Communities and membership · A focused questionnaire
Find missing explanations of the reason, evidence scope and possible outcomes before a community member decides whether to appeal moderation.
Opens product registration. Example questions are not imported automatically.
CHOOSE YOUR STARTING QUESTIONS
Keep only prompts your respondents can answer. All questions remain available below.
3 questions selected. Nothing is submitted.
A useful starting point
Before deciding whether to appeal, a member needs to understand the moderation reason, what context the reviewer may consider, and what the review can change. Use a fictional case to test these explanations separately from the appeal form and submission receipt.
If nothing was unclear or difficult, say so. Skip questions about steps you did not experience; use not applicable where appropriate.
Identify the missing rule or explanation needed to understand the decision, without collecting the disputed post or personal case details. This directs a policy-communication repair rather than judging the case.
Check whether members understand the permitted review material and its limits. Preserve their interpretation of the instructions without asking them to submit actual appeal evidence through this feedback survey.
Find assumptions about what the appeal can change or leave unchanged, then compare them with the actual policy. Clear limits matter before submission; they do not promise a favorable decision.
If nothing was unclear or difficult, say so. Skip questions about steps you did not experience; use not applicable where appropriate. Which part of the moderation reason did you need explained before deciding whether to appeal? How clear was what new context the reviewer could consider? Which possible appeal outcome or review limitation was unclear?
Download the questions as text ↓
Examples to adapt, rather than a validated research instrument.
Before you send it
Was your appeal easy to submit?
Which possible appeal outcome or review limitation was unclear?
The question tests pre-submission policy comprehension, distinct from the marketplace-dispute guide's submission receipt and next-contact instructions.
Choose the response format
| Question | Suggested format | What to preserve |
|---|---|---|
| Which part of the moderation reason did you need explained before deciding whether to appeal? | Optional written explanation; none or not applicable accepted | Identify the missing rule or explanation needed to understand the decision, without collecting the disputed post or personal case details. This directs a policy-communication repair rather than judging the case. |
| How clear was what new context the reviewer could consider? | Optional written explanation; none or not applicable accepted | Check whether members understand the permitted review material and its limits. Preserve their interpretation of the instructions without asking them to submit actual appeal evidence through this feedback survey. |
| Which possible appeal outcome or review limitation was unclear? | Optional written explanation; none or not applicable accepted | Find assumptions about what the appeal can change or leave unchanged, then compare them with the actual policy. Clear limits matter before submission; they do not promise a favorable decision. |
Make questions optional where appropriate. If you add a rating scale, label its endpoints, keep one idea per question, and retain a follow-up for reasons. These examples are not a validated measurement instrument.
From question to next step
Find missing explanations of the reason, evidence scope and possible outcomes before a community member decides whether to appeal moderation.
Show the actual appeal policy and a fictional moderation case before any appeal is submitted. Ask about the decision explanation, permitted review material and possible outcomes without collecting a real case.
Explain the actual review scope, permitted context and available outcomes before the submission step, with links to the governing policy.
A worked interpretation example
Illustrative scenario. These are not customer results.
In a synthetic community guide, appeal instructions emphasize the deadline but readers cannot tell whether new context will be considered or which outcomes are possible.
Explain the actual review scope, permitted context and available outcomes before the submission step, with links to the governing policy.
Show the revised instructions with a fictional case and ask members to explain what the reviewer can consider and what the appeal cannot promise. Record remaining misunderstandings without evaluating a real moderation decision.
Read the answers carefully
Do not collect disputed posts or identifying case details. Feedback does not determine fairness, replace the appeal process or guarantee an appeal outcome.
In a synthetic community guide, appeal instructions emphasize the deadline but readers cannot tell whether new context will be considered or which outcomes are possible. Do not collect disputed posts or identifying case details. Feedback does not determine fairness, replace the appeal process or guarantee an appeal outcome.
Before you send it
Community members reading appeal instructions and policy owners testing explanations with fictional cases. Include only the steps each person encountered; voluntary responses do not establish a representative sample.
Show the actual appeal policy and a fictional moderation case before any appeal is submitted. Ask about the decision explanation, permitted review material and possible outcomes without collecting a real case.
Identify the missing rule or explanation needed to understand the decision, without collecting the disputed post or personal case details. This directs a policy-communication repair rather than judging the case.
Check whether members understand the permitted review material and its limits. Preserve their interpretation of the instructions without asking them to submit actual appeal evidence through this feedback survey.
Find assumptions about what the appeal can change or leave unchanged, then compare them with the actual policy. Clear limits matter before submission; they do not promise a favorable decision.
Explain the actual review scope, permitted context and available outcomes before the submission step, with links to the governing policy. Show the revised instructions with a fictional case and ask members to explain what the reviewer can consider and what the appeal cannot promise. Record remaining misunderstandings without evaluating a real moderation decision.
Copy the prompts or download TXT, CSV, JSON, or a Markdown worksheet, then adapt them in your own survey. The CTA opens registration; it does not import this example automatically. Verify available features in your account.
Inside the product
The real SurveyTeams screenshot shows a separate labelled synthetic event survey. It demonstrates the manual builder, not this questionnaire already loaded and not the task described in the software being evaluated.
Creation and preview were exercised in the observed account. Distribution, results and other features are separate workflows and depend on account conditions.
Build with SurveyTeams
Use these examples to draft your questionnaire. Create a survey draft, add questions, and check the respondent preview in SurveyTeams. Additional features depend on your account and plan.
Opens product registration. Example questions are not imported automatically.
Learn about the product ↗Continue exploring