Mistica | homepage
Evaluations
português
français
español
Your previous page Project Overview | Virtual Community | Pilot Projects | Clearinghouse | Events | Cyberlibrary Your next page

EMEC EVALUATION RESULTS, July 2000

The commentaries from Mistica Coordination can be found at the end of this page

 

NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS 234  
NUMBER OF ANSWERS 28 12%

GENERAL QUESTIONS

I entered the Mistica VC
VAR % TOTAL/AVERAGE
before september 1999   79% 22 1 1 1     1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1     1 1
after september 1999   21% 6       1 1   1                     1             1 1    

I am subscribed to (multiple replies possible):
Mistica in Spanish   93% 26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1
Mistica in English   18% 5                       1   1 1                 1   1    
Mistica in Portuguese   11% 3                       1     1             1            
Mistica in French   14% 4               1       1     1               1          
Mistica in different languages   21% 6               1       1     1             1   1   1    

My mother tongue (or working tongue) is
Spanish   71% 20     1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1     1 1 1   1 1 1 1  
English   7% 2 1                         1                            
Portuguese   4% 1                                   1                    
French   11% 3   1           1                             1          
Other   7% 2                                     1                 1

If I receive Mistica mails in more than one language it is because:
I understand more than one language   18% 5                       1   1 1             1   1        
I did not fully understand how to subscribe   4% 1 1                                                      
I want to receive messages in the original language   25% 7 1   1                 1       1             1 1   1    
I want to practice Spanish   4% 1               1                                        


Multlingualism enhances the communication inside a VC 0.48   4.02 4 4 3 4 2 5 3 3 5 5 4 5 4 3 5 4 5 5 2 4 5 3 4 5 4 5 3 5
EMEC helps to manage information "overload" 0.58   3.66 3 5 4 4 5 5 2 5 5 3 5   4 2 5 4 4 3 1 3 4 4 2 5   1 4 3
EMEC saves time 0.57   3.57 3 4 4 2 3 5 3 4 5 3 5 3 4 4 5 5 4 3 1 5 4 4 2 5 4 1 2 3

I invest time saved through EMEC in
Mistica   18% 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0  
profesional activity   71% 20 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1
personal activity   7% 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0  

EMEC enhances my participation in the list 0.55   2.55 1 3 3       3 3     2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3   2 4 1 2 3   1 3 3

I read original messages
Once each 10 messages   32% 9 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Once each 5 messages   39% 11 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0  
less than five times since beginning   18% 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0  
for each message   11% 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  
never   0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  

If you do not read the original messages, it is because
I do not have enough time   11% 3         1         1               1                    
I am interested only in synthesis   4% 1               1                                        
it takes too long to access messages via the website   4% 1                                                   1    
few messages interest me   7% 2           1                               1            
I am new to the list   4% 1             1                                          

METHODOLOGY

The Moderation is
as it should be   85% 24 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1
not severe enough   4% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  
too severe   11% 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1  


Free comments regarding the moderation

  • Messages selected so that they do not deviate from the objective of the list
  • Messages are selected so that the objectives do not get lost; moreover selection aims not to saturate users with superfluous information
  • Unlike what happens in other lists, I have never had any impression of censorship, and it is good that there is a I dialogue when a decision needs to be taken regarding whether a message should be sent or not
  • The messages are impartial, focused and concrete. That is a characteristic I have not encountered in most of the lists I am subscribed to
  • It is normal that there is moderation
  • It allows to maintain the objective and then to save time
  • In general list management is good as it allows freedom of participation without being rigid. A cordial and respectfull atmosphere exists in the community fundamentally starting from the quality of its members
  • It offers a clear idea of the content of the messages
  • We save time and we obtain important information
  • The messages that arrive to the list are adecuate
  • It plays a "transparency" role, it focuses on the content and origin of the message, but it doesn't include any personal comments
  • It is OK
  • The moderation is important because it saves time and helps people that don't understand the thematic
  • Everything seemes normal to me
  • I cannot know because I have never read a rejected message
  • There is no "without opinion" option although it is impossible to know if it is too severe or not
  • Superfluous messages don't appear

Information Form
Satisfaction with the structure of the mail ("Information form") 0.50   4.21 3 4 5 4 5 3 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 3 2 4 5 5 3 5 5 1 5 5

Is there any superfluous field ?
yes   18% 5 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0  
no   82% 23 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1

