Difference between revisions of "WinterMilestone 2 biubiubiu"

From crowdresearch
Jump to: navigation, search
(Workers' Side)
(Workers' Side)
Line 29: Line 29:
 
** Interpretation: Since it takes only several minutes for most HITs, the only reason explaining such variation is search cost. Workers have to spend much time looking for well-paid tasks and interested tasks.
 
** Interpretation: Since it takes only several minutes for most HITs, the only reason explaining such variation is search cost. Workers have to spend much time looking for well-paid tasks and interested tasks.
 
** Need: Workers spend less time searching but more time actually working.
 
** Need: Workers spend less time searching but more time actually working.
 +
* Negotiation if Rejected
 +
** Observation: Workers have to backup their work if evidence of honest work is wanted. Besides that, it seems that a way to contact the requester is not imperative.
 +
** Interpretation: Workers cannot negotiate with requesters if their work get rejected through official paths. Workers don't have their work once after submitting.
 +
** Need: Workers want their honest work respected and recorded even if work doesn't meet requesters' standard.
  
 
== Reading Others' Insights ==
 
== Reading Others' Insights ==

Revision as of 11:03, 24 January 2016

Attend a Panel to Hear from Workers and Requesters

Requesters' Side

  • Convey Thoughts
    • Observation: Professor especially mentions that for academic tasks, he need to pay special attention introducing clearly work that needs to be done. Furthermore, requesters need feedbacks to see whether they express clearly.
    • Interpretation: Requesters and workers lack effective communication ways to ensure they both understand each other.
    • Need: Requesters need to ensure that they are understood perfectly by workers.
  • Trust the Quality of Work
    • Observation: Some requesters introduce qualification tests before judging quality of work. Professor outsources requests and communication with workers to leave a good impression and maintain a good reputation in order to attract good workers.
    • Interpretation: Quality of work is not ensured and has to be manually checked. Replying to workers takes lots of time and energy, which is difficult to handle for small requesters.
    • Need: Quality of work need to be ensured and requesters want to be trusted by workers.
  • Time Estimate
    • Observation: Time estimates are typically off, which causes improper hourly wage. Requesters need to find data on their own and share their data manually in unofficial forums.
    • Interpretation: Since individuals vary a lot. Important data are not provided officially and comprehensively, causing data found by requesters to be inaccurate or unrepresentative. And thus estimated wage becomes improper.
    • Need: Requesters need to estimate things accordingly and reasonably.

Workers' Side

  • Schedule Problem
    • Observation: Working time is unpredictable. Workers have to stay alert all day long. Or they choose to use scripts and turn to forums for help.
    • Interpretation: Task-posting is decided only by requesters and thus seems unpredictable to workers.
    • Need: Workers should get notifications when there's new tasks available. Or tasks are released periodically and thus workers can plan their schedule accordingly.
  • Trust Problem
    • Observation: Workers value their approval rate. Laura probes a requester and gets first impression before completing many HITs for a new requester.
    • Interpretation: Workers lack an effective way of knowing whether a requester is worth working for.
    • Need: Workers need to trust a requester before working for him/her.
  • Search Cost
    • Observation: Workers' earnings can be quite different. From Laura's words, I guess the more time one can devote, the more earning one is likely to get.
    • Interpretation: Since it takes only several minutes for most HITs, the only reason explaining such variation is search cost. Workers have to spend much time looking for well-paid tasks and interested tasks.
    • Need: Workers spend less time searching but more time actually working.
  • Negotiation if Rejected
    • Observation: Workers have to backup their work if evidence of honest work is wanted. Besides that, it seems that a way to contact the requester is not imperative.
    • Interpretation: Workers cannot negotiate with requesters if their work get rejected through official paths. Workers don't have their work once after submitting.
    • Need: Workers want their honest work respected and recorded even if work doesn't meet requesters' standard.

Reading Others' Insights

Worker perspective: Being a Turker

1) What observations about workers can you draw from the readings? Include any that may be are strongly implied but not explicit.

