SharingIsGiving.org Survey Revision by FcRCheck

March 29, 2008

Earlier this month, the Nexteritis blog published a survey using two sets of randomly selected samples from the SharingIsGiving.org (SIG) freecycling group directory run by Ken Hedden, Sr., a former early activist with The Freecycle Network, Inc. (TFN), now an anti-TFN activist, a moderator of the FcNext Yahoo! Group, pastor of Believers United Christian Church and proprietor of the Wayfarer Motel in Schroon Lake, NY.

The first data set (“Cycle One”) in the Nexteritis study was a sample of all U.S.-based listings in the SIG directory.  The second set (“Cycle Two”) was a sample of only those U.S.-based listings bearing the SIG brand name.  This report is based on a revised version of the “Cycle One” data set surveyed by Nexteritis.

Why the revision?

In the Nexteritis survey conclusion, they noted that although they performed an objective analysis of a random sample, their conclusion for each group evaluated sometimes involved a subjective decision.  They called their conclusion “viability” with a yes/no rating and a comment explaining when the rating decision was not for obvious reasons shown in their data, or involved subjective criteria.

To avoid subjective observations about viability, we used a proprietary mathematical formula to establish an objective numerical rating for each group in the sample.  The formula calculated a viability rating based on several criteria normally associated with an effectively functioning freecycling group.

Five of the 76 randomly selected samples used in the Nexteritis survey were removed from our revision.  See notes below about why we did that.

Our survey sample consists of 71 links evaluated.  Our sample represents approximately 15% of all the SIG directory U.S.-based listings.

How did our results compare with Nexteritis?

The Nexteritis “viability” rating (see the “V?” column in our table below) concluded that of their 76 groups sampled, only 51% appeared to be what they called “viable, legitimate, active freecycling groups, or at least marginally or potentially so.”  Of our slightly smaller sample of 71 links evaluated, 35 of them (49%) had the Nexteritis “Yes” rating for viability.  We found this to be an inaccurately high number of truly viable groups.

Nexteritis reported that they “tried to be liberal and generous about what we counted as viable groups.”  We found that in several cases where Nexteritis gave a group a favorable rating on a subjective basis, our objective mathematical formula did not.

We found that all of the links deemed to be non-viable by Nexteritis earned numeric ratings of less than 10.  We found that 13 of the links Nexteritis reported as viable or marginally or potentially viable also earned numeric ratings of less than 10.  Looking at these sites from a subjective standpoint, they do appear to be either inactive or barely so, or not viable.

Summary of Findings:

Among our sample of 71 links …

• 13 links (18% of the sample) earned a rating of 0, either as dead groups, invalid URLs, or disqualified for not being truly freecycling groups by conventional definition as we understand it.
• 31 links (44% of the sample) earned a rating of 1 through 6, in all cases representing inactive or possibly illegitimate or non-viable groups.
• 6 links (8% of the sample) earned a rating of 7 through 10, representing questionably viable groups.
• Only groups that earned a rating above 10 appear to be viable, active, legitimate groups.  There were only 21 of these, or about 30% of the sample.

FcRCheck’s Conclusions:

1.  Only 30% of the groups listed in the SIG directory are meaningfully established, reliably active, fully functioning freecycling groups.

2.  About 8% of them appear to be questionable, borderline viable, possibly having a chance of becoming viable, though not likely.

3.  The remainder (62%) represents entries that should not qualify for listing in a quality-run directory.  We agree with the Nexteritis conclusion that these are “junk listings.”

4.  SIG lacks effective quality control, and is not reliable as a tool for seeking a local freecycling group.

Notes:

1.  WE REVIEWED YAHOO GROUPS ONLY.  Custom designed web sites and bulletin board services were removed from the original random sampling of groups made by Nexteritis.  These non-Yahoo groups were not evaluated because they do not make readily available the raw data needed for an accurate analysis.  However, these represent a statistically insignificant minority of groups.  Excluding them does not have a statistically significant impact on a directory’s overall quality assessment.

2.  Bucks County PA “Recycle It” group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BucksCounty_RecycleIt/) was removed from sample.  Their posting activity rate is inflated beyond reasonable usage for statistical purposes by loads of junk postings, commercial promotions, calendar reminders, etc.  We will post a separate blog entry reporting on this.

3.  “Texas Free Stuff” (http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/Texas_Free_Stuff/ pointer to http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/Just_Free_Stuff/) was removed from sample because it is not a geographically localized group link.  By conventional definition, freecycling groups are LOCAL.  However, if SIG wishes to include such things in their directory, we chose not to count it against their rating results by counting this as an illegitimate freecycling group.

See survey data table below.

TABLE 1 – SIG CYCLE ONE SURVEY RESULTS.  Random sample of all U.S.-based entries in the SIG directory.  Fifteen percent of the U.S.-based list sampled.

About the Freecycling Reality Check Blog (FcRCheck)

Click to join fcrcheck