Milestone 8 Mustang: Foundation 3
Submission for Milestone 8: Foundation 3, by Team Mustang
Foundation 3: External Quality Ratings
Challenge question 1
- Is this a group/authority? For example, Wikipedia reviews are subjective and based on voting. Or is it an algorithm? *
Having an algorithm rate the workers is a great idea. It could be based on the number of successful submissions they’ve made among all the tasks that theyve undertaken. Also included in the metric could be the number of times they had to revise their submissions before it was being accepted. I like the algorithmic method of rating as it does away with any kind of favors and is a purely meritocratic ranking methology. However there should be an option for the requestor to provide badges+extra points for workers who provide innovating and groundbreaking work when possible (in a sense that some individuality and innovativeness will be rewarded).
Challenge question 2
- If it’s a group, who pays for their time to review you? *
I think rather being a group that needs to be paid for reviewing people, it should be the requestors themselves that should review me. Afterall they are the ones who are requesting the work. It is natural and normal for there to be an option for the requestor to the rank the worker as he/she is reading the submission. This integrated review system is the most appropriate.