From a cursory glance at their website, sure. From having actually used both of them, Qualtrics is far superior in its featureset and how that featureset is presented, although surveymonkey has got a lot better recently.

Geneally speaking my advice to the multimedia team would be "don't go near surveys". I've done a lot of them in the last 3 years, and the one thing I've learned is that surveys are very, very difficult to get right. Another thing I've learned is that if you don't get them right, the results are meaningless and it's hard to tell when that happens.

As I understand it, Jared's team is hiring a qualitatively-focused UX researcher or two in the upcoming budget to do research around design and feature usage; we should hold off until they come in, first because they're simply going to be better at it than we are, and second because it's probably going to be frustrating for them if they come in and find a tool locked in as How We Do Things (and frustrating for us if they want to change that tool):


On 29 April 2014 12:06, Mark Holmquist <mtraceur@member.fsf.org> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:56:58AM -0700, Leila Zia wrote:
> Mark, If you haven't looked at Qualtrics in the past, check it out.
> It has many more options than SurveyMonkey that can make it
> worthwhile specially if we are already paying for it.

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:34:21AM -0700, Mark Holmquist wrote:
> free [2]
> [2] https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Qualtrics is no better, AFAICT from a cursory glance at their Wikipedia
page and website.

--
Mark Holmquist
Software Engineer, Multimedia
Wikimedia Foundation
mtraceur@member.fsf.org
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:MHolmquist

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
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=MsE0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics




--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation