Qualitative Analysis RDQA
From crowdresearch
Revision as of 23:59, 22 March 2016 by Aarongilbee (Talk | contribs) (→Hairball Map: What might happen outside of Turk? How might Requesters manipulate tasks as a response?)
Contents
Overview
Method
TurkOpticon Reviews
High Rating Requester Review provided by Turkopticon User
Low Rating Requester Review provided by Turkopticon User
Results
Turker thoughts about pay on Survey Tasks
| Data: TurkOpticon 5 Votes v. | All Others for Survey Tasks |
|---|---|
| Welch Two Sample T-Test | Students' T-Test |
| p = 0.005428 | p = 0.003642 |
Data CSV from March 19 [1]
data: dat$Tasks.w..5s and dat$All.Others
t = 3.3403, df = 12.791, p-value = 0.005428
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
95 percent confidence interval:
1.976024 9.246208
sample estimates:
mean of x mean of y
10.863968 5.252852
Hairball Map: What might happen outside of Turk? How might Requesters manipulate tasks as a response?
---Begin Task Submission--- ---Evidence--- 1.Worker submits work GENERIC 2.1 Requester mass rejection parameter kicks in GENERIC 3.1 Requester team screens rejected tasks [Account 46] 4.1 Requester team submits results report to Worker [Account 46] 5.1 Requester team posts to worker review page [Account 46] 2.2 Requester sends verification email (UNKNOWN) [Account 56] 2.3 Requester sends automated email [Account 62] 2.3.1 includes a task ticket confirmation [Account 17] 1. Worker writes email to requester GENERIC 2.1 Requester responds to email quickly GENERIC 2.2 Requester does not receive email GENERIC 2.3 Requester marks worker's email as "spam" [Account 17] NOTE: 17 is vengeful worker. "make sure I was paid my 20 cents". Might have acted in a way to have pushed requester to mark emails as "spam".
Tasks w/ 5s All Others
Mean 10.86396774 5.252851782
SD 4.807581499 2.259549664
N 10 10
P 0.003642357
