DLV 2006 participant survey report, part 1 ...

[External Poster]

This posting is from: Annie
----------

This is the first of two reports. This first one covers the results of
the objective quantitative portions of the survey.

The second report, which will come out very shortly, consists of the
written comments to the various sections.

Thanks to everybody who took this survey. This gives us some very good
black-and-white information as to what things worked, where we need to
improve, and what direction we should go in planning future events.

There were 56 responses to the survey, or about 47% of our attendees,
which is a good response rate on a survey of this type. The percentage
of attendees who have completed the survey has decreased slightly each
year since 2004. This is, however, more than enough to get a
statistically valid sample of most items on the survey.

Not everybody answered all questions, which is expected. No responses
had to be thrown out for inconsistency or failure to follow directions,
and we do appreciate cooperation on this. Three responses had verbal
comments only, which is fine, and may have been re-takes in order to add
comments.
. . . . . . . . . .

Let's go over the results ...

Times attended:

18 indicated they were first-timers. 3 indicated they had attended twice
and 30 indicated 3 times or more, thus fairly heavily weighting this
survey toward returnees. This has been typical of what we've been seeing
over the years.
. . . . .

Approximate average distance traveled to DLV: 2064 miles.

6 indicated 50 miles or less, which implies local.
4 indicated 10,000 miles or more.
. . . . .

Time spent at DLV: 5.38 average days. We've observed a slight decrease
in the length of stay over the past few years.

Only 21 respondees indicated they stayed 7 days or more, which indicates
that the majority of attendees did not stay the full week.
. . . . .

Means of travel to DLV:

Commercial air: 29
Private or rental vehicle: 23

No surprise here.

A clarification should probably be made here, with a "local" checkbox
added to indicate no significant travel to and from the setting of DLV
itself.
. . . . .

Average age: 55.4
Lowest reported: 35-ish
One over 70

Again, no surprise. No significant change over the past 3 years.
. . . . .

Length of exposure to public:

First public exposure this DLV: 3
Less than 1 year: 3
1-2 years: 1
2-5 years: 12
5-10 years: 19
10-20 years: 8
More than 20: 6
Does not apply: 2

This shows an increase of those with no prior exposure (3/1) and less
than one year (3/1) over last year.
. . . . .

Frequency of public exposure:

Daily or so: 7
Weekly or so: 15
Monthly or so: 10
Few times a year: 17
Once a year or less: 3
Does not apply: 2
. . . . .

Self-identification:

CD: 30
TG: 6
Pre-op TS: 6
No-op TS: 3
Does not identify with any: 3
TV: 2
Post-op TS: 1
SO: 1

No admirers or friends answering the survey this year.

Increase in the CD category this year, with corresponding decreases in
TG and TV categories.

As before, we do not attempt to define these. This is a report on what
people say they are. Yes, there's quite a bit of ambiguity, overloading,
overlap, etc., between these terms.
. . . . .

TG support group membership:

Former members: 18
Current members: 18
Never a member: 16

Very typical of what we've been seeing over the years.
. . . . .

Attended other TG events, weighted responses:

California Dreaming: 10
Holiday Enfemme: 8
Esprit: 7
SCC: 7
EnFemme Getaway: 6
Be All: 5
FanFair: 4
Fall Harvest: 4
Colorado Goldrush: 4
Texas T: 4
Dignity Cruise: 3
PinkFest: 3
Paradise in Poconos: 1

Again, quite a bit of scatter, indicating that nobody responding is or
has been a regular at the conventions.

Attended no other events: 26
Attended 1 other event: 9
Attended 2-4 others: 14
Attended 5 or more: 3

I find this very interesting that about half of our people have never
attended any other events.
. . . . .

Did the web site accurately depict what DLV is?

Yes: 45
Kinda: 5
No: 0
Did not view web site: 2

Similar responses to last year. This shows that yes, what people see on
the web is what they can expect at DLV.
. . . . .

Were registration and activity sign-up easy and convenient?

Yes: 45
Somewhat confusing: 5
No: 0
Did not use: 1

Again, similar to last year. These levels of response are to be expected
and show that the automated systems do work as intended, for the most
part.
. . . . .

Did you have trouble with our web screens?

Yes: 4
No: 47
Did not use: 1

We did work with those who had difficulty, and in a few cases took the
registration and activity sign-up by e-mail. If anybody had any specific
problems that were not reported, please send in a note so we can see if
we can improve things.
. . . . .

Hotels, satisfaction:

As was expected, most of our out of towners seemed to gravitate to the
Sahara, although the IP and the others did have their share of business
from our group.

Imperial Palace, definitely satisfied: 1
Imperial Palace, mostly satisfied: 2
Imperial palace, not really: 1

Sahara, definitely satisfied: 10
Sahara, mostly satisfied: 9
Sahara, neutral: 3
Sahara, not really: 1
Sahara, definitely not: 2

This is about what we expected for the Sahara, and typical of what we've
been seeing over the years.

No Monte Carlo responses. :( I do know that we had people there.

The following other properties were rated "definitely satisfied", one
response each:

Best Western Mardi Gras
Club De Soleil
Gold Coast
Fitzgeralds
Tuscany
Hawthorn Suites
Palace Station

The following were rated "mostly satisfied", one response each except
where noted:

Stratosphere
Golden Nugget (2 responses)
Budget Suites

The following were rated neutral for satisfaction, one response each:

Ballys
"No-tell Motel" (unspecified)

The following rated one definitely not satisfied response:

Desert Rose
. . . . .

Hotels, comfort:

Imperial Palace, very comfortable: 2
Imperial Palace, somewhat comfortable: 1
Imperial Palace, somewhat uncomfortable: 1

Very similar responses to last year.

Sahara:

Very comfortable: 15
Somewhat comfortable: 8
Neutral: 1
Very uncomfortable: 1

Again, close to what was expected and similar to last year's responses.

The following hotels had one response each very comfortable:

Ballys
Gold Coast
Tuscany
Hawthorn Suites
Desert Rose

The following hotels had one response each, somewhat comfortable:

Fitzgeralds
Stratosphere
Golden Nugget
Best Western Mardi Gras
Palace Station

The following hotels had one response each, neutral:

Budget Suites
"No-Tell Motel"
Golden Nugget

And the following had one response, very uncomfortable:

Club De Soleil
. . . . .

Activities, enjoyment of:

This section is regarded as one of the most important in this survey,
since it tells us what activities were liked, which were not liked, and
sets the stage for planning things that people want and like for future
events.

I regard anything with 10 or more responses as a definitely valid
rating, and anything with 5 or more responses as a mostly valid rating.

I regard anything with less than 5 responses as provisionally valid due
to lack of a significant sample. These are valid individual opinions,
of course, but questionable as a decicive collective sample.

Overall, things look very good this year, and a significant increase
over 2005. Award for "most improved" has to go to NSD, with 4.91 this
year compared to 3.78 last year! :)

As to what the numbers really mean, I regard anything rated over 4.5,
particularly those with many responses, to be about as close to perfect
as we can get. These are the ones often cited as most liked when people
talk about the good times they had at DLV.

I consider anything over 4.0 to be very good. There may be some room for
improvement in these, but they are still definite winners.

For those which rate 3 or over, but under 4 (very few this year),
although more enjoyed them than disliked them, they are not as well
liked as the others. I would not consider these failures by any means,
particularly those not getting a significant number of responses.

For those that rate under 3, this indicates that they were disliked more
than they were liked, and if these occur (one this year, one in 2004) we
need to be sure to have a plan for improvement if we consider repeating.

All activity coordinators deserve congratulations (clap-clap {whistle!})
for a very highly rated lineup this year! :)

Eating Out Night Blue Ox: 5.0 (7 responses)
Dance Instruction: 5.0 (4 responses)
Metropolitan Community Church: 5.0 (3 responses)
Little Girl Get-together: 5.0 (2 responses)

Note that no activities placed 5.0 in 2005. (4.83 was highest in 2005.)

Night Of The Soiled Doves III: 4.91 (22 responses)
LaCage show: 4.91 (11 responses)
Eating Out Night Bertolinis: 4.89 (9 responses)
Eating Out Night Milanos: 4.89 (9 responses)
Lunch With Ginger, Hilton: 4.88 (8 responses)
Wedding Ceremony: 4.83 (18 responses)
Golf: 4.83 (6 responses)
Lunch With Ginger, Harrahs: 4.82 (11 responses)
Limo Tour: 4.79 (33 responses)
English High Tea: 4.78 (9 responses)
Dragapella: 4.69 (16 responses)
Death Valley Tour: 4.67 (12 responses)
Eating Out Night Marie Callender: 4.67 (9 responses)
Lunch With Ginger Bellagio: 4.67 (9 responses)
Southern Belle Society Social: 4.65 (23 responses)
Lunch With(out) Ginger, Sahara: 4.61 (18 responses)
Hard Rock Dinner: 4.6 (10 responses)
Alternative Bar Crawl: 4.53 (15 responses)
Art Tour: 4.5 (6 responses)

A very significant increase in the number of activities placing 4.5 or
higher over last year. :)

One surprise is that one activity which I heard multiple complaints
about, actually complaints about the food, the Hilton Buffet, placed
very highly on the enjoyment scale, indicating that the overall climate
and the company made it worthwhile to attend.

Tony Roma Dinner: 4.43 (14 responses)
Buck Wild Show: 4.38 (8 responses)
Bahama Breeze HH/Dinner: 4.36 (28 responses)
Hard Rock Happy Hour: 4.36 (11 responses)
Walk Off Your Lunch: 4.33 (3 responses)
Glamour Boutique Open House: 4.32 (25 responses)
Suede HH and dinner: 4.31 (32 responses)
Spotlight Lounge Happy Hour: 4.27 (15 responses)
Big Show Pity Party: 4.0 (4 responses)
Eating Out Night Pacos: 4.0 (4 responses)
Post-Easter Shopping: 4.0 (1 responses)
Sunbathing: 4.0 (1 responses)

Almost everything placed 4.0 or better this year. This indicates a
significant increase in overall enjoyment over 2005.

The following didn't do as well as we had hoped. These do have enough
responses to be considered valid evaluations, and did average higher
than neutral.

Lake Mead Boat tour: 3.8 (5 responses)
Charles Bar: 3.84 (19 responses)
Flex Going Away Get-together: 3.43 (7 responses)

Charles Bar slipped significantly this year, from 4.58 in 2005 and 4.3
in 2004. I really don't know why. It rated high on the comfort scale,
and I was there and it appeared that those present were having a good
time. Maybe the price of drinks has something to do with it. :)

Only one activity placed lower than 3.0 this year. This has to be
considered valid with 13 responses averaging 2.57.

Lucky Chengs: 2.57 (14 responses)

The comments I heard do support this rating for this activity. It was
not very well liked from what I heard. Disorganized staff, smoke, menu
issues, and blatant solicitation of gratuities were some of the issues I
heard.

Two activities had no responses:

Bowling
SO Get-Together
. . . . .

Comfort level of activities.

As you can see by comparing enjoyment and comfort ratings, one does not
imply the other, and it's a good thing that we decided to track these
separately.

Nothing rated significantly uncomfortable this year. This shows that our
activity coordinators are doing a good job in selecting venues that are
appropriate for our group. One item to note is that activities in "safe"
and "major" venues do not automatically score higher on the comfort
scale than those in "mainstream" venues.

Some of our new and quite mainstream venues placed quite highly for
comfort, such as Blue Ox, Hilton Buffet, and Marie Callenders.

Eating Out Night Blue Ox: 5.0 (5 responses)
Golf: 5.0 (5 responses)
Dance Instruction: 5.0 (4 responses)
Walk Off Your Lunch: 5.0 (4 responses)
Metropolitan Community Church: 5.0 (3 responses)
Post-Easter Shopping: 5.0 (1 response)

Wedding Ceremony: 4.94 (17 responses)
Dragapella: 4.93 (15 responses)
Alternative Bar Crawl: 4.92 (12 responses)
LaCage Show: 4.9 (10 responses)
Eating Out Night Marie Callender: 4.88 (8 responses)
Flex Farewell Gathering: 4.86 (7 responses)
Tony Romas: 4.83 (12 responses)
Southern Belle Society Social: 4.82 (23 responses)
Lunch With Ginger Bellagio: 4.78 (9 responses)
Death Valley Tour: 4.75 (12 responses)
Lunch With Ginger Hilton: 4.75 (8 responses)
Eating Out Night Pacos: 4.75 (4 responses)
Bahama Breeze HH/Dinner: 4.73 (26 responses)
Suede HH/Dinner: 4.72 (25 responses)
Little Girl Get-together: 4.67 (3 responses)
Charles Bar: 4.63 (16 responses)
Hard Rock Dinner: 4.63 (8 responses)
Lunch With(out) Ginger, Sahara: 4.57 (19 responses)
Night Of The Soiled Doves: 4.55 (22 responses)
Spotlight Happy Hour: 4.55 (11 responses)
Limo Tour: 4.52 (31 responses)
Eating Out Night Bertolinis: 4.5 (8 responses)
Eating Out Night Milanos: 4.5 (8 responses)
Big ShowPity Party: 4.5 (6 responses)
Sunbathing: 4.5 (2 responses)

Hard Rock Happy Hour: 4.45 (11 responses)
Lunch With Ginger Harrahs: 4.44 (9 responses)
English High Tea: 4.42 (7 responses)
Glamour Boutique Open House: 4.41 (22 responses)
Lucky Chengs: 4.36 (14 responses)
Lake Mead Boat Tour: 4.2 (5 responses)

Really no major surprises above. Milanos does seem to bounce around
quite a bit on the comfort scale from year to year, even though it
always rates on the high side for enjoyment.

