This is version 1.1 of the tutorial dated December 8, 2009. Post suggestions for improvements to this tutorial here.

You need to register as a user and sign in to provide feedback. Please understand that your identity will not be revealed (see disclaimer below). I need to prevent "bots" from generating responses and anonymous users from manipulating the feedback system. Your feedback will need to be "approved" prior to being included in a resource's feedback; I will need to check that all feedback is free from obscenity and derogatory and/or defamatory statements. See this FAQ for a further explanation of the nature of the approval process.

After you have signed in and accessed the application, you will need to choose a particular resource to rate. If that resource has multiple categories, specialties, or delivery methods, choose the appropriate option based on how you used the resource. Note: Currently the ratings are not broken out beyond the "Resource" level, so the selection of category, specialty, and delivery method will not have any noticeable impact. You may also optionally enter service dates.

Questions Tab:
You must answer all ten questions on the questions tab. You may not leave any question blank, nor is there a "N/A" type of answer. The responses to each question are aggregated and averaged individually; that is to say, all the responses to question number one will be combined and displayed as an average result, and likewise for the remaining nine questions. As the questions are meant to provide consistent feedback across the differing types of resources, there may be some confusion as to how to interpret some of the wording. The questions are likely understood most easily when you are rating a service provider. Here are brief descriptions of the intent of each question; the clarification is geared more towards how to interpret the questions for the non "service provider" (i.e. non-human) resources. Non "service provider" resources are inanimate objects such as books, seminars, and websites. "Service provider" resources are actual human beings.

How knowledgeable and easy to understand is this resource? For non-human resources evaluate the content within that resource for the amount of knowledge imparted and how easy it was to find and understand the knowledge. For service providers rate your impression of the knowledge they possessed relative to your specific needs and how well they conveyed that knowledge.

How would you rate the professionalism of this resource? For non-human resources evaluate things like the layout, organization, and appropriateness of the tone. For service providers evaluate things like appearance, language, and punctuality.

How satisfied are you with the [customer] service you received? For non-human resources evaluate the accessibility and availability. For service providers evaluate their flexibility and ability and willingness to work with you to meet your needs.

How would you rate the overall quality of [your relationship with] this resource? For non-human resources evaluate the tangible, material aspects of the resource. For service providers evaluate the interpersonal skills and your comfort level in being open and honest.

How satisfied are you with the price of this resource? Evaluate how well this resource falls within your expected dollar cost for this type of resource. This rating is focused on how the price of this resource compares to the "going rate." (See note on following question to distinguish between the two)

How satisfied are you with the value of this resource? Evaluate how well you received your money's worth. It is possible to pay a low monetary price (even free) and still not feel that you received any real value. It is also possible to pay a high monetary price and feel that you got far more than your money's worth. This rating is focused on how much you would be willing to pay for it if you were to set your own price.

How likely are you to use [the services of] this resource again? For non-human resources evaluate how likely you are to reference the materials again in the future. For service providers evaluate how likely you would be to hire this person again if the need arose.

How likely are you to recommend [the services of] this resource to others? This question is interpreted the same for non-human resources and service providers; the brackets were simply used for grammatical correctness.

Compared to other resources of this type, how would you rate this resource? There is no differentiation in the interpretation of this question for one resource versus another. This question might be answered along the lines of "It's great, if you like that sort of thing." You may have discovered that the resource was not your particular preference; rate it without discounting any points for that fact.

What is your overall level of satisfaction with this resource? This is the typical summary evaluation; if somebody wanted the two-second analysis, this is the question to which they would look for the answer.

Comments tab:
You are not required to leave any comments. However, realize that people probably get the most helpful information from the free response comments that others leave. It is simply too difficult to design a numerically scaled questionnaire that completely (or maybe even accurately) captures all of an individual's experience. Your comments will be kept strictly confidential within my best ability to make it so. Please take the time to include some type of comment and be has honest and sincere as you can be.

Disclaimer: The only opportunity for a service provider to link feedback with a specific person is upon entry of the first feedback record for that provider. As stated above, I need to verify with each provider that a given user has, in fact, utilized their services prior to approving the feedback to appear. In this one case it is theoretically possible that the service provider could go to the database to see the results and comments for that one rating and know who had provided that entry. One way I am considering addressing this issue to is to hold back on approving the feedback until there is a second feedback entry approved for that provider.