Milestone 3 NCPD PowerIdea 2: Rating and crowd reviewing

From crowdresearch
Revision as of 11:32, 18 March 2015 by Ruchikas (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Once a task is successfully completed, the requester can give rating to the worker which will be added to his portfolio. This will help to improve his profile so that other requesters can trust the worker and he will get more opportunities. Same goes for the requester as well. The worker can rate the requester on the grounds of the work allotted to him and how the requester’s attitude was towards his worker. Also mentioning if he was satisfied with the pay he received for the work. This will help create a better impression of both requester and worker in public. This will also motivate the workers and requesters to perform better to improve their profile. The profiles can be classified into various strength levels, e.g. beginner, intermediate, advanced, expert etc.

For reviewing the work completed by the worker, the requester can take help of a third party. This helps worker to trust the requester’s decision to whether accept or reject the work. This third party is an expert trusted by both the worker and the requester, and will give a fair review. Now the question arises that who can act as this trusted third party. Just one outsider cannot review the work done by different workers in different domains. This requires experts from different domains who can be trusted.

As mentioned earlier, the profiles of requesters and workers start with the beginner level and goes upto, say, expert level. When a requester reaches the expert level, he can be converted into a third party reviewer which provides him with the power to evaluate other’s work. This requester is assumed to be an expert in the domain in which he offers work because of his experiences, ratings and reviews collected from the other workers who previously worked under him. This requester is considered to provide fair feedback for other’s work and hence gives him the power to review other’s work.

But in the initial stages of crowdsourcing, when all the requesters and workers are in the beginner level, the work completed cannot be reviewed by any third party requester as there is no requester in the expert zone. So, in the initial stages the crowdsourcing can personally review the work to maintain impartial feedback or contact a known expert from outside to evaluate the work. This is done until there are expert requesters available to takeover the power and responsibility of evaluating other’s work.