Buck Wild Show: 3.83 (6 responses)
Art Tour: 3.83 (6 responses)

Production shows usually rate high on the comfort scale, as you can see
from Dragapella and LaCage above, and the various shows in previous
years, but for some reason Buck Wild did not. Yes, 3.83 is "almost 4"
but this is lower on the comfort scale than almost all of the other
activities. Perhaps it's the CW or blue collar theme of the show (I did
not particularly notice that many 'necks in the audience) that had
something to do with this.

The first year we had the Art Tour, it scored 4.83 for comfort. In 2005
it came in at 3.67 and this year at 3.83. I can't think off hand of any
particular reasons for this.
. . . . .

Time crunches:

Seldom or never: 25
Occasionally: 18
Frequently: 8

We've seen a slight increasing trend over the past few years in the
reporting of time crunches. This year just slightly more than half of
the responses indicated at least occasional time crunch issues.
. . . . .

Local transportation:

Personal vehicle: 23:
Rental vehicle: 18
Another's vehicle: 10
Taxi: 1
Walk: 1
. . . . .

Difficulty getting a ride:

No: 48
Yes: 2

Again, this shows that for the most part, our ride sharing is working.
. . . . .

Any trouble locating the DLV venues?

No: 44
Yes: 8

I am a bit concerned that over 10% of our respondees reported trouble.

We did publish a map and excrutiatingly-detailed directions. I do want
to try to find out if those who had trouble did not use the maps and
directions or found them confusing or inaccurate. There is a related
item below.
. . . . .

Any trouble finding the DLV group at the activities?

No: 51
Yes: 2

Yes, the group is often times more than obvious. :) :)
. . . . .

Were the maps and directions helpful?

Yes: 44
No: 4
What maps and directions?: 4

RtfLFM! :)

It always amazes me that a small (but statistically significant)
percentage of the respondees state that they have no knowledge of maps,
directions, phone numbers, Big Sisters, roommate matching, the DLV
Discussion Forum, etc.
. . . . .

Any trouble contacting DLV organizers?

No: 26
Did not attempt: 21
Yes: 3
Did not get any numbers: 1

For the most part, contact seemed to be easy.
. . . . .

Any trouble identifying DLV volunteers?

No: 50
Yes: 3
. . . . .

Was the DLV group friendly and inclusive?

Definitely yes: 46
Yes, somewhat: 6
Neutral: 1

Percentage wise, this is a significant bump up from last year (2005 was
a definite slip down from 2004) and says a lot about the people who come
to DLV and the overall climate of DLV 2006. No responses placed less
than neutral, and the overwhelming majority thought the group was
friendly and inclusive.

This reflects highly on all who attended. Thanks to everybody for doing
their part to boost the overall DLV experience! :)
. . . . .

Did you participate in the DLV Discussion Forum?

Yes, by e-mail: 21
Yes, on the web: 12
No: 17
Huh?: 2

Participation, again, has been good. Most of the respondees indicated
that yes, they did participate in some way.
. . . . .

Were you comfortable being seen with the DLV group?

Mostly yes: 41
Sometimes uncomfortable: 9
Frequently uncomfortable: 2

There's been some variation in the numbers over the years on this
question, but nothing earth-shaking. Again, this reflects very
positively on the group as a whole. Thanks, everybody. :)
. . . . .

Two new questions this year, regarding the giving and getting of
constructive criticism regarding appearance, mannerisms, etc.

Did you personally receive constructive criticism from another attendee?

No: 47
Yes, and I received it positively: 5

Did you personally give constructive criticism to another attendee?

No: 28
No, but I sure felt like it at times: 19
Yes, and it was received positively: 5
Yes, and it was received negatively: 1
. . . . .

Did you attend another (non-TG) event along with DLV?

No: 48
Yes: 3
. . . . .

Did you attend another TG event along with DLV?

No: 51
Yes: 2
. . . . .

Did you participate in our Big Sister Program?

I was a Big Sister and I had a positive experience: 4
I was a Big Sister and I had a negative experience: 1
I was a Big Sister and my Little Sister was a no-show: 1

I was a Little Sister and I had a positive experience: 4
I was a Little Sister and I had a negative experience: 1

No: 39

Huh, what's this Big Sister thing?: 3
. . . . .

