Difference between revisions of "Milestone 4 UWI"

From crowdresearch
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "Template for your submission for Milestone 4. Do not edit this directly - instead, make a new page at Milestone 4 YourTeamName or whatever your team name is, and copy...")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
Template for your submission for [[Milestone 4]]. Do not edit this directly - instead, make a new page at [[Milestone 4 YourTeamName]] or whatever your team name is, and copy this template over. You can view the source of this page by clicking the Edit button at the top-right of this page, or by clicking [http://crowdresearch.stanford.edu/w/index.php?title=Milestone_4_Template&action=edit here].
+
 
  
 
== Design Axes for 3 Themes ==
 
== Design Axes for 3 Themes ==
  
For each of the three themes you've chosen, talk with your team about:
+
=== THEME 1 ===
  
* What do these ideas tend to have in common?
+
'''Empathy:'''
* How do these ideas tend to differ?
+
  
Use your insights from this conversation to generate design axes like we discussed in last week's meeting (see slide notes if you'd like). Write up a short paragraph (2-4 sentences) for each theme summarizing the similarities, differences, and axes inspired.
+
Form the examples on Empathy, we believe that only the second example on role reversals  really relates to  empathy. The first and last examples on meetings in person and humanising profiles help workers and requesters build personal connections with each other. The in-person meeting encourages fostering relationships and interactions in person and humanising profiles encourages the same relationships by people displaying their personal profiles  to others.
  
=== THEME 1 ===
+
We felt that the examples on bonuses and gifts don’t really help requesters empathise with workers, instead they just  provide ways for requesters to please/motivate workers. Similarly, most of the examples besides the role reversal one focus more on motivating the workers.
  
 
=== THEME 2 ===
 
=== THEME 2 ===
 +
 +
'''Reputation:'''
 +
 +
Since these examples are all based on a rating/ranking system, we feel that there’s a “rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.”  theme going on.  These examples motivate workers to work harder for getting recognized. They mostly focus on helping good workers get better, but the new workers are kind of discounted.
 +
 +
The first two examples  on levelling up and ranking  are mostly about ranking up whereas the last  example focused on matching matching skills. The example on request rating is quite different here as it combines both the ranking and matching examples from earlier.
 +
Although this example also mentions about matching skills, it is not clear who rates the workers skills. If the workers do this themselves, they can deceive requesters, which is not ideal for the system. The examples on ranking build a system focused on benefiting requesters whereas the example values both workers and requesters.
  
 
=== THEME 3 ===
 
=== THEME 3 ===
 +
 +
'''Clarity:'''
 +
Most of the examples given for task clarity were similar in that they all included some sort of HIT voting or checking that needed to be done before a HIT went live. For these examples, the checking and comparison is done based on either the design or the result of the HIT. Each of the examples under the task clarity section help provide the workers with a better working experience.
 +
 +
The first 3 and the last examples on voting talk more about voting for task designs whereas the other examples seem to concentrate more on categorising tasks or using templates. Within these examples of voting on tasks, the first example focuses mainly on families instead of individuals. Overall, the main difference between these two themes i.e. voting and categorisation is that voting is done by a worker whereas categorisation is done by either a worker or a requester (it’s unclear). Although it’s very likely that this categorisation is done by the requester, it’s could be that the workers categorise certain tasks as well.
  
  

Revision as of 16:28, 24 March 2015


Design Axes for 3 Themes

THEME 1

Empathy:

Form the examples on Empathy, we believe that only the second example on role reversals really relates to empathy. The first and last examples on meetings in person and humanising profiles help workers and requesters build personal connections with each other. The in-person meeting encourages fostering relationships and interactions in person and humanising profiles encourages the same relationships by people displaying their personal profiles to others.

We felt that the examples on bonuses and gifts don’t really help requesters empathise with workers, instead they just provide ways for requesters to please/motivate workers. Similarly, most of the examples besides the role reversal one focus more on motivating the workers.

THEME 2

Reputation:

Since these examples are all based on a rating/ranking system, we feel that there’s a “rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.” theme going on. These examples motivate workers to work harder for getting recognized. They mostly focus on helping good workers get better, but the new workers are kind of discounted.

The first two examples on levelling up and ranking are mostly about ranking up whereas the last example focused on matching matching skills. The example on request rating is quite different here as it combines both the ranking and matching examples from earlier. Although this example also mentions about matching skills, it is not clear who rates the workers skills. If the workers do this themselves, they can deceive requesters, which is not ideal for the system. The examples on ranking build a system focused on benefiting requesters whereas the example values both workers and requesters.

THEME 3

Clarity: Most of the examples given for task clarity were similar in that they all included some sort of HIT voting or checking that needed to be done before a HIT went live. For these examples, the checking and comparison is done based on either the design or the result of the HIT. Each of the examples under the task clarity section help provide the workers with a better working experience.

The first 3 and the last examples on voting talk more about voting for task designs whereas the other examples seem to concentrate more on categorising tasks or using templates. Within these examples of voting on tasks, the first example focuses mainly on families instead of individuals. Overall, the main difference between these two themes i.e. voting and categorisation is that voting is done by a worker whereas categorisation is done by either a worker or a requester (it’s unclear). Although it’s very likely that this categorisation is done by the requester, it’s could be that the workers categorise certain tasks as well.


List of Ideas and the Theme they belong to

Provide them in whatever format you want - diagrams, sketches, table, or a combination.

Milestone 4 YourTeamName SomeThemeName: Description of your idea

Milestone 4 YourTeamName OtherThemeName: Description of your idea

Milestone 4 YourTeamName AnotherThemeName: Description of your idea

For each of the 3 ideas, describe (using diagrams, sketches, storyboards, text, or some combination) the ideas in further detail.

Please create a separate wiki page for each of your ideas, so we can link to them individually. The title of the wiki page should be Milestone 4 followed by your team name and a description of the idea itself (ex: Milestone 4 YourTeamName Reputation: Leveling System for Workers Leading to Better Wages). Once done, post a link to each of your THEME-related ideas to http://crowdresearch.meteor.com/ following the instructions at Milestone 4#Submitting