Superfluous fields are
author   0% -                                                        
title   7% 2           1                                       1    
date   4% 1                                                   1    
size of the original message (characters and lines)   7% 2                                             1     1    
keywords   11% 3 1                                           1     1    
synthesis   7% 2                                             1     1    
URL of the original message   4% 1                                             1          

Are there any fields that you consider necessary and that are not present in the
information form?

yes   32% 9 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1  
no   68% 19 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1


Keywords are too general   4% 1 1                                                      
There is no relationship with previous messages   4% 1                             1                          
There is no statistical data on contributions by theme   4% 1                             1                          
Header is too big and redundant   11% 3           1   1                                   1    
It should help to express projects                                         1                    


The precise title helps to know rapidly if the message is interesting 0.55   3.88 3 4 4 5 1 3 3 5 5 4 4 5     5 5 2 3 2 4 5 5 4 5 5 2 4  

Synthesis
Syntesis gives a possibility to save time 0.53   3.95 3 4 4 3 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 3 2 4 4 1 2 5 4   3 3
I like the idea to read the synthesis 0.50   4.14 5 3 5 3 3 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 4 2 4 4 1 4 5 5     5

Synthesis size (between 300 and 500 letters) is
too short   14% 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0  
correct   86% 24 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
too big   0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  


Synthesis quality is satisfactory   76% 3.81 4 3 3 4 5 5 3 4 5 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 5 5 4 3 5 4 2 3 5

Problems with the synthesis
It does not describe, it filters and loses substance; I do not the idea   21% 6   1             1     1     1       1             1    
"This is a synthesis" warning should be put in the header   4% 1           1                                            
It would be better to have a direct access to the original message in the original language   7% 2               1                                     1  
There are no problems as I can always check the original   7% 2                                 1             1        


Synthesis does reproduce general ideas and is relatively objective? 0.58   3.44 4 3 4 3 3 5 3 3 5 4 4 2 4 0 4 4 4 4 1 4 3 4 3 5 4 2 3 5

Keywords are
very well chosen   18% 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
well chosen   64% 18 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1  
satisfactory   4% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  
badly chosen   7% 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0  
very badly chosen   0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  
no opinion   7% 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0  


TRANSLATIONS


I receive messages in

my mother tongue   79% 22     1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1   1 1 1  
no reply   11% 3 1 1                       1                            
in the language(s) I speak best   32% 9               1         1   1 1     1   1 1   1       1


In general, the idea of translation seems 0.41   4.37 5 5 5 4 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 5 4 3 5 4 4 5 3 4 4 4 3 5 5   4 5
In particular :
Translations of synthesis and headers 0.50   3.76 3 4 4 3 1 5   5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 5 3 3 4 4 2 3 3 4 5 5
Automatic translations of the original messages 0.52   3.29 3 3 3 3 1 3     5 3 2 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3   5 5
Writing rules 0.58   3.47 1 5 3 4 1 5   4 5 3 4 3 4   4 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 5   3 1

Remarks on writing rules
complicated   7% 2
distort the natural communication process   14% 4
make understanding and reading easier   7% 2
acceptable   11% 3
important and necessary   11% 3
not important   4% 1

Do you follow the writing rules?
no   11% 3
yes/I try to/I do it   25% 7

Were you familiar with the writing rules before reading this questionnary?
yes   61% 17 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1  
no   39% 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1

ASSOCIATED WEBSITE

Level of satisfaction with the site 0.63   3.62 2 4 3 2 1 X 4 3 5 5 4 4 5 0 4 5 4 3 2 4 5 4 1 5 5 4 5 5


Free comments regarding the site

  • Surfing problems and lack of time
  • The structure could be improved
  • I find slightly disordered. Have you seen governance page? That would be an easier way to find articles one needs.
  • I have practically not accessed it
  • Depending on time and on the subject, I go and check the web
  • I was not interested enough in it
  • I find it to be one of the best structured from those that I have visited
  • It allows me to enlarge the horizon of the idea, it often helps me to put ideas in a context
  • It contains good information
  • External links do not always work
  • It is an excellent resource that allows to enlarge the options and to have a better understanding of what the author wishes to say
  • The cognitive process in the understanding of the texts is very complex. The options of help should be equally complex
  • I consider it very appropriate and functional
  • Let us look for a simpler presentation and that allows us to interact
  • I find the graphic design to be poor. I believe that you could design a nicer page which, with the same size, would nevertheless have a more user-friendly structure
  • I have carried out consultations of attached documents and I found them well organized thematics, author, dates).
  • It is easy to find what you are looking for, and the access speed is acceptable.
  • Lack of time
  • Messages generally in Spanish
  • It has been useful
  • It offers a clear and useful information
  • It is simple, without a lot of creativity, but it is effective for the ends it tries to reach
  • It is a fantastic work of enormous dimensions! Congratulations...
  • It is very complete

