Web Survey Bibliography
Title The spam problem from the point of view of the working group NEON
Author Escher, C., von Heesen, B., Lipsmeier, G., Dallwitz-Wegner, D., Daiber, A.
Year 2005
Access date 21.04.2005
Abstract In particular among commercial online market researchers, there is growing concern about losing the fundament for e- mail recruited online surveys due to anti spam measures taken by providers or single internet users. If legal invitations to online surveys are mistaken for undesirable spam - no matter if guilty or not guilty - the success of market research studies can be put at risk completely. Within the framework of Network Online-Research (NEON), a working group of online market researchers from institutes and companies has constituted to develop recommendations for the e-mailing of survey invitations. Furthermore, the safeguarding of online market researchers' interests against internet providers shall be organized. In a first step, recommendations for the handling of e-mail invitations in the field of online market research were compiled. First, these recommendations deal with the composition of e-mail content. But furthermore, precautions regarding technical aspects of e-mail invitations are defined. On the one hand, compliance with these standards minimizes the risk of being black-listed by spam filters. On the other hand, they go along with the predominating e-mail netiquette and should therefore be self-evident for respectable market researchers. Within this contribution, current results of the spam working group shall be introduced and also be discussed to sharpen the awareness of the spam problem in the online market research community and to let proposals and measures be based on a broad consensus. We welcome input from the plenum for our future work.
Abstract - optional Immer stärker wächst - insbesondere in den Kreisen der kommerziellen Online-Marktforschern - die Besorgnis, durch Anti-Spam-Maßnahmen auf Seiten von Providern oder einzelner Internet-Nutzer die Grundlage für Befragungen auf Basis von E-Mail-Kontakten zu verlieren. Wenn legale Einladungen zu einer Online-Befragung - verschuldet oder unverschuldet - mit unerwünschtem Spam verwechselt werden, kann der Erfolg kompletter Marktforschungsprojekte gefährdet sein. Im Rahmen des Netzwerk Online-Forschung (NEON) hat sich eine Arbeitsgruppe von Online-Marktforschern aus Instituten und Unternehmen konstituiert, welche sich zum Ziel gesetzt hat, Verhaltensempfehlungen für den Versand von E-Mail-Einladungen zu erarbeiten. Des weiteren soll aber auch eine Interessenvertretung der Online- Marktforscher gegenüber den Internet-Providern organisiert werden. In einem ersten Schritt wurden für den Umgang mit E-Mail- Nachrichten im Rahmen der Online-Marktforschung eine Reihe von Empehlungen erarbeitet, die sich zum Einen auf die Gestaltung von Mail-Inhalten beziehen, zum Anderen aber auch eine ganze Reihe von Vorkehrungen bezüglich der technischen Seite des Mailversands definieren. Die Einhaltung dieser Standards minimiert einerseits das Risiko, von Spamfiltern bzw. Postmastern als Spam- Versender kategorisiert zu werden. Andererseits entsprechen sie der vorherrschenden Netiquette des Mailversands, die für seriöse Marktforscher eine Selbstverständlichkeit sein sollte. Im Rahmen des Beitrags sollen die aktuellen Ergebnisse der AG Spam vorgestellt und gerne auch diskutiert werden, um einerseits das Bewusstsein für die Spam-Problematik in der Online-Marktforschungs-Community zu schärfen und die erarbeiteten Vorschläge und Maßnahmen auf einem breiten Konsens fußen zu lassen. Andererseits wünschen wir uns vom Plenum weiteren Input für unsere zukünftige Arbeit.
Access/Direct link Homepage - conference (abstract)
Year of publication2005
Bibliographic typeConferences, workshops, tutorials, presentations
Web survey bibliography (4086)
- Displaying Videos in Web Surveys: Implications for Complete Viewing and Survey Responses; 2017; Mendelson, J.; Lee Gibson, J.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- Using experts’ consensus (the Delphi method) to evaluate weighting techniques in web surveys not...; 2017; Toepoel, V.; Emerson, H.
- Mind the Mode: Differences in Paper vs. Web-Based Survey Modes Among Women With Cancer; 2017; Hagan, T. L.; Belcher, S. M.; Donovan, H. S.
- Answering Without Reading: IMCs and Strong Satisficing in Online Surveys; 2017; Anduiza, E.; Galais, C.
- Ideal and maximum length for a web survey; 2017; Revilla, M.; Ochoa, C.
- Social desirability bias in self-reported well-being measures: evidence from an online survey; 2017; Caputo, A.
- Web-Based Survey Methodology; 2017; Wright, K. B.
- Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences; 2017; Liamputtong, P.
- Lessons from recruitment to an internet based survey for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: merits of...; 2017; Davies, B.; Kotter, M. R.
- Web Survey Gamification - Increasing Data Quality in Web Surveys by Using Game Design Elements; 2017; Schacht, S.; Keusch, F.; Bergmann, N.; Morana, S.
- Effects of sampling procedure on data quality in a web survey; 2017; Rimac, I.; Ogresta, J.
- Comparability of web and telephone surveys for the measurement of subjective well-being; 2017; Sarracino, F.; Riillo, C. F. A.; Mikucka, M.
