom is interesting, and it's good to have information about it. As I note on the main survey page, I'm going to make as much of the data public as I can without making any of it identifying, so that people who want to be able to do their own work can do so (part of this is for my own peace of mind â€” I get a lot of E-mails asking things like "hey, is there a correlation between women who identify as foxes and artists who were born in the 1980s" that require a lot of work on my part). The academic part is also why I ask people to take the survey every year â€” to track year-on-year changes in the fandom.

The second part is political. There are a lot of misconceptions about the fandom. Sometimes, the survey confirms them. Sometimes, it disproves them. Either way, it's an opportunity for furries to set the record straight. People frequently ask me if they can use the survey for an essay they're writing, or a personal research project. I like to think that means that it makes the world just that more informed about what the fandom really means. 

That's what it's for.



K'in-Balam said:


> Ah, apologies for my assumption of it's being a scientific survey, that was mostly due to the notion of collection and study of data being a scientific pursuit. *shrugs* Pure association on my part, now I think about it.



As I said to *Zogar*, it's academic in the sense of being the collection of objective data, and I suppose to the extent that it's not being used for market research or politics it has a somewhat scientific aim. However, while I have leveraged my academic _background_ to some degree, I'm not affiliated with any institution (this actually makes my job much, much easier â€” no IRB or IEC to deal with, for one) and my primary aim is not publication in a peer-reviewed journal or anything.



K'in-Balam said:


> But I understand now that this was not your choice or intention, since you were simply using the animals named by previous respondents.



If I were to add a clarifying note or explanation to the question, what would you want it to say?



K'in-Balam said:


> I have not come across the term 'Musteloidea', do you know of any instances of it's usage prior to 2007? I am now curious.



No, and it comes from fairly recent work in dentition research, if I'm not mistaken. 

What you're primarily seeing is the result of a sea change in taxonomy over the last few years, as genetic typing has become more accurate. Essentially, there are two ways to classify living things. The first is by looking at them, and grouping them by shared traits that are, hopefully, similar because they derive from a common ancestor. This was what Linnaeus did.

The second system uses genetic analysis to form _clades_, highlighting the derivation of common genetic material. Because it is more accurate, cladistic systems have become more common in recent years. Genetic research is what first divided skunks away from the mustelids into their own family.

Larger groupings that extend across clades are called _paraphyletic_, and generally they are supposed to reflect some kind of an overarching similarity. This is where the superfamily _musteloidea_ comes from; it's an attempt to link skunks, procyonids (which Linnaeus first considered bears) and possibly red pandas together on the basis of their skulls. 



K'in-Balam said:


> Do you happen to know if this is the case?



The suffixes for taxonomic distinctions are more or less standardised, regardless of which language the root word comes from (for both reptile-like and weasel-like critters, the root words are both Latin). Frequently, they are Greek, although being derived from Linnaeus most genera are Latin. The reason for this division escapes me, to be perfectly honest. Latin suffixes meaning essentially the same thing as the Greek suffixes are also used; -oidea and -idae are Greek, but -inae is Latin. The standardised suffixes are also different between animals, plants, and bacteria.

Anyway, glad to be of help, to the extent that I am or can be XD


----------



## CrispSkittlez (Jun 11, 2010)

I always get a kick out of answering these questions.


----------



## Attaman (Jun 11, 2010)

Yotipo said:


> Might as well say I took it. Though I'm sure a big deal of survey takers  were put false info.


  What makes you say that, if I may ask?  The only information that - to me - reeked of foul play was the average of a 4.5 importance for Porn in the fandom:  For some reason, even though 20% of the survey takers said they fursuited, I think the removal of Porn would be much more disastrous (as well as more heavily felt) to the fandom than, say, removing fursuits.

That's the only thing that seemed odd to me, the average of 4.5 for self-importance.  The perception of it towards other members of the fandom can't quite be countered (it _is_ the taker's stance), nor their perceived general public perception (though I did find it funny that some 40% thought that the "ebil mundanes" put sex as 10/10 in importance to the fandom), but the 4.5 average just feels _off_ to me.  I probably wouldn't mind as much if none of the _other six categories_ ranked 1-10 had none below a seven and half the results above eight.  Funnily enough, BTW, Plushophilia has almost as high an approval rating as general porn in the fandom:  Again, I'm assuming that the Sex Importance number was skewed either in an attempt to fool themselves, an attempt to make the fandom seem less sexual than it is, or actually applying the proper scale for that as opposed to the other questions (Ex:  Five in most 1-10 charts is average.  Thus, a 4.5 would make sense on a technical level).

If anything could be said about this Survey, it's likely that it's skewed / falsified in places in _favor_ for the fandom, not the other way around.


