1. What are strengths and weaknesses of Web-based surveys in comparison with other types of data collection methods?
   1. Strength
      1. popular
      2. efficiency: interviewer need not be present, yet can still mimic interview (“analogous to the instance where an interviewer asks a series of questions with the same response categories, and the respondent… answers more quickly” (Couper, pg. 236))
      3. cost
   2. Weakness
      1. quality is variable (Couper, pg. 230)
      2. “unlimited set of design choices” (Couper, pg. 230) combined with the fact that the design “may be extremely important to obtaining unbiased answers from respondents” (Couper, pg. 231)
      3. variability: the “auxiliary features (design elements) can facilitate or distract from the task of completing the survey” (Couper, pg. 231)
      4. inability to “force respondents to answer every question” (Roster, pg. 128); the opposite was also portrayed by Roster to be a potential strength eliminating non-response; non-response (Roster, pg. 132)
      5. variability: depending on the effort necessary to answer the question (Couper, pg. 236)
      6. dependency (e.g. on hand-eye coordination (Couper, pg. 236) or computer skills (Roster, pg. 128))
      7. dependency that the interviewee even uses or understands computers/internet (Couper, pg. 241 Response Rates); inability to access survey (Roster, pg. 129)
      8. invitation to survey looks like “spam” (Roster, pg. 128)
      9. bias (Roster, pg. 129)
      10. “online respondents tend to avoid extreme ends of scales” (Roster, pg. 132); or is this a strength?
   3. Wash
      1. limiting “ballot-stuffing” (Couper, pg. 242)
      2. confidentiality (Couper, pg. 242)
2. What could be done to enhance the strengths and reduce the weaknesses of a Web-based survey?
   1. Establish research standards for online surveys, either through a service (e.g. SurveyMonkey or academic institution) or code book of ethics (such as the Web Standards Project proposes); this reduces variability weakness
   2. Audio and graphic stimuli (Roster, pg. 127); this could assist the interviewee with low computer skills
3. Which parts of the articles do you like or dislike the most?
   1. Like
      1. Depth of research
         1. Couper takes the time to analyze whether the progress clock was beneficial (showing completion) or detrimental (causing latent downloads)
         2. Couper analyzes radio buttons versus entry boxes (Couper, pg. 246)
      2. Willingness to include the potential that some survey abandonment may have “resulted from software problems” (Couper, pg. 249)
      3. That the article was from and referenced Michigan was fun for me!
   2. Dislike
      1. Any use of statistics
      2. Initially, I’m concerned that Roster surveyed on furniture which might traditionally be of interest to an older demographic that isn’t very proficient at computers (this issue was touched by Roster, pg. 129); The results discuss the demographics of respondents but I don’t see the exact questions listed anywhere.  I’m confused as to what the survey actually consisted of.  I will read the article again.  After second reading, I still don’t see a mention of the survey used or scripting.  I don’t like this type of article.
      3. I don’t like the “which mode is best?” question Roster presents (pg. 133) because I don’t believe in a “best” mode.  Perhaps a “most appropriate mode” can be sought but the researcher must be aware of all variables rather than seeking the “best” mode.
4. How are you going to use Web-based surveys in your own research?

I’m going to survey athletes individually.  I must be aware of the differences in computer skills.  I also will be aware of the stream of contact to reach the athlete.  In other words, if I convey the web survey link to the athlete himself via Twitter it will have a much different result (I expect) than if the athlete were required to take the web survey in a computer lab at the prodding of his coach or school administrator.  I am drawn to the web survey method because of the apparent strengths of low cost and high efficiency.  I am seeking to present high quality, a hopeful result of my training at MSU.  I will limit all auxiliary features.  I simply want answers to my questions.  I want “loose” answers.  For example, I want the athlete to feel comfortable enough to give me an honest answer.  I want to limit distractions and the possibility of withdrawals so I will make my survey short and succinct (20 minutes).  I also believe that the athlete will be drawn to completing the survey because the survey is asking questions about the athlete’s “most important” subject: himself (assumption).  I will attempt to avoid spam-appearance either by delivering the survey by way of forward from the school administrator or spreading the survey through “word of mouth” (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, and social-networks).  I feel that spreading the survey through online social networks will increase the likelihood of completion but may slant the results.