Milestone 3 NCPD
Thoughts after brainstorming are:
- There could be a mismatch in the quality of work that the requester wants and the skillset of the worker. For example, the average level of skills for a worker could be below average for a requester.
- The tasks could be classified as “Easy”,”Intermediate” or “Hard” to help the workers choose the tasks that best suits them. But the definition of these categories could mean different for different people. The category “Easy” could be “Hard” for some and vice versa.
- The commitment of the worker towards the job is something that the requester should trust. Also, the worker should be sincere enough to fulfil the commitment.
- The wage that is paid to the worker should be proportional to the effort that he puts in.
- The description of the task should be very clear so that the worker caters to the exact needs of the requester. And, there should be communication between the worker and the requester time to time to ensure that the task is performed in a right way.
- Rating the job done by the worker and acknowledging the work will help the requesters notice the workers who are fit to carry out their job.
- What if the requester is happy with the quality of work, but rejects it because he doesn't want to pay up for the completed task? There is an issue of trust in such cases.
- A requester who has bad ratings could create another account to post his tasks. This could mislead the workers about the requester’s credibility. Hence, a requester should prove his credentials before he is permitted to become a requester. This is to ensure that one requester has only one account through which he can post tasks.
- Once the worker submits the task, it has to be reviewed to check if it meets the standards. Instead of the requester checking for standards of the work, it would be better of we can have a set of independent reviewers. One of the top workers could become a reviewer.
- The requester should pay based on the difficulty and time constraint of the job.
- Workers who help other worker in their jobs must be acknowledged. They could be given higher ratings, recommendations or paid for their help.
Dive Deeper into Specific Ideas
- Milestone 3 NCPD TrustIdea 1: Requester and worker portfolios - #http://crowdresearch.meteor.com/posts/TaNbEkmeoSSiv5vDB
- Milestone 3 NCPD TrustIdea 2: Worker acknowledgement - #http://crowdresearch.meteor.com/posts/ShEsGS3tx2Gdq9noJ
- Milestone 3 NCPD TrustIdea 3: Chat System - #http://crowdresearch.meteor.com/posts/ShEsGS3tx2Gdq9noJ
- Milestone 3 NCPD PowerIdea 1: Creation and Monitoring of Milestones - #http://crowdresearch.meteor.com/posts/HEiG2GyJWLFPzThYc
- Milestone 3 NCPD PowerIdea 2: Rating and crowd reviewing - #http://crowdresearch.meteor.com/posts/qsv2bcRNjSL3PC8sC
Dark Horse idea
An interesting paradigm (that’s potentially crazy) to explore would be the possibility of allowing delegation across workers. Delegation in a direction of decreasing seniority or experience is common in real-life scenarios. In this, a crowd-worker with a higher rating on the platform (implying more experience, more trustworthy, etc.) would be able to delegate a task from the requester to another crowd-worker with a lower rating, serving as a middle-man. In this process, the middle-man requester would pass on most of the pay received from the requester, keeping a small margin. This is potentially a win-win for all the three (or more) parties involved because:
- The crowd-worker with a low rating is able to receive high-quality work which is usually given to workers with higher ratings, while also improving and progressing his/her rating on the platform.
- The middle-man, besides gaining a margin and reputation, supervises the worker with his/her expertise.
- The requester has a higher assurance level of work completion in spite of high engagement of higher-rated workers. Quality of work is also guaranteed because of inspection that’d be carried out by the middle-man, because (s)he is also a stakeholder.