|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Mar 1, 2014 21:32:54 GMT -9
Just a small sample pre-survey question based on some discussion amongst the Communication Committee about the types of email people like to get. Thanks for answering this poll. There will be more in depth questions on a membership survey that will be coming out fairly soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by akgh519 on Mar 2, 2014 0:27:26 GMT -9
Are you asking what kind of information we would like to receive via email?
|
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Mar 2, 2014 1:06:40 GMT -9
Log in via your browser to see and vote in the poll. The web app doesn't show polls for some reason.
The choices are:
Plain Text only
Rich Formated Text (bold, colors, links, but no images)
HTML formated with mostly text and a couple Images
Full HTML (like a webpage) with lots of Images and "Flash"
|
|
|
|
Post by fuzzybelly on Mar 2, 2014 6:31:13 GMT -9
sorry I don't understand what those differences are, but there's no need to explain, it wont help  So I'm hesitant to vote on this poll so as not to skew the numbers. I like e-mails. |
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Mar 2, 2014 8:41:33 GMT -9
Easy fuzzy... Do you like email that is all words or email that is full of pictures?
|
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Mar 2, 2014 10:04:13 GMT -9
I voted for "Rich Formatted Text" because it displays on all devices (computers to tablets to smarty phones to iToys) and downloads very quickly while providing the possibility to click to other sites for more detailed information.
My concerns about any e-mail communication containing html and images include: browser compatibility (not all browsers interpret html the same way), slower downloads, having to right-click on images blocked by e-mail applications to view them (most people won't click), and pushing folks with small inboxes over their quotas due to the naturally larger file size.
Another good poll question could be about content. If information has already been distributed via other means by other entities (e.g. the Groundspeak Weekly Mailer), how much effort should GeocacheAlaska! put into repeating the message? |
|
|
|
Post by fuzzybelly on Mar 2, 2014 20:00:47 GMT -9
Easy fuzzy... Do you like email that is all words or email that is full of pictures? I like pictures, maybe even more than words so which is that one, I mean pictures and words? In fact, can you do it more like Egyptian writing, with pictures only? Now that would be good. |
|
|
|
Post by fuzzybelly on Mar 2, 2014 20:06:42 GMT -9
I voted for "Rich Formatted Text" because it displays on all devices (computers to tablets to smarty phones to iToys) and downloads very quickly while providing the possibility to click to other sites for more detailed information.
My concerns about any e-mail communication containing html and images include: browser compatibility (not all browsers interpret html the same way), slower downloads, having to right-click on images blocked by e-mail applications to view them (most people won't click), and pushing folks with small inboxes over their quotas due to the naturally larger file size.
Another good poll question could be about content. If information has already been distributed via other means by other entities (e.g. the Groundspeak Weekly Mailer), how much effort should GeocacheAlaska! put into repeating the message? OMG now what (bewildered smiley) Seriously. I would rather an e-mail that makes it as easy as possible to the most widely available audience as possible, while adding links, or directions to access added information, while wording it in such a way as to encourage the next step. In turn adding visits to those avenues. |
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Mar 2, 2014 20:16:47 GMT -9
I agree with more text and less images. Not a problem to have a logo image or some sideline image as long as the message creator takes into consideration people's download attention spans and keeps such images sized in the less than 15Kb range. To me, images that exceed about 50Kb or so cross the line into my personal time, especially when downloading through an Edge cell network that mimics a 28K dial up modem.
HTML formatted messages tend to display poorly on cell phones, and in many cases do not display at all. Not everyone has the latest model of iPhone or Galaxy. There are a LOT of users of low-end smart phones. I primarily look at email on my phone. When I sit down at my PC, I open up Outlook and download messages from 10 different email accounts (most of which are GCAK related addresses), but I generally don't spend a lot of time reading the messages, especially if I already saw the forwarded message on my phone.
Again, the last thing I want to do is spend a bunch of time waiting for images to download. All the email clients that I use (iPhone, Outlook, and Gmail) automatically block any images that are hosted on the internet and referenced to the email with HTML formatting. So, when I see a mostly blank page with image placeholders (especially when the sender didn't bother to format the HTML tags to show proper image dimension placeholders along with alternate text tags, which I suspect is something that a lot of these auto mail programs don't do), I'm not inclined to click on the permission to download those images.
One key reason why people who are selling stuff like to remote host images is that they get feedback statistics when the email recipient downloads the image. There's a handshake between your computer and their server. So they get to see who's looking. With spammers, that pushes your email address up to the active target list. Next thing you know, you're getting more spam. I'd just as well not have the email sender know if I've read their email or not.