Did you participate in our Roommate Matching program?

Yes, and I had a positive experience: 2
Yes, and I had a negative experience: 2
No: 44
Uh, say what?: 4
. . . . .

Are you interested in roommate matching for next year?

Yes: 11
No: 42
. . . . .

Approximate average spent on accommodations: $579
Approximate average spent on food: $307
Approximate average spent on alcohol: $155
Approximate average spent on gaming: $422
Approximate average total: $1801

These numbers are up slightly from 2005, but not as significant an
increase as we saw from 2004 to 2005.

These indicate an input to the economy of approximately $212,518.00 from
DLV this year. This is approaching a quarter of a million dollars!

The figures on gaming are interesing. 8 respondees left this question
blank, implying nothing spent on gaming. 10 stated less than $50. That's
about 1/3 of our people who have no significant play.

3 stated $1000-2000, 1 for $2000-5000, and 1 for $5000-10000.
. . . . .

Was DLV affordable and reasonable?

Yes, definitely: 43
Yes, somewhat: 6
Neutral: 2
No, somewhat: 1

This is kind of a self-defeating question, since those who can't afford
DLV will tend to not come. :) We do want to keep DLV affordable.
. . . . .

Increased attention to behavior, dress, and restroom issues?

I support the current level of enforcement: 46
Don't like, but understand why it has to be: 6
It's bull$#!+: 1

The responses to this leave no question at all. The overwhelming
majority support the attention to behavior, dress, and restroom issues
and want the group to maintain high standards in these areas.
. . . . .

Degree of structure to DLV:

It's ok the way it is: 42
I prefer more structure: 9
I prefer less structure: 2

This is the first year that we've seen more than 10% of the respondees
desiring more structure to DLV.
. . . . .

Degree of seclusion?

It's ok the way it is: 34
I prefer less seclusion: 13
I prefer more seclusion: 6

These numbers are typical of what we've seen in the past years.

I don't think we're ever going to get a consensus on this one, but I
think we did a very good job this year with our mix between mainstream
and alternative venues for our activities.
. . . . .

Length of DLV:

About right: 41
Too long: 7
Too short: 5

For the past two years, the "too long" responses have exceeded the "too
short" responses. The majority, however, like the length as is.
. . . . .

Name tags?

Yes, I liked them: 22
I'm ok with them, I guess: 26
Like totally nasty, fer-shure: 4
. . . . .

Were you personally involved in a significant restroom issue or incident
this year?

Used restrooms, no issues or incidents: 38
Did not use public restrooms: 11
Used restrooms, did have issues or incidents: 1
Does not apply to me: 3

It would be appreciated if the person who had the incident write a note
to dlv@geekbabe.com and detail what happened. The identity of the person
will be kept in confidence if requested.
. . . . .

Did DLV meet your expectations?

DLV 2006 exceeded my expectations: 18
DLV 2006 met my expectations: 32
DLV 2006 Failed to meet my expectations: 2

And again, very few cases where DLV failed to meet the expectations of
any attendees. This is an increase, percentage wise of "exceeded" this
year over last year. :)

For those whose expectations were not met, we would appreciate some
details as to why. dlv@geekbabe.com Will be held in confidence if
requested.

One conclusion here. Answers for this question were somewhat higher in
2004 and 2006, when we had zero or close to zero incidents and did pay
more attention to B/D/R issues. They were somewhat lower in 2003 and
2005, the years in which we had significant numbers of issues and
incidents. I do see a correlation here.
. . . . .

Would you attend another DLV?

Definitely: 45
Probably: 6
Maybe: 1
Probably not: 1

And again, the overwhelming majority wants to go4it again! :)

Again, thanks to everybody who took the survey, and thanks to all for
making DLV 2006 the success it was! :)


----------
(This posting was entered by Annie, an external user of MyDLV.)

[External Poster]

This posting is from: Sarah
----------

>Art Tour: 3.83 (6 responses)

>The first year we had the Art Tour, it scored 4.83 for comfort. In 2005
>it came in at 3.67 and this year at 3.83. I can't think off hand of any
>particular reasons for this.

Annie,

I can tell you why the Art Tour rated lower on the comfort scale this
year. We went to a VERY mainstream Very public location at the
Venitian rather than the lower exposure Las Vegas Art Museum at the
subruban library. Next year we will probably go back to the lower
exposure site for our first try at art and then if folks want to we
will hit one of the high-end galleries.

Sarah



----------
(This posting was entered by Sarah, an external user of MyDLV.)