zlacker

>>dale_h+(OP)
Pointy-haired boss: "According to the anonymous online employee survey, you don't trust management. What's up with that?"

<Dilbert looks back with a blank stare>

---

Godspeed Scott. Thank you for all the laughs.

>>CSMast+hf
I actually had this happen back in high school. The teacher gave us “anonymous” surveys to gauge her performance. She analyzed the handwriting to determine which one was mine. I actively tried to change my handwriting as well, but I guess not well enough. I’ve never trusted a survey was actually anonymous after that.

>>al_bor+Dh
We've been tasked by a client for 2 years to create an anonymized survey, and my mind has gone to great lengths to devise a survey where even our own employees (or superusers with full DB access) cannot figure out who a respondent is.

It's been a fun exercise in software architecture. Because I actually care about this.

But we keep pushing this annual survey another year since we never seem to be ready to actually implement it (due to other priorities)

>>atonse+ZC
When I was in high school I worked at the helpdesk for a small defense contractor. The developers there spent their down time building internal use IT tools. In those days they still wrote a lot of stuff in Lotus Domino, a tool that let you use a Notes database as the back-end for a SSR web app. Our ticketing system was written with it.

They later decided to adopt it for an annual IT satisfaction survey that they sent out to users. In an ideal world we wouldn't participate because the respondents were grading my team's performance but we got invites because we were part of the Exchange distro the message was sent to. I quickly discovered that the dev team had left a bunch of default routes enabled so we were able to view a list of all responses and see who submitted which. We knew our customers well enough that we could reliably attribute most of the negative responses via the free-text comments field anyhow but the fact that anybody could explicitly see everybody else's response wasn't great.

I suppose the NTLM-authenticated username in the server logs would convey the same info but at least that'd require CIFS/RDP access to the web server...