Question 1

Does higher chat engagement always mean higher response quality?

Accepted Answer

Not necessarily - just because someone is very active in a research chat doesn't automatically mean their answers are high quality. High chat engagement (lots of back-and-forth, quick replies, enthusiasm) is generally a good sign that the participant is interested, but quality depends on what they're actually saying. It's possible for a respondent to be chatty yet provide superficial or off-topic answers, especially if the conversational format makes them too casual. Conversely, another person might be less talkative but give very thoughtful, relevant responses to each question. So while higher engagement can create a better rapport and potentially yield richer insights, you still need to validate the substance - for example, by reviewing if the answers address the questions and are consistent. In short, use chat engagement as a positive indicator, but don't equate it with quality without looking at the content of the responses.

Question 2

When should I add qual-at-scale outputs to a survey tracker or dashboard?

Accepted Answer

You should add qual-at-scale outputs to a survey tracker or dashboard when the numbers alone aren't telling the full story and stakeholders need richer context behind trends in your results — this need typically becomes clear after the tracker's initial baseline is established. For example, if a key satisfaction score drops unexpectedly, integrating large-scale qualitative insights — such as using AI to analyze thousands of open-ended responses or social media comments — can quickly surface the themes driving that decline and explain the "why" behind the change. This approach not only makes the dashboard more actionable by humanizing metrics with real customer voices, but also ensures your tracker captures not just what changed but why it changed, even as trends evolve.

Question 3

How can we detect synthetic respondents without blocking legitimate ones?

Accepted Answer

The best approach to catching fake or bot survey respondents while keeping real participants is to use a layered detection system that looks at multiple data cues. For instance, researchers monitor response patterns and timing: a synthetic respondent might complete a survey unrealistically fast or give identical answers across different questions. By setting reasonable thresholds (like flagging submissions completed in a fraction of the average time), you can catch many fraudulent entries without automatically rejecting humans who are just fast readers. Quality checks such as attention-check questions and open-ended prompts also help; bots or low-quality responders often fail those or provide nonsensical text. Advanced panels even use digital fingerprinting (checking device and IP consistency) to identify duplicate or automated attempts. The key is to combine these methods and review flagged cases manually when in doubt, so you filter out synthetic data but keep genuine respondents' feedback intact.

Question 4

When should agent interviews hand off to human moderators?

Accepted Answer

Agent-led interviews (using a chatbot or other AI system) should hand off to a human moderator whenever the conversation needs deeper understanding, empathy, or complex probing that the AI can't handle. An AI (Artificial Intelligence) agent is great for asking routine, scripted questions and gathering basic information, but as soon as a participant gives an unexpected or nuanced answer, shows confusion, or raises a sensitive topic, it's a cue for a human to step in. For example, if the interviewee expresses strong emotions or veers off the script with a novel idea, a human moderator can pick up on those cues, ask insightful follow-ups, and build rapport in a way an automated agent cannot. In short, use AI to efficiently cover the basics or initial screening, but transfer to a human interviewer whenever the interaction demands judgment, creativity, or personal connection.

Question 5

Where can AI help de-dup respondents across multiple suppliers?

Accepted Answer

Artificial intelligence (AI) is great at spotting and removing duplicate respondents across multiple sample suppliers by intelligently matching data, even when identifiers differ. Often the same person joins surveys from different panels under slightly different information; AI tools can compare incoming records at scale to catch overlaps that aren't obvious (such as similar demographics, identical device fingerprints or IP addresses, or unusual answer pattern coincidences). For example, AI might flag that "Jane Smith, 28, NYC" from Supplier A is likely the same individual as "J. Smith, 28, New York" from Supplier B if they share subtle data points like device ID or response timing. Machine learning models improve these matching rules over time, so they get better at distinguishing real duplicates from lookalikes. The result is a cleaner dataset without one person's opinions accidentally counted twice, which makes your research conclusions more reliable. Implementing AI for deduplication also saves immense manual effort, all while using privacy-safe methods (like hashing personal info) to compare records without exposing identities.

Cassi.ai

What is Cassi.ai?

Research Software and Platform Details

Cassi.ai Services and Expertise