The core difference is our approach:
We think a researcher’s job isn’t to figure out complex systems to find quality participants, so we provide best practice research methods directly into our tools. We allow researchers to customise their studies in many ways, but a researcher isn’t required to spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on details such as preventing duplication, calculating incentives, performing quality checks or other measures. Positly does all of this (and more) right out of the box.
When we design a feature, we think about the many different contexts in which the feature could be used. Then we try to get to the root of the problem that the researcher has and abstract the solution to the most universally useful feature. Finally, we ensure that the feature behaves in a way that the researcher would expect.
Our development process means that all researchers on Positly benefit from a versatile tool that is customisable to their needs. As we develop and release new features, Positly can be applied in different research contexts, all while maintaining a familiar and intuitive interface – freeing time for researchers to do what they do best.
I’ve currently got some draft comparisons with specific other platforms which I can share with anyone who get’s in touch (not posting publicly as I want to make sure they’re bulletproof first when making specific comparisons to other companies).
This sounds very interesting. How does it compare to alternative recruitment platforms?
Thanks Peter – I’ve written an article that explains the differences generally speaking between different approaches to recruitment: https://www.positly.com/blogs/post/comparing-positly-with-alternative-recruitment-methods
The core difference is our approach: We think a researcher’s job isn’t to figure out complex systems to find quality participants, so we provide best practice research methods directly into our tools. We allow researchers to customise their studies in many ways, but a researcher isn’t required to spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on details such as preventing duplication, calculating incentives, performing quality checks or other measures. Positly does all of this (and more) right out of the box. When we design a feature, we think about the many different contexts in which the feature could be used. Then we try to get to the root of the problem that the researcher has and abstract the solution to the most universally useful feature. Finally, we ensure that the feature behaves in a way that the researcher would expect. Our development process means that all researchers on Positly benefit from a versatile tool that is customisable to their needs. As we develop and release new features, Positly can be applied in different research contexts, all while maintaining a familiar and intuitive interface – freeing time for researchers to do what they do best.
I’ve currently got some draft comparisons with specific other platforms which I can share with anyone who get’s in touch (not posting publicly as I want to make sure they’re bulletproof first when making specific comparisons to other companies).