To that end, as the Chair of the Communications Committee, I have zero desire to appear "spam-like" to our members. I don't want to gather usage or viewer statistics from anyone. All we want to do is deliver pertinent messages about geocaching in Alaska that our members might be interested in. We're working on developing specific communication protocols for how we contact our members. These couple polls I've placed in here serve only as a preliminary test of the question. So any discussion or observations from our members is welcomed and encouraged in either of these threads.
|
|
|
|
Post by fuzzybelly on Mar 2, 2014 21:03:47 GMT -9
To that end, as the Chair of the Communications Committee, I have zero desire to appear "spam-like" to our members. I don't want to gather usage or viewer statistics from anyone. All we want to do is deliver pertinent messages about geocaching in Alaska that our members might be interested in. We're working on developing specific communication protocols for how we contact our members. These couple polls I've placed in here serve only as a preliminary test of the question. So any discussion or observations from our members is welcomed and encouraged in either of these threads. This is an important message to me. Frankly I don't do as much as I'd like on the web due to my distrust. In fact, as an extremist on this issue, i'd love for us to focus on this and market it more. I like what I hear from you JOAT. I'm fairly sure many of our members feel the same way, and that may be a reason we have the low precipitation that we do. Just a thought. |
|
|
|
Post by NeverSummer on Mar 3, 2014 19:02:47 GMT -9
Are we talking about newsletter emails? Fundraising emails? News announcement emails? What? You can't lump all email types into one poll. Also, do all members have a grasp of what is meant, possible, or available to them for each email type? And then, not all html emails are created equal. One cannot base their desire for one email type or another based on a misconception, or a poor representation of what is possible for them.
I think context is important for the poll, and therefore the poll might not net the results which should be applicable to the myriad of situations in which we find email communication. This poll could be used to make a conclusion that the poll was not written to draw.
I like some things to come to me in rich text, and others to come in an "html" email.
Depending on what it is one is trying to communicate, different approaches are applicable. I think not being able to choose more than one option in the poll is also troublesome for that reason.
Depending on what JOAT meant by "I have zero desire to appear "spam-like" to our members. I don't want to gather usage or viewer statistics from anyone," we could be throwing a baby out with bathwater.
"Spamming" membership would be a realistic label if emails were sent often about rather banal things. If the email has a strong purpose, then it should go to membership. But, if I want to consume organizational information, I look for the monthly news, and also any important announcements that may come out in between such as fundraising, fundraising goals, or other important announcements or news that don't make it into a newsletter.
In terms of "gathering usage or viewer statistics", I'm not sure what is meant there. If it is logging for user input data (Google search anyone?), then I can see why we would want to stay away from it.
But, if it is something like some of the direct emailing software out there, the tracking of certain things assists in business and membership reporting to better the organization's outreach efforts. It's not logging your credit card or address, but rather if someone might click the link on an email that takes them to the membership sign-up webpage or a coin sale page.
It is also good to note that most successful, modern, effective email template programs also provide an option to select a plain-text email or an html email for each subscriber. That means John Doe might want plaintext, but Jane Doe wants html. The same email can be created within a program and delivered to their inboxes in the style they prefer.
|
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Mar 4, 2014 17:04:38 GMT -9
If you have a better way to phrase the poll question for the membership survey, please provide it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Mar 4, 2014 18:10:59 GMT -9
If you have a better way to phrase the poll question for the membership survey, please provide it. For someone familiar with the terminology, I think the questions are phrased fine. What I do suggest are screenshots of each format to go with the questions to help folks not familiar with the terminology to understand, along with additional explanatory text (much like has been written in here) to explain the pros/cons of each. Otherwise, some people will be prone to vote by what appears "prettiest" without understanding the potential pitfalls. |
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Mar 4, 2014 18:40:15 GMT -9
I had been thinking about screenshots as well. We do have the ability to put up some information on the survey pages to show/explain the different options. And if things are too complicated to embed within the survey itself, the Webmaster can make a special webpage on our site that shows the information via a link from the survey page. So you could ask the question and then have a link that says, "click here to see a description and examples of the different types of email".
|
|
|
|
Post by southeastalaska on Mar 5, 2014 16:57:51 GMT -9
Done.
|
|
|
|
Post by lunchlady495 on Mar 5, 2014 17:06:10 GMT -9
Rich Formated Text (bold, colors, links, but no images)
This is what I will vote for, it sounds like this would work on all devices simply and clearly
|
|
cavyguy
Silver Cacher
Posts: 175
GeocacheAlaska! Membership Level: Sourdough
|
Post by cavyguy on Mar 5, 2014 23:41:33 GMT -9
I voted but don't have a problem with any format.
|
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Mar 19, 2014 18:25:52 GMT -9
Email should be no stronger than RTF, as we want quickest-loading / least spam-like look. In most cases it's about information transfer. We can provide links for images; then folks can choose to go there (or not, if they're using a smart phone but aren't in good data range, etc etc). Fuzzy likes the message clean and simple; I like the message to be clean, simple, and give options for more if needed. Key is "options" rather than heavily-amped email. Again, we can give folks choices if they want to click on the link and see the pictures...
|
|
So I'm hesitant to vote on this poll so as not to skew the numbers.