  • The majority (56%) are U.S. based, but there is a growing number of Indian Turkers (36%) and other nationalities.
  • A lot of them have low income (one-third had a median annual income of <$10,000).
  • Money is their primary motivator (at least for the posters on Turker Nation).
  • They have problems in: employers who don’t pay; identifying scams; the cost (to workers) of poorly designed tasks.
  • They cannot rate Requesters.
  • On Turker Nation, by far the largest area is devoted to the ‘Requesters hall of fame/shame ratings’ where Turkers can discuss their experiences with Requesters -- for Turkers on Turker Nation, the primary concern is to find good Requesters and avoid bad ones.
  • Turker Nation is primarily used by US workers.
  • Some Turkers accept somewhat (but not much) lower pay if a task was more enjoyable.
  • The idea that Turkers’ actions en masse send messages to Requesters and that Turkers are responsible for promoting fair pay is a dominant theme of Turker Nation discussions.
  • Turkers earn wages ranged from ~$50 all the way to ~$15k for a year. The highest earnings were made by experienced Turkers, and they state they only take well-paying, more professional AMT works.
  • Turkers are interested in comparison with other Turkers to gain information and knowledge
  • They set themselves targets, e.g. to make $10 per day, to double (or better) the last years’ amount.
  • The importance of their AMT income varies depending on earning ability and other life circumstances (for some, AMT is their primary source of income, for others it is supplementary).
  • The payment of AMT works are so low that even the best workers we know makes an annual income that is equivalent to working full-time at the minimum wage in US (although we do not know how many hours these Turkers are working).
  • Even those doing AMT work just for extra money (e.g. aparticular purchase) do so because they do not have enough money from other sources.
  • AMT has some benefits over traditional labour markets: Regular or set hours are not required, money does not have to be spent on transport costs, and judgments are restricted to the work you submit rather than your personal appearance and the way you present yourself.
  • Turkers are understandably offended when Requesters reject HIT submissions for reasons they do not understand: This not only deprives them of money they believe they have rightly earned, but it has a damaging effect on their approval rating.
  • Turkers do not have a reciprocal system action to blocking (just avoidance and publicising) and it is complicated for them to prove their innocence.
  • Some (genuine) Turkers complain about being unfairly labeled as bots, spammers, etc.
  • Turkers are understandably offended when Requesters reject HIT submissions for reasons they do not understand: This not only deprives them of money they believe they have rightly earned, but it has a damaging effect on their approval rating.
  • Turkers do not have a reciprocal system action to blocking (just avoidance and publicising) and it is complicated for them to prove their innocence.
  • Some (genuine) Turkers complain about being unfairly labeled as bots, spammers, etc.
  • noble intent – will actually just lead to closing AMT, and they would lost this source of income.


2) What observations about requesters can you draw from the readings? Include any that may be are strongly implied but not explicit.

  • They look at how to motivate better, cheaper and faster worker performance to get good data from workers, quickly and without paying much.
  • They can rate Turkers.
  • Requesters have better information on the Turkers than vice versa, as well as greater powers of redress.
  • Requesters engage directly with Turkers in ‘Requesters hall of fame/shame ratings’ on Turker Nation.
  • Some Requesters have a wrong perception that Turkers do HITS for fun, and thus they do not need to pay good wages.
  • A bad Requester may reject submissions or block a Turker (bar a Turker from working for them) for no good reason, and AMT does not have a good mechanism to punish these behaviors.
  • Direct, open, polite, and respectful communication is highly valued for a Requester.

Worker perspective: Turkopticon

1) What observations about workers can you draw from the readings? Include any that may be are strongly implied but not explicit.

  • Amazon Mechanical Turk's participation agreement grants employers full intellectual property rights over submissions regardless of rejection. As a result, workers have no legal recourse against employers who reject work but still use it.
  • Workers barely hear back from the requesters if they try to email the requesters about their dissatisfaction about the rejection because the cost for the requesters to go through the workers emails is more than the amount the they pay the worker.
  • Workers have limited options for dissent within Amazon Mechanical Turk itself. Mostly they have to leave the platform if they get too many rejections.
  • In many cases, workers are paid below minimum wages.
  • A lot of the workers feel that their work was regularly rejected unfairly
  • Workers want faster payment

2) What observations about requesters can you draw from the readings? Include any that may be are strongly implied but not explicit.

  • Requesters can hardly respond to workers emails about rejections because the cost for the requesters to go through the workers emails is more than the amount the they pay the worker.
  • Requester only take a few actions only if they get a lot of unfair complaints from the workers.

Requester perspective: Crowdsourcing User Studies with Mechanical Turk

1) What observations about workers can you draw from the readings? Include any that may be are strongly implied but not explicit.

  • “Game” the system and provide non sense answers to decrease their time spent and thus increase their rate of pay.
  • Provide false personal information, including demographic information, expertise
  • Only a small group of workers were trying to take advantage of the system multiple times
  • In the first experiment, users completed the tasks extremely fast.

2) What observations about requesters can you draw from the readings? Include any that may be are strongly implied but not explicit.

  • Acquire user input that is both low-cost and timely enough to impact development
  • Collect user input from a large and diverse set of participants
  • In the first experiment, requesters required users to fill out free-form text box to provide a check on whether users had in fact attended to the article or had just provided random ratings.
  • In the second experiment, requesters required users to complete four questions that had verifiable, quantitative answers before doing the task.
  • Detect suspect answers
  • Including or exclude users from future tasks based on their responses to past tasks
  • Use automated pre-test
  • Use Mechanical Turk as a recruitment device and to host the user study oneself using a simple API to send and receive participant information from Amazon

Requester perspective: The Need for Standardization in Crowdsourcing

1) What observations about workers can you draw from the readings? Include any that may be are strongly implied but not explicit.