----------



## Phrozen_Sky (Jun 11, 2010)

That was interesting, especially being a brand new furry....


----------



## mrs.ferdo (Jun 13, 2010)

I took it. Nice survey.


----------



## Kobu (Jun 15, 2010)

That was fun.    Hopefully they're getting some interesting results back.  Or at least gaining some insight into our population.  ^_^


----------



## Trance (Jun 16, 2010)

It bothers me that 13 percent of survey takers are zoophiles...      :/


----------



## Aden (Jun 16, 2010)

TranceFur said:


> It bothers me that 13 percent of survey takers are zoophiles...      :/


 
LIBERAL PLANTS


----------



## Willow (Jun 16, 2010)

TranceFur said:


> It bothers me that 13 percent of survey takers are zoophiles...      :/


 In all honesty, given that the fandom is some half a million people or more, 13% isn't a lot


----------



## Aden (Jun 16, 2010)

WillowWulf said:


> In all honesty, given that the fandom is some half a million people or more, 13% isn't a lot


 
>65,000 dogfuckers
>not a lot


----------



## Willow (Jun 16, 2010)

Aden said:


> >65,000 dogfuckers
> >not a lot


Compared to 500,000 +


----------



## Aden (Jun 16, 2010)

WillowWulf said:


> Compared to 500,000 +


 
Compared to 0
where it SHOULD BE


----------



## Klisoura (Jun 16, 2010)

WillowWulf said:


> In all honesty, given that the fandom is some half a million people or more, 13% isn't a lot


 
Can I ask where the 500,000+ number comes from?


----------



## Trance (Jun 17, 2010)

> Originally posted by WillowWulf
> 
> 13 percent isn't that much.



It kinda is.  13 percent is more than 1 in every 10 furs.  Based on the survey, at least one on this page of this thread is a zoophile...


----------



## Willow (Jun 18, 2010)

Would it be bad for me to take the survey again?

I think I might wanna change a few of my answers


----------



## Klisoura (Jun 18, 2010)

If you have taken it recently â€” say, within the last couple of months â€” then retake it, and it will overwrite your previous entry with the updated one.


----------



## sushi xbl (Jul 2, 2010)

im wondering how accurat the survey is due to some people who might not really care what they put down, then again i dont know why they would waste their time on it if thats all they were going to do


----------



## Fenrari (Jul 12, 2010)

Finished... j/w Do any Grad student, organizations of higher learning actually use these in reports or dissertations? If they do I'd love to read one sometime.


----------



## Kenneth (Jul 12, 2010)

Finished.
And I gotta say, the results were interesting.


----------



## Klisoura (Jul 12, 2010)

Fenrari said:


> Finished... j/w Do any Grad student, organizations of higher learning actually use these in reports or dissertations? If they do I'd love to read one sometime.



Based off the E-mails I get, I gather they're used not wholly infrequently by university students in sociology classes, &c &c. As for grad students or university researchers, I'm aware of two that are using the data, and I've been in touch with a couple in the past, though I think those were for theses that are not publicly available (at least, I've never seen the results). 

Generally, it's to define a control group or for sanity-checking their own data; I believe my failure to operate with the oversight of an IRB makes them hesitant to use the raw data on its own, though I may be overstating that reluctance. It's my understanding that Dr. Gerbasi is using the questions and the data as such a check, based on our correspondence, and if that goes to a peer-reviewed paper you should be able to read it if you have access to the relevant journals.


----------



## RoqsWolf (Jul 14, 2010)

Done and done


----------



## Willow (Jul 14, 2010)

I took it again

And has it occurred to anyone that Hyena is spelled wrong?


----------



## Forrest Vulpes (Jul 21, 2010)

i took it, it was longer then i expected. but fun!


----------



## DoeADeer (Jul 21, 2010)

Wooh surveys rock my socks. o3o


----------



## bigjon (Jul 22, 2010)

(shrugs) took it


----------



## Velystord (Aug 18, 2010)

took it   neat little survey


----------



## DarkAssassinFurry (Aug 22, 2010)

Well, I just killed fifteen minutes of my life.


----------



## GooeyChickenman (Aug 26, 2010)

Done.


----------



## MaxTheWolf (Sep 14, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> Took it.
> Told in comments that:
> People  that believe that they are animals or believe they are an animal spirit  inside a human body should be sent to madhouse, they are not a part of  the fandom and they are in the same level and plushophiles and  zoophiles.
> I also herd that some mods are like that.



