Editor's Note: Results of Columbia Basin Bulletin Survey

I would like to thank the 733 readers who took the time to respond to the 10-question, non-scientific Columbia Basin Bulletin survey. The results, along with the many useful written comments, will be used to help the CBB better respond to readers' information needs.

On the first question, about the usefulness of the information provided by the Columbia Basin Bulletin, 98 percent of the respondents answered in the range of Moderately Useful to Extremely Useful. No one said Not Useful, while 36.3 percent (265) said Extremely Useful.

On accuracy, 95 percent of respondents said the CBB was Accurate or Very Accurate, while one person said Not Accurate, and 4.6 percent (33 answers) said Somewhat Accurate.

When asked whether readers refer to the information in the CBB in the course of conducting their duties for their organizations, 86 percent respondents answered in the range of Sometimes (44.1 percent) to Very Often (15.3 percent.) Some 3 percent said they never refer to CBB information.

For the question attempting to gauge whether readers think information provided by the CBB is unique, 91 percent answered in the range of Somewhat Unique (41.4 percent) to Unique (11.3 percent). Six respondents (.8 percent) said the information was Not Unique. Several commentors let me know they thought this was a terrible question, pointing out that there really is no such thing as "Somewhat Unique" since something either is unique or isn't.

Along those same lines, another question asked whether information in the CBB was easily accessible from other sources. Some 87 percent of respondents answered in the range of Somewhat Accessible elsewhere (46.1 percent) to Not Accessible elsewhere (4.1 percent). Some 4.1 percent said CBB content was easily accessible elsewhere. However, many respondents offered comments suggesting the question missed a key point – though information in the CBB could possibly be found elsewhere, they expressed appreciation that the CBB conveniently put it all together and in one place, saving the reader time and effort.

We also asked a question of key concern to myself and CBB writers – Do Columbia Basin Bulletin stories represent views of policymakers and stakeholders fairly? Some 97.5 percent answered in the range of Generally Fairly to Always Fairly. Leaning toward Not Fairly were 17 respondents, or 2.4 percent.

On another matter of fairness -- Does the CBB content reflect the Columbia Basin's geographic diversity fairly? – 96 percent answered in the range of Generally Fairly to Very Fairly. Leaning toward Not Fairly were 28 respondents, or 3.9 percent.

The survey also attempted to gauge (again, unscientifically) the importance (for readers) of reliable and timely information when it comes to Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife restoration issues. Surprising to me, some 99.3 percent of the respondents answered in the range from Somewhat Important (9.2 percent) to Important (35.9 percent) to Very Important (389 respondents, or 54.2 percent).

To help guide editorial decisions and coverage emphasis, we asked readers whether they wanted more coverage, less coverage, or about the same coverage in 10 topic areas. For most topics the answer "About The Same" managed to achieve a majority (over 50 percent), except for one glaring example. Some 57 percent of readers wanted not the same, but more coverage of Research issues. In the "wanting more" category, next down the list was information about habitat restoration projects and issues, with 46 percent of respondents wanting more such coverage. Also many commentors pointed out that I neglected to include "ocean conditions" on the list, although I suppose one could make the case that ocean conditions and research are certainly closely linked as topics, if not one and the same. Still, my guess is that if I had put ocean conditions on the list, a majority of reader would have said they wanted more coverage of the topic, not less.

With the final question, we wanted to know if the CBB's format and method of delivery was satisfactory to most readers. Some 45.7 percent said they prefer an e-mail with Headlines, Links, and Story Text (the current practice), while 32.1 percent said it didn't matter, and 22.2 percent said they preferred just headlines and links to stories posted on the CBB website.

Thanks again to those who responded to the survey. For those of you who have taken the survey but would be willing to take the time to do so, please go to https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=fPm61WoFr819zWTUH1VD_2bw_3d_3d

For those who are interested in more detailed results of this survey feel free to call me at 541-312-8860 or e-mail at bcrampton@cbbulletin.com

--- Bill Crampton, Editor