Thank you to all 1920 of you who responded to the survey: that's more than double the number of people who responded to the 2011 survey (which was run in November 2011), so it's given me some valuable feedback.
As you'll recall, the survey consisted of quantitative questions (that you marked 1-6), and free text questions. The former were the same as those asked in 2011 (and in 2010 for that matter) so direct comparisons can be made to determine whether you think the aspects of the site that were asked about have improved or not.
Here are this year's satisfaction scores compared to the 2011 scores:
The method of calculating the scores is that used by my last employer in their customer satisfaction survey. You can read how they are determined on the sidebar of 2013 survey results page, which also provides links to enable you to read the responses to the free text questions.
As you can see, most of the scores are better than those in 2011, which is good to see. I'm was also glad to see that the number of people who responded to the question "If you rated any of the [questions above] poor or very poor, please tell us why" was just 230, about 12% of the total which indicates that the rest of you didn't have too much to complain about.
I will be going through the responses to that question, and "What ONE thing do you think should be done to improve Brickset?" in the coming days, and I'll report back with my response and action plan.
However, for now, let's consider the three scores that have gone down since 2011:
The site's design: I totally understand why the site's design scored lower than before: the site is (IMO) perfectly functional and easy on the eye, but a redesign is long overdue. It's starting to look a little dated compared to other LEGO fan sites that have popped up recently, although, I hope you'll agree, it's still much nicer than many of the LEGO sites out there. Work is actually already underway to redesign the site but it will have to be done very carefully and thoughtfully to avoid alienating those that do like it as it is.
I'm slightly surprised that ease of use has scored lower, since that hasn't really changed, although I guess that could be why: maybe people's expectation has increased.
Quality of images: I need to read the comments to get to the bottom of this, but I think people want them to be bigger, and for old sets, better. We do try and hold a high standard for set images, but often it's a case of using whatever we can get hold of, or what people send us. We don't have some mysterious source where we can obtain them from, and LEGO certainly don't send them to us. Would no picture be better than a bad one? Probably not.
On the positive side,
Quality and relevance of the news: Very glad to see your perception of this has improved significantly. It's due in no small part to the excellent team of contributors we have writing for us now.
Quality of set reviews: I suspect this has increased so much because of the reviews we now post on the home page, although perhaps it's also because you can filter out those written by users that you are not interested in.
The forum: I'm slightly surprised that this has scored highly. I like the forum, and those that use it do, too, but the majority of the complaints in response to the question "If you rated any of the [questions above] poor or very poor, please tell us why" relate to the forum and it appears to be because it's different to others, like Eurobricks. I guess my initial response to that is that nobody is forcing you to use the forum, if you prefer Eurobricks, then use it: the Brickset forum was never intended to compete with EB, but to complement it. EB itself has improved considerably over the last year. I still don't care for all the clutter on the desktop version of the site, but the mobile version is a joy to read now.
Anyway, I'll be reading the comments over the next few days and I encourage you to do the same. I'll report back when I've done so...
Commenting has ended on this article.