*cough*udick*cough* oh what was that, sorry i have a bit of the ol cough u know. If u didnt catch that, i said u were a dick. personally the only people i dont like are those who act negatively towards others due to differences in race orientation and opinions and so forth. sorry you feel that way. =/


----------



## KimpZe (Sep 15, 2010)

done


----------



## BlackRabbit of Inle (Oct 19, 2010)

You needed more choices in Q30. I'm a big fan of non-Japanese animated films and shows, yet there is no category for that. My main interest in this fandom is comics or comic strips involving anthropomorphic characters but, again, there is no category for those interests. I consider interest in "pin-up" style art to be in addition to comics and comic strips. I've looked at some of the art on this site which consists mainly of "pin-up" style art. Some of it is technically accomplished, but I find my actual interest in it to be relatively low.

Even though I took this survey, I would consider myself to be on the peripheral edge of this fandom. I've had a long time interest in animation, comics and comic strips, but I have never specifically identified myself as being "furry"; although, in this instance, I did so for purposes of taking part in this survey.


----------



## Lapdog (Oct 19, 2010)

Yay, did it *without* falling asleep.


----------



## NA3LKER (Oct 22, 2010)

done. i had no idea what a zoophile or a plushophile were, i had to look them up


----------



## ken2012 (Nov 2, 2010)

Remember what should be remembered, and forget what should be forgotten.Alter what is changeable, and accept what is mutable.


----------



## slydude851 (Nov 13, 2010)

This year's survey felt a whole lot shoter than last years.  I said that exact phrase but with 2 additional periods in the comments section.  Was quite interesting, something different to do on this boring saturday.


----------



## Andy Dingo Wolf (Nov 14, 2010)

Must be the only survey I didn't fall asleep in


----------



## Klisoura (Nov 15, 2010)

BlackRabbit of Inle said:


> You needed more choices in Q30. I'm a big fan of non-Japanese animated films and shows, yet there is no category for that. My main interest in this fandom is comics or comic strips involving anthropomorphic characters but, again, there is no category for those interests. I consider interest in "pin-up" style art to be in addition to comics and comic strips. I've looked at some of the art on this site which consists mainly of "pin-up" style art. Some of it is technically accomplished, but I find my actual interest in it to be relatively low.
> 
> Even though I took this survey, I would consider myself to be on the peripheral edge of this fandom. I've had a long time interest in animation, comics and comic strips, but I have never specifically identified myself as being "furry"; although, in this instance, I did so for purposes of taking part in this survey.



You being at the peripheral edge isn't really a problemâ€”people like you taking it helps to call out differences between core furries and people who are only partially interested in or engaged with the fandom. There are differences in these groups, some subtle and some more drastic. As to your first question, what would you like me to do? What options would you like to see added? Just the ones you mentioned? How would you phrase that?



slydude851 said:


> This year's survey felt a whole lot shoter than last years.  I said that exact phrase but with 2 additional periods in the comments section.  Was quite interesting, something different to do on this boring saturday.



I redesigned some things, which I'm happy to see worked. The survey itself is actually longerâ€”currently, although there are only half as many respondents as last year, it takes up 75% as much room. I just shuffled things a bit to make answering easier. Hopefully.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 15, 2010)

Klisoura, I sent you a email(not sure if you read it).
What about limiting the number of times a single IP address can fill out the survey to once a year, so nobody can vote multiple times to screw with the stats?


----------



## israfur (Nov 16, 2010)

I filled it out, that was interesting. :]


----------



## Klisoura (Nov 16, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Klisoura, I sent you a email(not sure if you read it).
> What about limiting the number of times a single IP address can fill out the survey to once a year, so nobody can vote multiple times to screw with the stats?


 
Hrm. I thought I had responded to youâ€”please accept my apologies if I didn't. 

The survey tracks multiple submissions from the same IPâ€”chiefly to account for people living in the same household (which occurs more often than you'd think)â€”though it does flag the entry for review. The prevalence of multiple entries is quite low (indeed only debatably different from zero in a statistical sense, with n=12 out of 4570 entries) so I'm not really all that worried about them.

Since I've started there's been a concern about people trying to game the stats or submitting fraudulent entries. Just in case, I won't explain my methods for tracking this here, but in the seven years I've ran the survey for it's never been as big of a problem as people think. I'm almostâ€”almostâ€”starting to develop some faith in humanity again.


----------



## Klisoura (Dec 8, 2010)

And, as an example of what people are doing with the Survey, I'd like to share some data visualisations prepared by Matt Scott (@drab_makyo). I think they're pretty cool, and they simplify a lot of the data presented in the graphs. So, enjoy!


----------



## makyo (Dec 8, 2010)

Thanks for the plug, Klisoura (oh, and the survey and data, too!).  I posted this to FA here for questions, comments, and suggestions regarding the visualizations.


----------



## Willow (Jan 11, 2011)

If anyone cares, the results for the survey have been updated. 

http://www.klisoura.com/ot_furrysurvey.php


----------



## Xenke (Jan 11, 2011)

Survey said:
			
		

> People who described themselves as a zoophile: 13.55%



While this number doesn't surprise me, it still disturbs me.


