Hello from Boston!

[bqf2008]

I am pretty sure bqf2008 is legit and is associated with MIT.

Thank you for your endorsement

[bqf2008]

We are a vocal group here, and with lots of engineers and technical types, so you have a combination of personalities that will find all of your survey design errors, typos, etc. From comments above and what I have seen posted in past surveys, we get frustrated if the survey quality is low and we do not finish the survey.

I'm sorry to hear that the previous surveys suffered from all these problems. We have tried our best to maintain the quality of ours, though 100% free from errors can never be guaranteed. If you spot any typos or mistakes, please please let me know! I'll really appreciate that!

Also, our survey is targeting on a more general population that might not be all tech-savvy. This is why we tried to use the layman language instead of technical terms. But still, it's awesome to have all your feedbacks

[Mike90250]

The surveys faults are not terminology errors, but rather ignorance of the subject. You don't have a good idea What questions to ask. You don't know the likely answers, and the first block of 16 questions do not even talk about cost, just blind payback years.

[cebury]

I completed the entire survey.

Yeah the whole 7 pages of pick a vendor and 7 pages of pick a panel of using 25 year payback percentage was a little silly. But I take it they were attempting to measure which factor we valued more, payback vs. Independent rating vs. technology vs. Etc. I felt a liitle like "give me a text input box and I will tell you exactly my judgement criteria rather than you attempting to divine it out of me playing pick-a-card or 20 questions, ha". But that is inherent, to some level, in every survey.

Overall I didnt spot any major typos and it is obviously a legit survey from stanford.edu domain (with the midsurvey domain switching for the interactive vs. static questioning).
I take it you are already aware of the flaws in the 3 questions asking "select 1 here" and "choose no here" or what not?

Your Other and Please explain should be a height to allow at least 2 rows of text to be visible if you allow for that much to be entered. Specifically near the end in the appliances list there were comment boxes I couldnt read what I was typing.

You were doing 5, 15 and 25 year warranties. In CA the warranties were required to be 10 years by the installers dating back to at least the start of the CSI rebate program 2008? (someone can correct me here). So technically it is still in the CA "law" on the books and that, AFAIK, is why 10 years is the warranty standard in CA. Obviously manufacturers' equipment warranties can and are longer than this, but the installer warrants labor if shorter than 10 and if they are still around (under the same company name vs. Dude with a Ladder 2nd Time Around).

[bqf2008]

I completed the entire survey.

Yeah the whole 7 pages of pick a vendor and 7 pages of pick a panel of using 25 year payback percentage was a little silly. But I take it they were attempting to measure which factor we valued more, payback vs. Independent rating vs. technology vs. Etc. I felt a liitle like "give me a text input box and I will tell you exactly my judgement criteria rather than you attempting to divine it out of me playing pick-a-card or 20 questions, ha". But that is inherent, to some level, in every survey.

Overall I didnt spot any major typos and it is obviously a legit survey from stanford.edu domain (with the midsurvey domain switching for the interactive vs. static questioning).
I take it you are already aware of the flaws in the 3 questions asking "select 1 here" and "choose no here" or what not?

Your Other and Please explain should be a height to allow at least 2 rows of text to be visible if you allow for that much to be entered. Specifically near the end in the appliances list there were comment boxes I couldnt read what I was typing.

You were doing 5, 15 and 25 year warranties. In CA the warranties were required to be 10 years by the installers dating back to at least the start of the CSI rebate program 2008? (someone can correct me here). So technically it is still in the CA "law" on the books and that, AFAIK, is why 10 years is the warranty standard in CA. Obviously manufacturers' equipment warranties can and are longer than this, but the installer warrants labor if shorter than 10 and if they are still around (under the same company name vs. Dude with a Ladder 2nd Time Around).

Hi cebury,

Thank you for taking the survey and all your great comments!

For the questions asking "select 1 here" and "choose no here", these are actually quality control questions. They were included to catch respondents who did not even bother to read the questions and give us some criteria to judge the response quality.

Thanks for point out the problem with the comment boxes. Will make them larger!

As for the warranty: exactly as you pointed out in the first comment, what we consider here is how people make tradeoffs between different features. So we make each feature cover a range, and the range may go beyond that in the current market. Another example is the solar panel efficiency, the highest we present is 25.5%, which is higher than the most efficient panels nowadays. But we still include it as an expectation for the future panels. But still thank you for point this out! It's great to learn about the 10-year warranty requirement!

Thank you again for your support!