Pleease fix the surveys

[rpse1927]

fusion cash i do the paid surveys and everytime i m told im not quilify. help me

[Administrator]

(IMHO if a survey needs to take these kinds of 'preventative' measure to ensure the quality fo the survey then i wouldn't consider them to be quality surveys in the first place, in fact, i think a real qualiy survey is one where it's so good that quality and integrity isn't even an issue to begin with and therefore such methods would be unnecessary but maybe my standards are too high)

I don't really follow your logic here.  If a survey company took no preventative measures against fraud, it would be inundated with false responses and panelists in a matter of weeks, if not days.  What makes a survey "good" for you (e.g. no chance of DQ) would make it terrible for the survey provider.  And again, they write the checks.  When you go to a restaurant you do not expect to be told how your steak should be cooked.  You are paying for it and you get to choose.  It's the same for surveys.  They are ordering, and paying for, particular responses from particular demographics, and they don't want to pay for fraudulent responses. 

i dont' disagree that DQs occur for those reasons, which is prefectly unsrestandble, it's however also possible, and more likely than one would conjecture, that there are actually surveys, like offers, that similarily 'credit' improperly or are expired but in a quite subtle method. this is hwere the "apaprent DQs" are rooted from.

basically, different ways of producing thes ame results.

It's possible that they are silently DQing without proper cause.  But for most surveys, they have a large multinational firm behind them.  Engaging in some kind of deceptive "occasionally don't credit some people" practices would open them up to huge liability (there are contracts in place, after all).  I am more willing to admit that some traditional advertisers (not surveys) have engaged in practices like that, but when we detect it, we cut all ties.

On a side note, and please don't take this personally -- are you drunk?  I've never seen you type like this before!  I don't mind, just curious

[lmavans]

i am not getting to quailify for surveys either.

[Stealth3si]

(IMHO if a survey needs to take these kinds of 'preventative' measure to ensure the quality fo the survey then i wouldn't consider them to be quality surveys in the first place, in fact, i think a real qualiy survey is one where it's so good that quality and integrity isn't even an issue to begin with and therefore such methods would be unnecessary but maybe my standards are too high)

I don't really follow your logic here.  If a survey company took no preventative measures against fraud, it would be inundated with false responses and panelists in a matter of weeks, if not days.  What makes a survey "good" for you (e.g. no chance of DQ) would make it terrible for the survey provider.  And again, they write the checks.  When you go to a restaurant you do not expect to be told how your steak should be cooked.  You are paying for it and you get to choose.  It's the same for surveys.  They are ordering, and paying for, particular responses from particular demographics, and they don't want to pay for fraudulent responses.  

i dont' disagree that DQs occur for those reasons, which is prefectly unsrestandble, it's however also possible, and more likely than one would conjecture, that there are actually surveys, like offers, that similarily 'credit' improperly or are expired but in a quite subtle method. this is hwere the "apaprent DQs" are rooted from.

basically, different ways of producing thes ame results.

It's possible that they are silently DQing without proper cause.  But for most surveys, they have a large multinational firm behind them.  Engaging in some kind of deceptive "occasionally don't credit some people" practices would open them up to huge liability (there are contracts in place, after all).  I am more willing to admit that some traditional advertisers (not surveys) have engaged in practices like that, but when we detect it, we cut all ties.

On a side note, and please don't take this personally -- are you drunk?  I've never seen you type like this before!  I don't mind, just curious

even tho i don't disagree, none of my posts are are referring to prevenatitiev measures, DQs, quality, integrtiy and good surveys that are based on particular responses from particular demographics; that's dandy and all because all surveys by nature must pre-screen/qualify. so the idea of a"good" survey of there being no chance to DQ, as well as the steak analogy, doesn't apply (or even exist) to what i'm particularly saying. what i'm tryint to say is if a survey neeeds to pull a 'trick' from their sleeve, (i.e. select thsi option for seucity purposes, to confirm your place in our survey, or even oen from a qualitric surveys where the very frist qustion was a physco-social test to see if i was paying attention) it may not be a good quality survey to begin with. many surveys are like these naturally. so i have no qualms with this 'prevenative' measure against fraud to ensure their survey answers are integral/good quality and by definition they should do it to protect themsevles.  it jsut means,l to me, if they're paying for this it doesn't mean their attempt to secure their survey is not a sound financial investment, it just means that they haven''t figured out a way yet how to create a good survey without having to pay extra security measures as part of their assurance plan. as for the last paragraph i'm glad FC 'purnes' out the 'bad' ones but what i'm actually referring to are "unintentional DQs" that has mroe to do with the (systematic network implementatoin of the) survey itself than about unethical survey practices.

I drink but I am not drunk!

[marcee30]

I have been kicked out of FC surveys as soon as I open them...I mean are they going off the info from the last survey? Literally I would finish one don't qualify and try to do another and soon as it opens there it is in RED saying "Unfortunately You Do Not Qualify For This Survey" I wasn't even given the opportunity to even start it....so confused

[darrell1960]

in the past but ok now

[alishalynn]

i think it would be nice if it somehow preapproved us for a survey.. for example only show us surveys the fit our age, income level, race, sex, job, ect. this would eliminate a lot of the problems with answering questions and finding you dont qualify.... since there are different sites i dont know if that is even possible...  :-

[Administrator]

i think it would be nice if it somehow preapproved us for a survey.. for example only show us surveys the fit our age, income level, race, sex, job, ect. this would eliminate a lot of the problems with answering questions and finding you dont qualify.... since there are different sites i dont know if that is even possible...  :-

If you have completed your profile surveys accurately and completely, then you will be pre-screened based on those answers whereever possible.  But let's say you're Snapple, and you want to survey Snapple drinkers.  We might have a profile question where you can indicate that you drink iced tea, so we can target to that - but who knows if you drink Snapple in particular?

Hopefully this illustrates why you will sometimes qualify and sometimes not, even though we do our best to pre-screen.  We just can't have 5,000 profile questions that cover every possible aspect of your lives.  There has to be a balance between detail and not taking too much time to fill out.

[rpse1927]

fusi8on cash please fix the surveys so we can quilfyandn get paid for it

[falcon9]

fusi8on cash please fix the surveys so we can quilfyandn get paid for it

Also, please intervene with the supernatural beings responsible for lotto drawings so that we can all win that as well.  Thanks in advance.

[IceKittyNM]

fusi8on cash please fix the surveys so we can quilfyandn get paid for it

Also, please intervene with the supernatural beings responsible for lotto drawings so that we can all win that as well.  Thanks in advance.

LOL!!!!!