----------



## Aden (Jan 11, 2011)

Xenke said:


> While this number doesn't surprise me, it still disturbs me.


 





People that dislike furries might skew surveys that attempt to represent them in order to make them look worse as a group; more at 11

\Though I would believe that number


----------



## Ben (Jan 11, 2011)

Aden said:


> People that dislike furries might skew surveys that attempt to represent them in order to make them look worse as a group; more at 11
> 
> \Though I would believe that number


 
Yeah, you know, I don't think most people have acknowledged that an online survey to determine furry demographics will have a high margin of error due to people who aren't furries filling it out. If people want more accurate statistics, the thing to do would be to conduct them at furry conventions, like AC, FC, MFF, FWA, and whatever the British con is.


----------



## Klisoura (Jan 14, 2011)

Well, no, people acknowledge it regularly. Nobody ever seems to have any evidence that this is the case, but they do repeatedly acknowledge the possibility. For my part, since the most-recent and most frequently cited peer-reviewed study (Alvarez WA, Freinhar JP, 1991: "A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff") puts the prevalence of zoophilia in the general population at 10%â€“15%, I do not really understand why a figure of 13%â€“14% is so surprising to people since it is _exactly what you would expect given the scientific literature_. 

This does, incidentally, provide strong evidence to suggest that in-person sampling is unreliable with regards to the question. Although irrespective of the actual prevalence rates convention-goers aren't markedly different from non-attendees with regards to zoophilia (if anything they have a slightly higher prevalence) the only convention-going survey I'm aware of, David Rust's 12-year old survey that fed "Sociology of Furry Fandom" puts the prevalence at 2%. This would suggest that furries are substantially less likely to be zoophiles than _any study of the general population, ever_, an assertion which is transparently absurd.


----------



## Xenke (Jan 14, 2011)

If anything I'd really expect the number to be higher.

I mean really... dog dicks everywhere.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jan 14, 2011)

Aden said:


> People that dislike furries might skew surveys that attempt to represent them in order to make them look worse as a group; more at 11
> 
> \Though I would believe that number


 Idola clan, we broke that


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 14, 2011)

I got a quick question Klisoura, when is this year's survey coming out(not just a continuation of 2010)?


----------



## Klisoura (Jan 14, 2011)

Monday. I've been busy preparing an (unrelated) talk for FC, but my partners in crime will also be there, so I'll take the time to finalise decisions on the 2011 question set, build the thing and get it deployed. So if there's anything that anybody wants added to the survey, now's the time to ask.


----------



## Heliophobic (Jan 14, 2011)

We should have something for zoophiles to fill out... asking if they're a furry or not.

I'm sure that'll make the statistics more accurate.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 14, 2011)

Klisoura said:


> Monday. I've been busy preparing an (unrelated) talk for FC, but my partners in crime will also be there, so I'll take the time to finalise decisions on the 2011 question set, build the thing and get it deployed. So if there's anything that anybody wants added to the survey, now's the time to ask.


 Okay.
Hey on the report, can you add in the information you generally don't see on the report the last year; like how last year we didn't see ethnicity, religion, or alot of that on the report?


----------



## Av Daedric (Jan 16, 2011)

Voted, makes me feel like a weak furry.


----------



## Klisoura (Jan 21, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Okay.
> Hey on the report, can you add in the information you generally don't see on the report the last year; like how last year we didn't see ethnicity, religion, or alot of that on the report?



Yes and no. The graphs are computationally intensive, so I've already been pushing back how often I recompute them. So the live results won't have that. 

However, I will be making available a table with the objective data (e.g. everything that wasn't a text field) for anybody to look at and build their own charts and stuff with. It's going to take me awhile to go through the data from the 2010 survey and filter out any junk responses, but after that I'll put the data up as promised. 

Also the 2011 survey is now online. It's mostly just incremental changes, plus some things a few people asked me to track. Y'alls please report back with any problems. I'll start posting live results at around a hundred respondents.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 21, 2011)

Klisoura said:


> Yes and no. The graphs are computationally intensive, so I've already been pushing back how often I recompute them. So the live results won't have that.
> 
> However, I will be making available a table with the objective data (e.g. everything that wasn't a text field) for anybody to look at and build their own charts and stuff with. It's going to take me awhile to go through the data from the 2010 survey and filter out any junk responses, but after that I'll put the data up as promised.
> 
> Also the 2011 survey is now online. It's mostly just incremental changes, plus some things a few people asked me to track. Y'alls please report back with any problems. I'll start posting live results at around a hundred respondents.


 Oh thanks


----------

