WinterMilestone 3 BPHC RepresentationIdea : Community Based Third-Party Arbitrators For Conflict Resolution

From crowdresearch
Revision as of 09:46, 31 January 2016 by Sreenihitmunakala (Talk | contribs) (Milestone Contributors)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Our representation idea is a system to resolve issues between requesters and workers using community elected arbitrators.

One area of concern is how issues and conflicts are resolved between requesters and workers. The most common issue is that of rejection of work by requesters. This can occur due to requester's dissatisfaction or even honest mistakes. We propose a community based third-party arbitration based solution.


Our solution to this problem is a system where conflicts are resolved by third party members. This system takes ideas from the worker panel discussion. The system would work as follows:

Workers and Requesters pick third party persons to serve as arbitrators in an instance of conflict between the requester and workers. A criteria can is set to be eligible as an arbitrator, on the basis of experience with the platform, level of participation in the community, reputation and other factors. Workers may vote to elect these arbitrator, and a monetary/reputational incentive may be offered to workers to stand for the position.

When a task is to be posted, requesters are shown a choice of judges to pick from, with their reputation and (more importantly) the number of tasks completed for them. Example:

   Arbitrator 1
   Worked on 10 of your HITS 
   You rated him 'Good' for 98% of those HITS.
   Arbitrator 2
   Worked on 14 of your HITS 
   You rated him 'Good' for 88% of those HITS.

The requester will be given the option to pick an arbitrator, sending the message to workers that work will not be arbitrarily rejected. This will give confidence to workers to take up the task without the fear of work being arbitrarily rejected.


The mechanism for conflict resolution is as follows:

- Worker submits completed HITs.
- Requester decides to reject the HITs, citing his/her reason.
- Worker disagrees and submits for reconsideration. 
- Requester rejects HITs again.
- Worker applies for arbitration.
- Arbitrator makes his decision and sends it to the requester.
   1. Requester abides by decision.
   2. Requester disagrees.
      The ratio of the number of judgements rejected by the requester is displayed on the task page.    
      This serves as an incentive for requesters to respect judgements made by arbitrators as a low ratio will dissuade workers.

This system's value comes from the fact that the arbitrators will be mutually agreed upon. Requesters that want to attract the best workers can opt to pick an arbitrator, which will make the workers less likely to be wary of a requester, a new requester especially, when it comes to spending time on a HIT.


Voting may not be the best system for identifying arbitrators. The incentive to become an arbitrator has to be good enough to overcome reservations workers may have, such as not willing to become involved in a dispute between workers and requesters, especially when the arbitrator may seek work from the requester at a later point.

Milestone Contributors

@sreenihit, @aditya_nadimpalli