The Feedback Box That Asked Too Much

A youth arts centre installed a touchscreen asking visitors to rate each activity. Director Hugo hoped the feedback would support a funding application. The form requested age, postcode, school and an optional comment. During a drawing workshop, a teenager showed him her response: she had described a conflict at home and included names without realising who would read it.

Hugo had planned to send the complete spreadsheet to the funder. The application requested evidence of impact, and detailed comments seemed more persuasive than simple attendance figures. Now he saw that a friendly question on a bright screen could invite disclosures the centre was not prepared to manage. The teenager wanted her comment removed but did not want a conversation about it in front of her friends.

He took down the details privately, explained who had access and arranged the deletion through the centre's responsible staff member. Then he stopped the survey until the team could separate useful evaluation from unnecessary personal information. Some colleagues worried that shorter answers would make the project appear less valuable. Hugo asked whether young people had ever been told that their difficulties might become evidence in a funding document.

The final application included grouped ratings and comments that participants had specifically approved for that purpose. It was less emotionally dramatic than the first draft. The centre still received funding, although not the full amount requested. Hugo never claimed that the revised survey had caused either result. When the touchscreen returned, its opening message explained who would read the answers before asking anybody to provide them.