Quality of design 0.61   3.04 3 3 3 3 1 X 3 4 5 3 3 3 4 X 3 4 4 1 1 2 5 4 4 2 3 1 4 3
Navigation 0.62   3.15 1 3 3 3 2 X 3 4 5 0 4 4 4 X 4 4 4 2 1 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 5 3
Integral message elements on the pages 0.44   3.96 3 4 3 4 5 X 3 5 5 4 4 5 4 X 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 5 3 5 5 3 4 3

Is there any superfluous field?
yes   29% 8 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1  
no   71% 20 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1

Superfluous fields are:
link towards reference message   4% 1                                                        
link towards the message in other languages   4% 1                                                        

Is there any necessary field that does not appear in this information header?
yes   36% 10 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1  
no   61% 17 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0  

What elements should be present?
title   4% 1                         1                              
link towards the synthesis   4% 1                                   1                    
it is not very interactive   4% 1                                             1          

Do you visit only one page or do you surf through the site?
yes, I surf   57% 16 1       1     1 1 1   1 1   1   1 1   1 1   1 1   1 1  
I just read the relevant message   18% 5   1                           1     1     1     1      

PROPOSALS

I would like to have the option not to have my message translated 0.69   2.93   1 4 4     2         1 3   3 4 4 3 1 1 3     5   5    
I would like to have the option never to have my messages translated 0.66   2.85   1 5       3         1 3 2   4 4 3 1 4 3         3    
I would like to have the option to send my own synthesis 0.44   4.39   3 5 5 5 5 4   5     5 4   4 4 4 5 5 2 4 5   5   3 5 5
I would like to select the languages in which I will receive the messages 0.50   4.24   4 5 5 5     5 5     1 4 4 4 5 4 3 5 5 4 5 2 5     4 5
I would like to receive a message without synthesis 0.59   3.56   4 1 5   3           3 2   4 4 4 3 5 4 3 5 1 5   3 5  

Should synthesis size be changed?
no, it is fine like this   65% 18 1 1 1   1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1             1 1   1 1
without opinion   21% 6       1     1             1         1   1 1            
it should be bigger   14% 4                                   1   1     1     1    


I would like to receive only the messages related with the themes I am interested in 0.47   4.18   2 5 4 5 5 5     5 3 4 3   4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 2 5   5   5


I would like to receive the original message (or its translation) without having to access the web 0.54   4.04 5 5     5 5 3   5 5   4 2   5 4 4 3 5 1 4 4 3 5 4 5 2 5


General comments at the end of evaluation



COMMENTARIS ON BEHALF OF COORDINATION

It has been the highest answer rate in an evaluation since the beginning of Mistica. It has been achieved by a personal mail to the members of the "silent majority" of the VC (those that never contribute nor evaluate).

Basically EMEC fully satisfies this group. On the contrary, the proactive people feel that the methodology distorts the spontaneity and that it excessively slows down the participation.

It appears that a methodology able to customize the settings would be able to satisfy all participants, and that is the essence of what the second version of EMEC will be.

There is consensus that although Emec helps to manage the information overload and to facilitate the communication between cultures, it reduces the motivation for the participation.

Another additional methodology is necessary to compensate this natural limitation of the Emec methodology .

There is consensus on the fact that the automatic translation gives mediocre results, although it contributes to discussion to some extent.

We had confirmation of a phenomenon verified from the beginning of the project: firm but ethical moderation is satisfactory.

There are not important comments on how to improve the management of the EMEC methodology. This reinforces the conviction of the coordination that the next investments should be focused on the automation (already initiated) and on achieving, thanks to a database system, that each participant can define the form of interface with the list that (s)he prefers, as far as synthesis and translation are concerned.

Thanks to everyone!


Your previous page Back to top Your next page
Credits | Site Map | E-mail: <webmistica@funredes.org>
http://funredes.org/mistica/english/evaluations/resevalemecen.html
Latest modification: 03/08/2000