I ran a similar survey on race / ethnicity a few years ago and the main issue was that I wasn't sure it was very representative. You'll probably get people who feel very strongly (one way or another) about the issue, so it's important to think about ways to encourage people who don't have strong feelings to participate in the survey and when you write up results keep in mind that saying things like x% of respondents could overstate (in either direction) whatever you're reporting on.

(Due to Jeff's comment I'm now think  it's likely that the both this and OP's suggestion have more downsides than upsides). 

Thanks for sharing this Jeff - your points about discussions on the Forum being more balanced and newcomers finding things that they have doubts about more easily have updated me towards this maybe not being a good idea (I've been uncertain, but overall leaned more on the pro side).

I really like this suggestion! There's also another option of having posts be visible only to logged in users - definitely not private, but at least not public.

One risk of both options is if people know it's less public they may think it's more private than it is (since anyone can make an account / use the forum search of they are really interested). So a key part of the ux would be clearly communicating the change.

Been looking forward to this write up, thank you for sharing this! Really appreciate the concrete suggestions for field builders.

Thank you for responding to the suggestions in detail Ollie - I really appreciate the recent efforts by the Events team to be more transparent and communicate decisions to the community! And also thanks for engaging with our draft feedback earlier in the process. 

• We were trialling out a new application form, so previous responses didn’t load onto the new form. This also meant applications launched later than we wanted to.

I (personally + 1-2 people I know) did find bugs on previous application forms as well fwiw.  
 

I wonder if attendees could be blocked from scheduling virtual evnts (or virtual attendees are blocked from scheduling virtual events) during the conference itself?

Thanks for sharing this Catherine! (and congrats on your first forum post! woop!) 

I really appreciate you sharing your views so openly and where you found you were wrong - and your steps for next time sound really great!  I'm curious if you've come across Charity Entrepreneurship / their resources on intervention prioritization during your research?

Also, I think it would be really cool if there were group intervention-prioritization projects where people could investigate causes they think are neglected / promising. 

-

(Finally, on small grammar thing: when I read the summary I was confused by this sentence:

I then found a source that undermined a key premise: child marriage is clearly harmful across a number of health metrics. 

I might phrase the last sentence to be more clear that the source gave evidence against child marriage having clearly harmful health effects. At first I read it the opposite and was confused. )