  • Workers are not trained, screened and do not have incentives for good performance. (Don’t want to lose job)
  • Come and go easily.
  • Receive offers on tasks that different in difficulty and skill requirements for different rates of pay with different pricing structures.
  • Reputation is weak and easily subverted.
  • Difficulty of searching for tasks.
  • Troubled by scammers and spammers.
  • Need to learn the intricacies of the interface for each separate employer.
  • Need to adapt to the different quality requirements of each employer.
  • Giving feedback is costly and invites retaliation or scares off future trading partners.


2) What observations about requesters can you draw from the readings? Include any that may be are strongly implied but not explicit.

  • Could not ensure that hired workers — after suitable training — could complete tasks easily, predictably and in a way that training was easy to replicate for new workers.
  • Most of their tasks are relatively low-skilled and require workers to closely and consistently adhere to instructions for a particular, standardized task.
  • Make offers that different in difficulty and skill requirements for different rates of pay with different pricing structures.
  • Reputation is weak and easily subverted.
  • Some buyers are simply recruiting accomplices for nefarious activities.
  • Difficult to price work, predict completion times and gain quality.
  • Troubled by spammers and fraud.
  • Have to implement from scratch the “best practices” for each type of work. The longterm employers can learn form mistakes wile newcomers have to learn the lessons the hard way.
  • Need to price its works unit without knowing the conditions of the market and this price cannot fluctuate without removing and reposting the tasks.
  • Giving feedback is costly and invites retaliation or scares off future trading partners.
  • Have no incentive to post evaluation of their workers, as this is a signal earned after a significant cost.

Both perspectives: A Plea to Amazon: Fix Mechanical Turk

1) What observations about workers can you draw from the readings? Include any that may be are strongly implied but not explicit.

  • Experienced and good workers treat new requesters cautiously. They simply don't devote much time and effort for a new requester until that requester's information like payment speed, rejections, possibility of coming back to the marketplace to post tasks in the future.
    • afraid of getting rejected for no reason or waiting too long for payment, good workers just do a little bit of unknown requesters' tasks.
    • if the requester just have one-pass tasks and they are relatively difficult, good workers will not spend time to learn how to do well.
  • Workers tend to seek help from some well-known forums.
  • If workers get rejected,
    • they want to keep their work to themselves;
    • they need a way to appeal and can win if their work is properly done.
  • Certain worker-facing applications can improve efficiency.
  • Workers want to find wanted tasks AE(asy)AP:
    • they want to find certain requesters' HITs by searching names of requesters;
    • they want to complete HITs that they're interested in and good at.
    • now on MTurk, workers use priority queues to choose HITs.
    • separate HITs by type. also mentioned in requesters part


2) What observations about requesters can you draw from the readings? Include any that may be are strongly implied but not explicit.

  • New-coming requesters' tasks will be done mostly by careless workers, also known as "spammers", which discourage requesters' interest in the marketplace.
  • It is impossible to predict the completion time of the posted tasks due to user-unfriendly interfaces on MTurk.
  • Requesters want to post tasks easily:
    • small requesters want to cut overhead and other costs when using crowdsourcing marketplaces. But now they, and every other requester, need to spend extra effort and time building accessible systems on their own.
  • Requesters need more details besides simpy "Approval Rate" and "Number of Completed HITs"
    • they want to be ensured that they can get results of good quality.
    • they need to know if a worker is qualified for their tasks.
    • working history of a worker can reveal something important.
    • rate and pay a worker according to submitted work.
  • Conscientious requesters say,honest workers' reputation should not be affected if their work gets rejected becaues quality cannot meet requesters' standard.
  • Task and Rating Categorization.

Soylent: A Word Processor with a Crowd Inside

1) What observations about workers can you draw from the readings? Include any that may be are strongly implied but not explicit.

2) What observations about requesters can you draw from the readings? Include any that may be are strongly implied but not explicit.

Do Needfinding by Browsing MTurk-related forums, blogs, Reddit, etc

List out the observations you made while doing your fieldwork. Links to examples (posts / threads) would be extremely helpful.

Synthesize the Needs You Found

List out your most salient and interesting needs for workers, and for requesters. Please back up each one with evidence: at least one observation, and ideally an interpretation as well.

Worker Needs

A set of bullet points summarizing the needs of workers.

  • Example: Workers need to be respected by their employers. Evidence: Sanjay said in the worker panel that he wrote an angry email to a requester who mass-rejected his work. Interpretation: this wasn't actually about the money; it was about the disregard for Sanjay's work ethic.

Requester Needs

A set of bullet points summarizing the needs of requesters.

  • Example: requesters need to trust the results they get from workers. Evidence: In this thread on Reddit (linked), a requester is struggling to know which results to use and which ones to reject or re-post for more data. Interpretation: it's actually quite difficult for requesters to know whether 1) a worker tried hard but the question was unclear or very difficult or an edge case, or 2) a worker wasn't really putting in a best effort.