Player ratings have become part of the conversation in social sports. DUPR is the rating most pickleball players in the Reclub community come across, and the headline finding from 648 responses is straightforward: ratings are genuinely useful to most of them. The more interesting question is where they add value, where they add friction, and what would make them feel fairer and easier to live with.
In May 2026 we ran an independent pulse-check survey across the Reclub pickleball community. Eighteen questions, progressive disclosure so players only see what is relevant, and full anonymity. This page draws on the full dataset of 648 responses from players and hosts across 16 countries in Southeast Asia to understand what the community actually thinks about ratings, what they want built, and what a platform like Reclub should do next.
648 responses across 16 countries, led by the Philippines (316) and Malaysia (182). 68% already have a DUPR rating. Nearly a third identify as hosts or player-hosts (184/648).
This is an independent Reclub Labs survey and analysis. It was not commissioned, sponsored or paid for by DUPR or any other ratings provider. Reclub does have a product integration with DUPR (see Methodology and Disclosure).
The Community Pulse
Seven threads running through the answers
1. Ratings are doing real work for the community
Before getting into the friction, it is worth saying clearly: the community is using ratings, and most players are getting value from them. 94% of respondents pick at least one concrete way ratings help them, only 6% say ratings are not particularly useful. The most cited benefits are finding balanced, mixed-level meets where I can improve (69%), finding competitive matches at my level (59%) and tracking my own progress over time (47%). Among players who have a DUPR rating, 58% say their own number feels roughly right or better, and 89% of all respondents check other players' ratings at least sometimes before joining a meet. DUPR has clearly earned a foothold as a shared shorthand for level across the region.
“It helps me find people I can actually have a good rally with, instead of guessing from a meet description.”
2. Most players check ratings, but rarely as a hard filter
68% of respondents already have a DUPR rating, and almost everyone who has one looks at other players' ratings before joining a meet. The most common pattern is sometimes, when the meet is unfamiliar, not always. Ratings act as a sanity check on top of the social cues players already use, who is hosting, who is coming, what kind of session it is. They rarely override those cues outright.
“I check ratings when I don't know the host or the regulars. If I trust the host, I'll just turn up.”
3. Trust sits in the middle, not at the top
Average trust in other players' ratings is 5.7 out of 10. The bulk of responses sit in the middle of the scale: roughly seven in ten land in the 5-8 range, with relatively few players at the extremes. The reasons players give are concrete and consistent: too few games to be meaningful, sandbagging, inflated ratings from playing weaker opponents, and players using multiple accounts to game their number. Multi-account abuse is now one of the top four quality complaints, cited by roughly one in four players who flag quality issues.
“Why is it so easily gamed, so many loopholes to go around it. It relies too much on one's integrity.”
4. Most players want logged play to be optional, not the default
The dominant pattern is “mostly socials, with the occasional logged meet”. Add the players who say they only want logged the odd time, and social-first preferences cover the majority of the sample. Almost no one wants everything to count. Players want the option to opt in to logged play meet-by-meet, with friction-free logging when they do.
“Split competition DUPR from rated matches DUPR.”
5. The number does carry pressure, but avoidance is fading
59%of rated players say their rating has made them feel anxious, pressured, or stressed at least sometimes. The top driver is loss aversion -- “worrying about losing rating points” -- followed closely by feeling judged by other players because of the number. However, the data shows a clear shift: active avoidance behaviours like skipping logged meets or avoiding casual play to protect a rating have dropped sharply as more responses arrive. The community is increasingly split between players who feel some pressure but play anyway, and a growing group who say they never feel stressed about their rating at all.
“You have to play a DUPR-rated game at least once every 60 days or you lose points for inactivity.”
6. Hosts and platforms have a role to play
The platform-side suggestions cluster around three themes. First, automatic logging when a host has enabled rating in the meet settings, so a forgotten host action does not cost a player a rated match. Second, transparency: players consistently ask for a clear breakdown of how their rating moved after each match, not just an updated number. Third, safeguards against multi-account abuse and sandbagging, with calls for stricter identity checks and better detection of rating manipulation.
“Hosts sometimes forget or don't know how to log the match. If the setting is already enabled in the meet, just log it automatically.”
7. What players want from a rating system
When asked who or what they would most trust to set their skill level, the most common answer is a formula based on real match results (41%), with a coach or experienced host who has played with me a clear second. Self-rating is unpopular. On display, players are split between an exact number (3.45) and a tight range (3.0-3.5), with a meaningful minority preferring simple beginner / intermediate / advanced labels.
Ratings are clearly useful to most of this community, and players are not asking for them to go away. They are asking for them to feel fairer, easier to interpret, and lighter to live with day-to-day. These threads come from 648 responses across 16 countries in Southeast Asia.
In Their Own Words
Selected anonymous quotes, lightly edited for clarity. No usernames or identifying details.
“Why do I see people lose DUPR even though they won the match?”
Malaysia
“I wonder how DUPR handles small samples, inactivity, sandbagging, and how trustworthy ratings really are.”
Philippines
“Why is it so easily gamed, so many loopholes to go around it. It relies too much on one's integrity.”
Singapore
“Too easy to fake. Others just open a new DUPR account for a competition.”
Hong Kong
“Many players are saying some players have 2 DUPR accounts. Does that allow?”
Malaysia
“Disallow hosts adding inactive players. I've had hosts add multiple high-rated inactive players just to fill spots, but once the game starts it's a bunch of 2.5s.”
Malaysia
Show 10 moreShow fewer
“Hosts sometimes forget or don't know how to log the match. If the setting is already enabled in the meet, just log it automatically.”
Indonesia
“How is it that in some areas a 3.5 is not actually that good, but in other areas they are actually around 2.6 in reality?”
Philippines
“There's no structured and fixed point system. Reclub hosts simply make decisions on the point system, from 18 points to 15 points.”
Malaysia
“Split competition DUPR from rated matches DUPR.”
Singapore
“You have to play a DUPR-rated game at least once every 60 days or you lose points for inactivity.”
Malaysia
“Fairer match-ups in round robins when it comes to unrated players, and transparency around ratings.”
Hong Kong
“Self-rating could be based on a few questions like tennis NTRP, where players choose where they think they are based on shots like serve and return.”
Singapore
“There has to be a way to better detect sandbaggers. It's currently too easy for players to sandbag and join lower rated events.”
Philippines
“Show detailed reason why DUPR rating went up or down in every match.”
Malaysia
“Rating is inaccurate as it disregards sex, age, playing time.”
Philippines
What Our Community Thinks Reclub Can Do Better
Themes pulled from open responses to “Is there anything Reclub could do to improve the way DUPR is managed in your communities?”
Fairer, more objective match-ups
26 mentionsThe loudest theme by a wide margin. Over a quarter of substantive open-text responses mention matchmaking, fairness, balanced courts, or skill-level grouping. Players want auto-balanced rotations, less host discretion in mixing teams, fairer round robins for unrated players, and stricter rules on who can join which bracket.
See examplesHide examples
- “More objective match-ups so the hosts can't mix and match players according to their liking.”Malaysia
- “Disallow hosts adding players who have been inactive for more than a week. I've had hosts add multiple high-rated inactive players just to get people to join, and once the game starts it's a bunch of 2.5s.”Malaysia
- “A round robin between 2.0 and 2.7 should be maximum 2.7 rating only, while some meets add more than 3.0 to play and that is really unfair.”Vietnam
Multi-account abuse and manipulation
19 mentionsA persistent concern across all four markets. Players report opponents running two DUPR accounts, creating extra Reclub profiles to game their rating, and deliberately sandbagging before competitions. Multiple respondents call for ID verification or stricter account controls.
See examplesHide examples
- “There has to be a way to better detect sandbaggers. It's currently too easy for players to sandbag and join lower rated events just to destroy the competition.”Philippines
- “Tie your national ID to your DUPR, reduce duplicate accounts. Show an all-time high DUPR rating. Only allow DUPR matches to club/facilities or only in tournaments.”Malaysia
- “Prevent players from having a 2nd account and prevent players from purposely dropping rating before competition.”Malaysia
More transparency around rating changes
8 mentionsPlayers want to see exactly how and why their rating moved after each match. Several ask for a breakdown per game, not just an updated number. This theme spans both the Reclub and DUPR improvement questions, reflecting a desire for the platform to bridge that gap.