- Achieving Strong Privacy in Online Survey; 2017; Zhou, Yo.; Zhou, Yi.; Chen, S.; Wu, S. S.
- A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Incentives on Response Rate in Online Survey Studies; 2017; Mohammad Asire, A.
- Telephone versus Online Survey Modes for Election Studies: Comparing Canadian Public Opinion and Vote...; 2017; Breton, C.; Cutler, F.; Lachance, S.; Mierke-Zatwarnicki, A.
- Examining Factors Impacting Online Survey Response Ratesin Educational Research: Perceptions of Graduate...; 2017; Saleh, A.; Bista, K.
- Usability Testing for Survey Research; 2017; Geisen, E.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- Paradata as an aide to questionnaire design: Improving quality and reducing burden; 2017; Timm, E.; Stewart, J.; Sidney, I.
- Fieldwork monitoring and managing with time-related paradata; 2017; Vandenplas, C.
- Interviewer effects on onliner and offliner participation in the German Internet Panel; 2017; Herzing, J. M. E.; Blom, A. G.; Meuleman, B.
- Interviewer Gender and Survey Responses: The Effects of Humanizing Cues Variations; 2017; Jablonski, W.; Krzewinska, A.; Grzeszkiewicz-Radulska, K.
- Millennials and emojis in Spain and Mexico.; 2017; Bosch Jover, O.; Revilla, M.
- Where, When, How and with What Do Panel Interviews Take Place and Is the Quality of Answers Affected...; 2017; Niebruegge, S.
- Comparing the same Questionnaire between five Online Panels: A Study of the Effect of Recruitment Strategy...; 2017; Schnell, R.; Panreck, L.
- Nonresponses as context-sensitive response behaviour of participants in online-surveys and their relevance...; 2017; Wetzlehuetter, D.
- Do distractions during web survey completion affect data quality? Findings from a laboratory experiment...; 2017; Wenz, A.
- Predicting Breakoffs in Web Surveys; 2017; Mittereder, F.; West, B. T.
- Measuring Subjective Health and Life Satisfaction with U.S. Hispanics; 2017; Lee, S.; Davis, R.
- Humanizing Cues in Internet Surveys: Investigating Respondent Cognitive Processes; 2017; Jablonski, W.; Grzeszkiewicz-Radulska, K.; Krzewinska, A.
- A Comparison of Emerging Pretesting Methods for Evaluating “Modern” Surveys; 2017; Geisen, E., Murphy, J.
- The Effect of Respondent Commitment on Response Quality in Two Online Surveys; 2017; Cibelli Hibben, K.
- Pushing to web in the ISSP; 2017; Jonsdottir, G. A.; Dofradottir, A. G.; Einarsson, H. B.
- The 2016 Canadian Census: An Innovative Wave Collection Methodology to Maximize Self-Response and Internet...; 2017; Mathieu, P.
- Push2web or less is more? Experimental evidence from a mixed-mode population survey at the community...; 2017; Neumann, R.; Haeder, M.; Brust, O.; Dittrich, E.; von Hermanni, H.
- In search of best practices; 2017; Kappelhof, J. W. S.; Steijn, S.
- Redirected Inbound Call Sampling (RICS); A New Methodology ; 2017; Krotki, K.; Bobashev, G.; Levine, B.; Richards, S.
- An Empirical Process for Using Non-probability Survey for Inference; 2017; Tortora, R.; Iachan, R.
- The perils of non-probability sampling; 2017; Bethlehem, J.
- A Comparison of Two Nonprobability Samples with Probability Samples; 2017; Zack, E. S.; Kennedy, J. M.
- Rates, Delays, and Completeness of General Practitioners’ Responses to a Postal Versus Web-Based...; 2017; Sebo, P.; Maisonneuve, H.; Cerutti, B.; Pascal Fournier, J.; Haller, D. M.
- Necessary but Insufficient: Why Measurement Invariance Tests Need Online Probing as a Complementary...; 2017; Meitinger, K.
- Nonresponse in Organizational Surveying: Attitudinal Distribution Form and Conditional Response Probabilities...; 2017; Kulas, J. T.; Robinson, D. H.; Kellar, D. Z.; Smith, J. A.
- Theory and Practice in Nonprobability Surveys: Parallels between Causal Inference and Survey Inference...; 2017; Mercer, A. W.; Kreuter, F.; Keeter, S.; Stuart, E. A.
- Is There a Future for Surveys; 2017; Miller, P. V.
- Reducing speeding in web surveys by providing immediate feedback; 2017; Conrad, F.; Tourangeau, R.; Couper, M. P.; Zhang, C.
- Social Desirability and Undesirability Effects on Survey Response latencies; 2017; Andersen, H.; Mayerl, J.
- A Working Example of How to Use Artificial Intelligence To Automate and Transform Surveys Into Customer...; 2017; Neve, S.
- A Case Study on Evaluating the Relevance of Some Rules for Writing Requirements through an Online Survey...; 2017; Warnier, M.; Condamines, A.
- Estimating the Impact of Measurement Differences Introduced by Efforts to Reach a Balanced Response...; 2017; Kappelhof, J. W. S.; De Leeuw, E. D.
- Targeted letters: Effects on sample composition and item non-response; 2017; Bianchi, A.; Biffignandi, S.