Just got a reply from the mods: the post was caught in Reddit's filter, and they have now manually approved it.

That's right, I have tried to post it also to Reddit, but I've got "Sorry, this post was removed by Reddit’s filters." I have sent a message to the mods, now waiting for response.

Thank you for completing the survey and for your thoughtful feedback. The similarity between some questions is intentional and follows common scientific practice when measuring complex or abstract concepts. Using multiple, slightly varied items that target the same construct increases the reliability and validity of the data by capturing subtle nuances and reducing the influence of random response variation. While your suggestion to show only a subset of such items through adaptive platforms is valid and worth exploring, fixed item sets are generally preferred in research settings to ensure consistent and robust measurement. We appreciate your input and will consider it in future survey design improvements.

Thank you for your feedback! You're right, self-employment could be listed more clearly, but choosing “Other” was absolutely fine and your response is fully valid. Thanks again!

Yeah, it surprised me too! If you want to read more about it, check out the paper titled "Towards Privacy and Security in Private Clouds: A Representative Survey on the Prevalence of Private Hosting and Administrator Characteristics" by Gröber et al. (2024).

Thanks for the comment: that’s a really good point to raise.

Just to clarify: the statement "I use self-hosted services in the following categories as much as possible" is meant to reflect how fully you make use of self-hosted solutions in each area. A response like “Strongly agree” would indicate that you actively use and take full advantage of self-hosting in that category.

If you don’t use solutions in a particular category at all — whether that’s because you don’t need them, aren’t interested, or use only external services — then it’s completely appropriate to select a disagreeing option (e.g. “Disagree” or “Strongly disagree”). In this context, lower agreement simply indicates low or no use, regardless of the reason.

From a methodological standpoint, the data will be analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM). This approach requires a complete set of responses across the measured constructs. If we included a “not applicable” option, it would create missing values in the dataset and potentially lead to excluding the entire response for that part of the analysis — which would significantly reduce the usable sample size.

That said, I really appreciate your feedback! :)

That’s a very valid concern, and you’re absolutely right to bring it up.

One existing study that surveyed the general population found that about 8.4% of respondents were self-hosting users, which means that in order to get enough self-hosters from the general population for meaningful analysis, we’d need a very large sample.

Unfortunately, we don’t have the funding or resources to conduct such large-scale research through a representative panel or agency. That’s why this study is focusing on communities where self-hosting is already discussed, like this one.

That said, we’re definitely aware of this limitation, and we’re also sharing the survey in broader, more general-interest online communities where we expect non-self-hosters (or people unfamiliar with the concept) to be more present. This will allow us to include comparisons between the two groups in the analysis.

Really appreciate your thoughtful comment — thanks!

You're absolutely right, rephrasing similar questions is a common technique in survey design to reduce bias and improve reliability.

Some questions may feel a bit redundant or oddly phrased because we based the survey on validated constructs from prior academic research, especially well-established models like the Technology Acceptance Model. Using these standardized scales helps ensure the results are scientifically sound and comparable with previous studies - though I totally get that it can feel repetitive from a participant’s point of view.

That said, I really appreciate the feedback from both of you.

Thanks for the comment — that’s a valid observation, and I understand how the wording might feel a bit awkward.

Just to clarify: the statement comes from a standardized construct called Subjective Norms, and follows the phrasing from the paper "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model" by Venkatesh & Davis (2000).

For all independent variables in the survey, we relied on validated scales and established practices from prior scientific research, to ensure consistency and reliability. That said, I really appreciate your feedback. :)

Absolutely, that’s our intention as well! Our university actively encourages publishing in open-access journals whenever possible, and I fully support that approach. So yes, if all goes well, the results will definitely be published open access. Thanks for the encouragement! :)

It's true! :) Starting with TLD: si - Slovenia; um - University of Maribor; feri - Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science; lpt - Laboratory for Data technologies; and survey for LimeSurvey.

Thanks so much – I definitely will! The results will be published in my PhD dissertation, and since publication in a scientific journal is a requirement for completing the degree, they’ll be shared there as well. I’ll make sure to post a link here once everything is available! :)