See examplesHide examples
- “Show detailed reason why DUPR rating went up or down in every match.”Malaysia
- “Give advanced features for organisers who try to make a fair game, with feedback from players such as ratings or comments.”Singapore
- “There's no structured and fixed point system. Reclub hosts simply make decisions on the point system, from 18 to 15 points.”Malaysia
Better discovery and filtering
7 mentionsFilter meets by DUPR skill band, fix location detection when searching outside the home city, clearer signals around which meets are logged, and separate listings for DUPR and non-DUPR games.
See examplesHide examples
- “Add filter by DUPR skill number for games. Easier to find intermediate games.”Malaysia
- “Provide filters so players can filter DUPR and non-DUPR games.”Philippines
- “Definitely have categories where only certain people can play in those categories.”Philippines
Smoother, more reliable logging
9 mentionsAuto-log when the host has enabled rating, cleaner UI for logging matches, proper handling of DUPR Club IDs at venues, and matched account names across Reclub and DUPR. Several respondents want Reclub to sync directly with DUPR.
See examplesHide examples
- “Hosts sometimes forget or don't know how to log the match. If the setting is already enabled in the meet, just log it automatically without waiting for the host.”Indonesia
- “Clear log, fair round robin play. The app should not allow manual matches and only app-generated.”Philippines
- “Encourage hosts to have recorded events.”Philippines
Cost and accessibility
11 mentionsA recurring ask from players who feel the full rating experience should be more accessible. Several mention DUPR's premium paywall as a barrier, and others ask Reclub to reduce the cost of rated meets so more casual players can participate.
See examplesHide examples
- “Make cost cheaper so DUPR becomes more accessible.”Malaysia
- “Lessen cost, be transparent calculating DUPR. Allow to reset for free to show true rating.”Philippines
- “If you can put some premium features as free that would be great.”Philippines
What Players Are Still Wondering
Themes pulled from open responses to “Anything you've always wondered about DUPR?” and “Anything else you'd like to share?”
How is the rating actually calculated?
57 mentionsBy far the loudest open question, appearing in over a third of all wondering responses. Players want to understand the math, the parameters, and what makes their number move up or down. Several have seen their rating drop after winning, which makes the formula feel like a black box. The intensity of this theme underlines a core design challenge: trust requires legibility.
See examplesHide examples
- “I've always been curious how the grading system works.”Philippines
- “Why do I see people lose DUPR even though they won the match?”Malaysia
- “Why some matches I lost but gain rating points, but also some matches I won but lost the point?”Vietnam
Multiple accounts and gaming the system
22 mentionsA persistent and growing concern across both the wondering and improvement questions. Players report opponents running two DUPR accounts, creating throwaway profiles for competitions, and deliberately losing to manipulate their rating downward. This theme now surfaces across trust, quality and open-text questions alike.
See examplesHide examples
- “Why is it so easily gamed, so many loopholes to go around it. It relies too much on one's integrity.”Singapore
- “How easy it is to manipulate DUPR ratings.”Philippines
- “It seems like a norm here in Penang, Malaysia that players artificially lower their DUPR to play in rookie tournaments. It's not healthy for the sport.”Malaysia
Self-rating doesn't reflect real skill
15 mentionsPlayers are sceptical of self-reported numbers, asking for placement matches, structured guidance, and a stronger weight on actual match history. Several note that NR (no-rating) players start at a confusing default, and that a 3.5 in one city plays nothing like a 3.5 in another.
See examplesHide examples
- “Self rating usually does not show the real skill of a person.”Indonesia
- “Start DUPR at 0 or 1.0 instead of 4.0. If you only play DUPR sometimes then your rating would be inaccurate.”Philippines
- “Have several placement matches over different days before showing DUPR for more accurate ratings.”Philippines
Inactivity decay and 60-day rules
6 mentionsSeveral players ask whether their rating drops if they stop playing, and how often they need a logged game to keep the number stable. The decay mechanic is one of the less understood parts of the system, and the anxiety around it is real: some players avoid meets specifically to protect a rating they have stopped investing in.
See examplesHide examples
- “Does your DUPR rating drop or get removed if you haven't played in a long time?”Philippines
- “You have to play a DUPR rating game at least once every 60 days or you will lose some point for inactivity.”Malaysia
- “An 'expiry date' for ratings, requiring at least 1 or 2 DUPR matches per year to retain rating.”Singapore
Demographics, context and regional fairness
17 mentionsA newer thread with real depth: players question whether the rating should factor in age, gender, or playing experience. Others ask about regional fairness, noting that a 3.5 in the Philippines plays nothing like a 3.5 in Malaysia. Several point out that doubles penalises players who are paired with weaker partners, regardless of their own performance.
See examplesHide examples
- “Rating is inaccurate as it disregards sex, age, playing time.”Vietnam
- “How is it that in some areas a 3.5 is not actually that good, but in other areas they are actually around 2.6 in reality?”Philippines
- “DUPR should be affected by gender, age, category, region and the mean. Not based on if I can lose DUPR even if I win the game.”Malaysia
The Regional Picture
How the answers shift across the four largest markets
The headline numbers mask real differences. Trust, pressure and preferences for how a rating should work all move significantly between countries. If you host, play or build product across multiple markets, these contrasts matter. Here is how the four largest communities in the survey compare.
The largest and most host-trusting market. 50% prefer a human to set their rating (coach, host, or club), the highest share of any country. Trust is moderate at 6.0/10, but pressure runs at 59% of rated players. The Philippines reads as a community that believes in ratings but wants them anchored by people they know, not just an algorithm.
The most rated community (80% have a DUPR) and the most social-first (70%). Trust sits lower at 5.4/10, consistent with more experience seeing the system's gaps. Malaysian players are the most likely to flag multi-account abuse and sandbagging in open text. They know DUPR well and they want it to work better.
The highest-pressure market: 72% of rated players feel anxious about their number. Trust is the lowest at 5.2/10, and 79% prefer mostly social play. Singapore is the clearest signal that a ratings-heavy environment needs a pressure-relief valve for players who want to play without everything counting.
The most formula-leaning community: 55% want an algorithm based on real match results. But pressure also runs high at 71% of rated players. Vietnamese players are the most explicit about regional bias in the open text, noting that ratings in Da Nang or Saigon feel disconnected from European benchmarks.
The pattern underneath: every market wants ratings to be fairer and more transparent, but the emphasis shifts. Where communities trust coaches and hosts, a human-anchored system lands best. Where communities have more experience with DUPR, they want the algorithm to be stronger and harder to game. No single design fits all four markets perfectly, and that is itself a finding worth building on.
What This Means for Hosts
Implications and opportunities from 648 responses
31% of all respondents say one of the most valuable things a rating can do is help hosts and organisers create fair match-ups. That is a mandate, and it sits alongside the dominant open-text theme: the community wants fairer, more objective groupings. Here is what that means in practice.
Players value host-driven matchmaking, but they are watching for favouritism. The open text is clear: hosts who let regulars dictate brackets, or who add inactive high-rated players to pad numbers, lose trust quickly. The hosts who come up most positively are the ones who treat every rotation as fair.
64% of hosts and player-hosts prefer mostly social play. But 15% of all respondents want to know before joining whether a meet's games are logged. The opportunity: be clear in your meet description. If you log DUPR, say so. If it is a casual night, say that too. Players want to opt in to logged play, not be surprised by it.
59% of rated players feel anxious about their number at least sometimes. The top two stress drivers are loss aversion and feeling judged by others. As a host, you set the tone. Normalise the fact that ratings move. Celebrate improvement, not just high numbers. A single comment like “this is a learning session, don't worry about your DUPR” can shift the energy of an entire meet.
33% of respondents use ratings to filter out events that would be too hard or too easy. 69% use them to find balanced meets where they can improve. If you set clear DUPR ranges for your sessions and use ratings to build fair brackets, you are giving players what they have asked for. The data says the demand is already there.
The Trust Landscape
What this means for a platform in a multi-rating world
One of the most strategic findings in this survey is what happens when you put the preference data side by side. 41% want a formula. 45% trust a human. Only 11% trust themselves. No single rating source commands majority trust. This is not a failure of DUPR; it is a structural feature of how communities think about skill. And it has direct implications for any platform sitting between players, hosts and rating providers.
The data advantage
Reclub is in a unique position: it sees who plays with whom, how hosts set up brackets, which meets players return to, and which they avoid. That social graph is a rating signal in its own right. The community is already telling us that match-result algorithms and human judgment are complementary, not competing. A platform that layers both, and adds the social signals it already collects, can build something more trustworthy than any single source.
The transparency gap is an opening
57 separate responses ask some version of “how is my rating calculated?” That is the single loudest open-text theme in the entire survey. The formula itself belongs to DUPR, but the communication layer belongs to the platform. Showing players a clear, visual breakdown of what happened to their rating after each session, why it moved, and what they can do to improve it, is a product opportunity that sits squarely in Reclub's control.
Community trust is not the same as algorithm trust
Average trust in others' ratings is 5.7/10. That is not low, but it is not high enough to build a community around without additional trust layers. The responses make clear that players trust the people in their community more than they trust a number. A platform that surfaces host reputation, player history and returning-player signals alongside a DUPR number is building on the trust that already exists, rather than asking players to transfer trust to a single metric.
“I check ratings when I don't know the host or the regulars. If I trust the host, I'll just turn up.”
Building It Together: What Comes Next
Three priorities shaped by what 648 players told us
The message from this survey is clear: the pickleball community in Southeast Asia is engaged, growing, and ready to invest in a better rating experience. DUPR has given the region a shared language for skill. The opportunity now is to build the layers around it that make ratings feel fairer, more transparent and less stressful to live with. Here is what that looks like.
1. Make ratings legible, not just visible
The biggest gap is not accuracy; it is understanding. 57 respondents ask how the rating is calculated. Showing a post-session breakdown, visualising what happened and why, and giving players a clear “what to do next” signal would address the single loudest theme in the survey. Hosts can help by explaining the basics at their meets and normalising the fact that ratings fluctuate.
2. Layer trust signals, not just a single number
No single rating source commands majority trust. The community is telling us that a formula and a human anchor work best together. The practical next step: let hosts verify levels, let match history adjust ratings over time, and let returning-player patterns surface credibility that a single number cannot capture. The community can help by playing, logging, and giving honest feedback after sessions.
3. Protect the social game
60% of respondents want mostly social play. 59% of rated players feel pressure. The community is not asking for ratings to go away, but it is asking for a clear boundary between social and rated play. Hosts should be able to mark a meet as “social only” and have that mean something. Players should be able to turn up, play hard, and know their number will not change unless they opted in. Reclub's role is to make that boundary easy to set, easy to see, and easy to trust.
The pickleball community in Southeast Asia is young, passionate and growing fast. They want ratings to work because they want better games. The distance between where the system is and where they want it to be is real, and so is the collective energy to close it, together.
Themes drawn from 648 survey responses and 468 open-text answers across four free-text questions. Coverage: 16 countries across Southeast Asia, led by the Philippines and Malaysia.
Question By Question
Filter by country to see how the answers shift across communities.
Where Players Stand With DUPR
“Which one sounds most like you when it comes to DUPR?”
All filtered responses · 648 of 648 responses
68% of respondents already have a DUPR rating, but a meaningful share check theirs only occasionally. DUPR is in the community, the question is how engaged players are with it day-to-day.
Checking Others' Ratings
“When deciding whether to join a meet, how often do you look at OTHER players' ratings?”
All filtered responses · 648 of 648 responses
89% of players use other people's ratings as part of their join decision. Ratings act more like a sanity check than a hard filter, plenty of players still rely on host and meet familiarity instead.
Trust In Other Players' Ratings
“How much do you trust other players' ratings as a true reflection of their level?”
Asked of players who look at others' ratings · 576 of 648 filtered (648 total) · 1 = very low trust, 10 = very high trust
Why Trust Is Low
“What's behind the low trust? Pick anything that applies.”
Players with trust score 1-5 · 256 of 648 responses
The dominant low-trust reason is "inflated ratings from playing weaker opponents" at 56%. The pattern is structural, not personal: small sample sizes, sandbagging, and inflated wins compound to make the number feel detached from on-court reality.
* Option added partway through the survey, so its share is a floor rather than a ceiling
Logged vs Social Mix
“What's your usual mix of play?”
All filtered responses · 648 of 648 responses
Social-first players (61%) outweigh logged-first players (7%) by a wide margin. Players want logging to be opt-in per meet, not the default. Hosts and platforms should make the toggle obvious rather than hidden.
What Ratings Are Most Useful For
“What do you find most useful about player ratings?”
All filtered responses (multi-select) · 648 of 648 responses
The number-one use case is "helping me find balanced, mixed-level meets where i can improve" (69%). Players value ratings most when they help them find good games, not when they rank players against each other. Rating systems that lean into match-finding will resonate.
Finding Logged Meets
“How easy is it to find meets in your area where games are logged toward your DUPR rating?”
Players with a DUPR rating · 438 of 648 responses
Most players (77%) can find logged meets if they put in some effort, but 17% have to plan around them. Findability is more friction than blocker, surfacing logged meets in the app feed could materially raise rated participation.
Logged Meet Experience
“When you do play meets where games are logged, how would you rate the overall experience?”
Players with a DUPR rating · 438 of 648 responses
44% rate the overall logged-meet experience as good or excellent, but 49% land on "mixed". The bar to a great experience is largely about consistency, not the format itself.
What Gets In The Way
“What tends to get in the way of a great experience?”
Players reporting friction (multi-select) · 243 of 648 responses
The top friction is "other players' ratings don't reflect their real level" (68%). The pattern that runs underneath all of these is mismatch: between the number, the player, and the meet. Better match-up logic and clearer host expectations would address most of them at once.
* Option added partway through the survey, so its share is a floor rather than a ceiling
How Accurate Players Feel Their Own Rating Is
“How accurately do you feel your DUPR rating reflects your real playing level?”
Players with a DUPR rating · 438 of 648 responses
58% of rated players feel their own DUPR is at least roughly right, but 38% feel it is meaningfully off. "A bit off" tolerance is normal, "way off" players are the ones at risk of disengaging from the rating altogether.
Rating Pressure
“Has your rating ever made you feel anxious, pressured, or stressed?”
Players with a DUPR rating · 438 of 648 responses
60% of rated players feel rating pressure at least sometimes. The number is doing real emotional work for the people who carry it, design and communication choices around DUPR have a wellbeing dimension, not just a UX one.
What Causes The Pressure
“What about your rating tends to cause that pressure?”
Players feeling pressure (multi-select) · 259 of 648 responses
The leading source of pressure is "worrying about losing rating points" (56%). Loss aversion and social judgement do most of the emotional damage, the cure is less about removing the rating and more about making it feel less precarious.
Who Should Set Skill Level
“If you could choose, who or what would you most trust to set your skill level for a meet?”
All filtered responses · 648 of 648 responses
41% trust a formula based on real match results, 46% trust a human (coach, host, or organiser). Self-rating is a distant third. Players want a system, not a guess, but they want a human safety net on top of it.
How Skill Should Be Shown
“How would you most like to see skill levels displayed?”
All filtered responses · 648 of 648 responses
62% prefer a numeric display (exact or short range), 27% prefer simple skill labels. There is no single right answer here, the pragmatic move is letting players choose how their own number is shown.
Methodology and Disclosure
Based on 648 anonymous survey responses collected from 1 May 2026 onwards via the Reclub app. Last updated 7 May 2026. Participants received 2 weeks of Reclub Premium as a thank-you for their time. The survey uses progressive disclosure, so questions only appear when relevant to the previous answer. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.
Where responses came from. 🇵🇭 Philippines 49% · 🇲🇾 Malaysia 28% · 🇸🇬 Singapore 9% · 🇮🇩 Indonesia 5% · 🇻🇳 Vietnam 3% · 🇭🇰 Hong Kong 2% · 🇹🇭 Thailand 1% · 🌏 HK 0% · 🌏 Hong kong 0% · 🌏 Hk 0% · 🇧🇳 Brunei 0% · 🇰🇭 Cambodia 0% · 🌏 Hong Kong 0% · 🇶🇦 Qatar 0% · 🇿🇦 South Africa 0% · 🌏 hong kong 0%.
How respondents use Reclub. Player 67% · Player and Host 31% · Host 1% · Spectator, I follow but rarely play on Reclub 1%.
Insights on this page are written by Reclub Labs based on aggregated survey data. No individual responses are disclosed.
Disclosure. This survey and analysis are independent. Reclub was not commissioned, sponsored or paid by DUPR or any other ratings provider, and the goal is simply to improve our community and learn more. Reclub does have a product integration with DUPR: clubs can submit match ratings to DUPR through Reclub, and players can link their DUPR profile to their Reclub profile. We ran this survey to better understand how that integration, and player ratings in general, are landing with the community.
Want to review the exact questionnaire shown to participants? View the original survey page.