Yet another survey: tuner configuration as a factor explaining reliability

Rather than impose a definition of reliability, I'm leaving the definition to the respondents. This ducks some problems while it raises others. But, fundamentally, I'm interested in users' perceptions. So, it's reasonable to let respondents define the concept however they choose. You can include or exclude any aspect of reliability according to your good will.

I do hope that most folks have some decent understanding of the term "reliability." But, however one tweaks the words, the responses will tend to reflect subjective satisfaction over any more objective construct. Sophisticated arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, that's the nature of surveys. They tend to reflect opinion. And, one dimension (factor) or another tends to overshadow everything else. I'm trying to make this work for, rather than against, me.

The two big holes in the methodology are bias and bias <g>. I doubt whether the membership of this site is representative of R15 users at large. I suspect--without benefit of good evidence, mind you--that they're relatively more sophisticated technically and that they're relatively less satisfied. Adding to this bias is the tendency for dissatisfied users to be more likely to expend the effort necessary to complete the survey. So (unless the result is that there's no difference in satisfaction), the survey will tend to overstate the case for user dissatisfaction.

But, there's no cost-effective way of avoiding that bias. I don't have a means to contact users at large and compel them to complete a survey. I can't achieve that within even the limited context of the membership of this forum.

Most surveys suffer from bias. A good research report will at least discuss the issue. Many reports fail even that test.