04 June 2017

Beta-Phase Feedback Summary

The staff has assembled all the feedback from the beta-phase. Here is a summary of what was suggested and what we have done. The complete feedback summary is 7200 words, if any member wishes to access the document this than please contact us at info@redfiles.com.au.

Content

  • Beta-members expressed confusion over some of the Red Files content. This was mainly due to length – however many expressed the general content was necessary and relevant. Lisa (a volunteer) donated her skills as a copy-editor and simplified the content.

Design & Layout

  • Header photos: there were suggestions to include a photo of someone in their home, red umbrellas or images of people a bit older than what is there are currently. This task will be allocated for a future volunteer to complete (is this you?).
  • Displaying the number of files on the public homepage swayed little influence as to whether a sex worker signs up or not. However many members raised concerns, citing that this attracted unwanted attention. We have recorded the number of files and displayed them in the member-only section, to demonstrate that this is an active resource that is continuously growing.
  • We now have a header with all the important links.

Community Guidelines

  • The Community Guidelines have been updated and the main changes are: grammar, sentence coherence, anecdotes and examples and greater emphasis of the golden rule of ‘what happens in Red Files stays in Red Files’. The difference in text for the public and full Guidelines have been highlighter.

Legal

  • We have made mention that if legalities are inaccessible than sex workers should contact us for a simplified explanation.
  • A member asked if the Grant of License and Indemnity Clause could be explained in softer language, but after consultation with the legal team, the Director has decided to leave this until another person flags it or until the first Committee meeting. The cost for softer language include expanding the two paragraphs into 12 paragraphs and $350 in legal fees.

Donations

  • During the course of the beta-phase one member set up the suggest $20 a month donation, one donated $100 once off, and a non-member sex worker donated $50.
  • There was the reoccurring suggestion that a one-off donation for a cycle, or six months, would be a more effective approach. We have reflect this in the content with recommended suggestion. We have also switched from weekly recommendation to monthly.
  • It should be noted on the public-section that financial reports are available in the database for each cycle. This would also align with the suggestion that the staff be more transparent about a MODs wage. It is also recommended to have an external auditor to determine the legitimacy of these reports.
  • The donation trackers seemed confusing so we've made a pie-chart for sex workers to understand where their money is going (this will be couple with a financial report).
  • A final suggestion to make donation not so money-centric would be to suggest donating something other than money such as time, skill, knowledge, wisdom, guidance or effort. This in turn will hopefully create a community spirit.

Sponsorship

  • Some members expressed confusion with the title ‘Advertise with Us’ as it’s a loaded term within the community. We have changed this to ‘Sponsor Us’ as this more acutely reflects the idea.
  • We have had two sponsors, one of which is a sex worker organisation.

Sign-Up

  • There were suggestions to shorten or simplify the process. It is incredibly difficult to balance the need for verification (legalities) vs accessibility vs alleviating fear. We have used language to shorten the process as much as possible.
  • Some changes include: sign up options via phone call or skype, I am not a robot button, informing about screenshots before the 3rd page, option to email screenshots, the and/or option for contact by phone/email and removal of any mention of personal social media accounts.
  • Unfortunately, many of the beta-member skipped vital sections of the application process (guarantor and screenshots) and we are unable to measure the reasoning for this. The absence of these sections created greater labour for the MODs. If this continues in future applications after launch, the Director will need to investigate the cause and attempt to rectify it.

FAQ

  • We ensured there was no mention of reports in the FAQs, and clarified any questions that were answered vaguely.
  • New answers have been added, and some old ones made redundant.
  • One member felt uninformed about the decision-making structure in the public side of the FAQs. We have answered this as transparently as possible.
  • One member noticed that managers and owners had access to Red Files, and assumed that they had the exact same viewing capacity as other sex workers. They do not. We had added greater transparency of this in the FAQS.
  • Both the FAQs and Help Desk now have a search function to assist you.

PIN

  • 44.4% of 9 respondents preferred SMS over email. We now have an SMS option.
  • The display of information on a full report has been shifted around for more relevance.
  • A male member wanted to know if a report refers to a client who sees men or women in the report tabs. It would be impossible for this to come up on the report tabs on the landing page, but the filter on the search function will satisfactorily show the distinction in the results of each search. Interestingly, two female members wanted to remove the male/female/trans distinction. If the gendering of reports proves to be a reoccurring issue, we will bring this up with the Committee.
  • The colouring of the orange tag has been rectified so that orange tags always appear before purple tags.
  • We have added mentally draining, police entrapment and emotional manipulation as tags.
  • A member offered a new tier for discrimination, inappropriate service providers or reviews of poor working conditions. Further report colouring will be brought up with the Committee.

Reports

  • The display of information on a full report has been shifted around for more relevance.
  • A male member wanted to know if a report refers to a client who sees men or women in the report tabs. It would be impossible for this to come up on the report tabs on the landing page, but the filter on the search function will satisfactorily show the distinction in the results of each search. Interestingly, two female members wanted to remove the male/female/trans distinction. If the gendering of reports proves to be a reoccurring issue, we will bring this up with the Committee.
  • The colouring of the orange tag has been rectified so that orange tags always appear before purple tags.
  • We have added mentally draining, police entrapment and emotional manipulation as tags.
  • Tags are also now alphebetically ordered.
  • A member offered a new tier for discrimination, inappropriate service providers or reviews of poor working conditions. Further report colouring will be brought up with the Committee.

Grievance Procedure

  • We have ‘shortened’ the Grievance Procedure by use of iconography and have a simplified "Step 1-3".
  • We have answered what happens to a member while a grievance is being resolved in the Help Desk.
  • Another member suggested explicitly mentioning that the Director (and the rest of the team) are not beyond the Grievance Procedure. This has been included in the Procedures.

Community Tips

  • We have added 30 new Community Tips and have made all of these accessible to members.