Difference between revisions of "Milestone 4 Team Innovation 2"
(→List of Ideas and the Theme they belong to)
|(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)|
|Line 23:||Line 23:|
, , , .
[[Milestone 4 : ]]
[[Milestone 4 : of ]]
Latest revision as of 23:23, 25 March 2015
We're a team of experienced Turkers, which is the point of view represented by the ideas below.
Design Axes for 3 Themes
How might we build empathy between workers and requesters?
- Compare and contrast: Commonalities between the ideas include: humanizing workers and requesters, increasing availability and exchange of information, increasing interaction between workers and requesters, and an emphasis on positive interactions. Differences between ideas for this theme include: form of interaction, collaboration level of interaction (one-sided movement of information or positivity vs. equal exchange), and whether the idea directly involves tasks or the crowdsourcing system (some ideas focus more on social bonding and some ideas act within the crowdsourcing system itself).
- Design axes: Our proposed design axes vary the form of interaction (direct or equal-exchange interaction vs. indirect or one-sided interaction) and focus on social bonding vs. work relationship.
How might we design better reputation systems?
- Compare and contrast: Commonalities between these ideas include: rewarding good work and longevity, matching workers with tasks suited to their skills, and providing different privileges and access to those with different ratings. Differences between these ideas include: where ratings come from (workers providing information about their own skills vs. the system or an outside source rating worker skills), the effects of ratings on workers and requesters, and how and when work is accessible to workers.
- Design axes: Our proposed design axes vary the rating source (self-reported vs. generated by an outside source) and how much ratings influence access to the system.
How might workers and requesters work together to produce higher-quality results?
- Compare and contrast: Both ideas use group opinion to make decisions, have a requester as an authority to review the results of the group opinion, and give advantages to higher-performing individuals within the crowd. However, one idea focuses on reducing the workload of requesters (allowing requesters to only review work deemed low quality), while the other idea seems aimed toward training and choosing workers with good managerial skills.
- Design axes: Our proposed design axes vary the end goal (good work vs. good workers) and the amount of effort invested by the requester (minimal effort, a.k.a. the effort required to do a final check of the results vs. maximum effort, for instance the effort involved in assessing the performances of a whole group of workers for a certain skill set).