Jump to content

CRT survey - is it genuine


Featured Posts

Good evening , just had an email asking me to take part in a CRT survey from Janet Johnson,  survey@wh.snapsurveys.net. with the following text :-

Knowing what boaters think about the Canal & River Trust is very important to us, and we would therefore ask you to take part in our Annual Survey by clicking on the following link:
Take Part

Many thanks

 

 

I'm suspicious that this is a scam as nothing official logo wise or anything within unlike other crt surveys I have received and completed. Has anyone else received the same and is it genuine?

Edited by WhiteSuit
spelling correction
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rgreg said:

I have received and completed it. It did look different to usual but the content looks genuine.

What questions were asked and did it ask for personal details?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Midnight said:

What questions were asked and did it ask for personal details?

 

Just the usual satisfaction questions. No personal data other than the usual optional gender, age band etc at the very end. I wouldn't have submitted any personal details.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rgreg said:

Just the usual satisfaction questions. No personal data other than the usual optional gender, age band etc at the very end. I wouldn't have submitted any personal details.

Hmm maybe an independent, student or disgruntled boater looking for ammo to fire at CaRT. I'll be very surprised if that was an official survey.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Hmm maybe an independent, student or disgruntled boater looking for ammo to fire at CaRT. I'll be very surprised if that was an official survey.

 

Those were my initial thoughts

Link to post
Share on other sites

Janet Johnson appears to work for the CRT according to her LinkedIn profile.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/janet-johnson-222374129/?originalSubdomain=uk

It's quite typical for a company or organisation to use something like Snap Surveys (among others) for the purpose of sending out surveys and the bulk emails that are required to facilitate their distribution. All the data is collated and transformed into pretty graphs that can be shared among other employees, highlighting strengths and weaknesses among other things. It is far more efficient for companies to use something like this rather than create their own software for this purpose. I suspect this is genuine but it appears that they have not set up the survey very well and as such things like the sender's address, colour schemes & logos etc do not display correctly.

In general, if it's not asking for personal information/data, I wouldn't be too concerned though sure, CRT should probably have spent more time and thought on designing/configuring the CSAT survey.

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RichM said:

Janet Johnson appears to work for the CRT according to her LinkedIn profile.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/janet-johnson-222374129/?originalSubdomain=uk

It's quite typical for a company or organisation to use something like Snap Surveys (among others) for the purpose of sending out surveys and the bulk emails that are required to facilitate their distribution. All the data is collated and transformed into pretty graphs that can be shared among other employees, highlighting strengths and weaknesses among other things. It is far more efficient for companies to use something like this rather than create their own software for this purpose. I suspect this is genuine but it appears that they have not set up the survey very well and as such things like the sender's address, colour schemes & logos etc do not display correctly.

In general, if it's not asking for personal information/data, I wouldn't be too concerned though sure, CRT should probably have spent more time and thought on designing/configuring the CSAT survey.

 

So the first question should be "How do you rate the quality of our electronic communications?"

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also dismissed it a phishing/scam.  Another CRT cock-up!  Why not send it from a proper CRT email and put a link to the survey in the text?

This survey's results will now skew towards the more naive and credulous boaters, undermining the validity of any results.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

I also dismissed it a phishing/scam.  Another CRT cock-up!  Why not send it from a proper CRT email and put a link to the survey in the text?

This survey's results will now skew towards the more naive and credulous boaters, undermining the validity of any results.

Naive and credulous boaters are the best sort as far as CaRT is concerned. The waterways are in better condition than ever before! More water voles! More silly signs! Fewer boats! More stoppages! Higher license fees!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve checked with CRT and it’s genuine. I’ve said it’s a very poor show indeed and looked like a scam. Apparently those that received it and haven’t filled it in will be sent another link in a week or so. 
 

Ive been told they will be doing a communication about it soon...seems odd to announce it after it’s been sent but I make no comment! 
 

I’ve suggested some branding as they are keen to brand everything else and a CRT email might have been a good idea....

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

I also dismissed it a phishing/scam.  Another CRT cock-up!  Why not send it from a proper CRT email and put a link to the survey in the text?

This survey's results will now skew towards the more naive and credulous boaters, undermining the validity of any results.

I completed the survey and can assure you that I don't consider myself "naive or credulous". As I said before, after initial suspicion, when I looked at the content of the survey it was clearly the standard CRT questions requiring no personal data. 

I do, however, agree that it has been poorly presented and should have been better notified.

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rgreg said:

I completed the survey and can assure you that I don't consider myself "naive or credulous". As I said before, after initial suspicion, when I looked at the content of the survey it was clearly the standard CRT questions requiring no personal data. 

I do, however, agree that it has been poorly presented and should have been better notified.

Nobody considers themselves naive or credulous.  But you cannot have known whether the survey was legitimate without clicking the link.  Clicking links in emails from unknown and unsolicited sources is a massive no-no!  This is why it seems that many boaters have not done the survey.

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Naive and credulous boaters are the best sort as far as CaRT is concerned. The waterways are in better condition than ever before! More water voles! More silly signs! Fewer boats! More stoppages! Higher license fees!


If that was a genuine survey it just demonstrates what a poor shower of incompetents are now running CaRT. 

 

My Survey 
The waterways are in better condition than ever before!
 Disagree               [   ]  
Strongly Disagree  [   ]
Annoys Me            [   ]   
Fooking Livid         [   ]  

Link to post
Share on other sites

It may just be that the quality of the exercise is the result of lockdown with so many people working from home. One of the issues for all companies is how to maintain the usual oversight that a good manager ,maintains, almost invisibly, in an office context. 

 

Back in the 1970's part of a project I was running included some Human Factors investigations into how ship designs are created. This was innovative research at the time.

 

The background was the development of computer aided design for shipbuilders who, at the time, used large manual drawing boards and loft floors. One of the outcomes from the research was to highlight this oversight issue. Drawing office managers reported that they monitored their staff's work by taking a quick wander around the boards after everyone else had left. They claimed to have the skill to judge quite accurately and quickly how each individual was progressing just by a quick glance. The concern was how that oversight would be done when all the work was done on a computer.

 

In some ways this is an important question that continues to cause politicians and others to trip up: any 'system' has its shortcomings and it is natural and indeed worthy to look for ways to improve. The tricky bit is not in solving the presenting issue but in determining the systemic consequences of making such a change. To be topical, but not political, Brexit may have delivered on the promise to 'take back control' but is now running into the mire caused by knock-on consequences such that legal control does not equate to practical control.

 

The issue in systems engineering terms is that it is rare that a system remains unchanged apart from a planned one. Inevitably, once that change is introduced the rest of the entire system adjusts according to its own locally perceived optimisations. After all, this is what the COVID virus is doing all the time and is an illustration of the essential survival principle: Sufficient Variety - for any system to e able to evolve and to service in a changing environment it needs to have sufficient variation within it to be able to 'try out' mutations.

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.