You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Ran into a logic limitation in SM where I had to repeat a question for different sub-groups of respondents (ie. same question asked in two different places). surveymonkey::parse_survey added "_2" and "_3" to the second and third instances of the question. This might indeed be exactly what we want as it's very explicit.
But then in my code I had to coalesce these questions into one column. Maybe we could add a "coalesce" argument to parse_survey, that would combine these duplicated questions.
There could be problems with this though. For example, if a respondent was able to answer the same question twice it would only keep the first response.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I considered this in #17. If it is a rigid choice between adding _2 or auto-coalescing, the former behavior is safer and matches the .csv export so I went with that. BUT I am intrigued by your proposed middle ground of a coalesce argument. I wonder how common this is; I would think <1% of surveys but on the other hand, this is the 2nd time it's come up.
I agree discussion is needed, we can leave as is while we (and I hope others eventually) discuss. Another option would be to provide a function that auto-coalesces the resulting data.frame, rather than adding an argument to parse_survey.
Ran into a logic limitation in SM where I had to repeat a question for different sub-groups of respondents (ie. same question asked in two different places). surveymonkey::parse_survey added "_2" and "_3" to the second and third instances of the question. This might indeed be exactly what we want as it's very explicit.
But then in my code I had to coalesce these questions into one column. Maybe we could add a "coalesce" argument to parse_survey, that would combine these duplicated questions.
There could be problems with this though. For example, if a respondent was able to answer the same question twice it would only keep the first response.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: