Difference between revisions of "Milestone 3 Team Innovation 2 PowerIdea1: Worker Feedback on Tasks"
(Created page with "Milestone 3, Team Innovation 2, Power Idea 1 = Worker Feedback on Tasks = Good task design is relevant to both workers and requesters. For workers, good task design makes it...")
|Line 1:||Line 1:|
= Worker Feedback on Tasks =
= Worker Feedback on Tasks =
Revision as of 22:26, 18 March 2015
Worker Feedback on Tasks
Good task design is relevant to both workers and requesters. For workers, good task design makes it easy to understand how to do the work properly, which is important even for deciding whether to do a task; good task design also makes it easy to perform work. For requesters, good task design attracts good workers, promotes good performance from workers, and even helps organize work as it's delivered.
Thus, the goals of allowing worker feedback on tasks are a) to ensure work is easy and appealing to perform well, and b) to educate requesters on good task design, so that good task creation will become easier and more natural.
Many requesters already utilize worker feedback to create their tasks, some by posting pilot tasks to generate feedback that's used to design the real task, and some by directly asking workers for their opinions. The idea described below incorporates aspects of both of those approaches.
For this idea, requesters can post their tasks and receive feedback right on the task itself, like comments posted on a wiki page or blog post. This way, other workers can see what comments have been posted already, and requesters can answer questions and discuss the task where workers can see it.
Workers who complete a task can give it a star rating if they choose, and include detailed information in their completion feedback such as how long it took them to complete the task, whether the directions were clear, and whether the task was worth the pay offered. This feedback is visible in the requester's work history and helps contribute to workers' ability to make judgements about whether to trust the requester.
Some ratings, like the rating for clarity of instructions, could also be accessible to workers who are not completing the task, which would enable requesters to determine why their tasks are not being completed, or why their tasks are being completed without satisfactory results.
Ratings of a requester's tasks could also potentially affect how the site interacts with the requester, for instance, allowing requesters who have better overall task feedback to post more tasks than requesters with low feedback. The system could also allow only tasks that have received above a certain rating to be reposted, which would require requesters to revise ill-designed tasks before opening them to workers again.
It would also be beneficial to provide a place for requesters to post their tasks for feedback without officially releasing them into the work pool, so that they can vet their tasks with workers without affecting their ratings.