The "Professional Tester" Problem

You launch a study targeting "Senior Marketing Managers." You get 10 responses.

Your data is ruined. This is the nightmare of unmoderated testing.

The defense against this? Better Screening Questions.

Here is the Feedbackerr guide to writing screeners that actually work.

If you ask: "Do you use email marketing software?" The bad participant thinks: "If I say yes, I get paid. YES."

Fix: Turn it into a multiple-choice selection. "Which of the following software tools have you used in the past 6 months?"

If they don't select Mailchimp, they are disqualified.

Professional testers will often select every option to maximize their chances. Catch them by including fake options.

"Which of these financial apps do you use?"

If they select "FinTrack Pro," disqualify them immediately.

Multiple choice is easy to game. Open text is hard.

Instead of just asking if they are a dog owner, add a second question: "Please describe your dog (breed, age, and name)."

A real person will write: "I have a 3-year-old Golden Retriever named Max." A bot or scammer will write: "good" or "yes".

Feedbackerr's manual review tools let you quickly glance at these answers and reject low-quality submissions.

Bad: "We are looking for people who love coffee. Do you drink coffee?" Good: "How many cups of coffee do you consume on an average day?"

Sometimes a participant fits the demographic but is terrible at giving feedback. They give one-word answers.

Add a question like: "Tell us about the last time you had a bad customer service experience."

If they write meaningful sentences, they will likely be a good interviewee. If they write "idk," screen them out.

Conclusion

Screening is the gatekeeper of data quality. It's better to have 5 high-quality participants than 50 low-quality ones.

At Feedbackerr, we provide built-in screening tools and access to verified panels to help you find the needle in the haystack.