WinterMilestone 3 Dubs: Representation

From crowdresearch
Jump to: navigation, search

Representation

The representation system is a very important part of the collaborative work of crowdsourcing platforms. Our idea was to provide some way that the community can tackle the most complicated problems of the system. We are presenting the "Workers-Check Committee" idea.

Overall

The community should have their own means to support a fellow worker that has a problem. One of the biggest problems we find on Crowdsourcing Platforms is the fact that sometimes requesters can simply reject a work and there is no proper feedback for them. Our idea is the that members of community could take action against some unfair cases or even conclude that a case was actually fair.

If a worker believe the rejection was not fair, he may request that a group of selected and reliable workers assess the situation and judge if it was fair or not. If it was indeed unfair, the committee could request the requester to evaluate again the situation. If the case was unfair, then the requester will know that he's probably made the correct decision. The case will be public. It means that everyone can see the decision of the requester and the decision of the committee and if they match.

If this is still not enough for a change of opinions, they might request a evaluation from the platform admins of the case or another final resource..

Picture-Rep-Dubs.png

Selected Group of Reliable Workers

Although all the workers are important, there is always a reputation system that can rank the different performances of workers. It means that there is a different level of reliability for workers. Moreover, some requesters have approved and liked the work of a specific set of workers of the platform. Therefore, they would have a higher chance of relying on them.

If we could combine the reputation and the previous approval of a requester; we can combine these two tools to arrange a committee of workers that could evaluate a situation.

System

There would be the following steps:

  • Requester reject a work
  • Worker request the help of the committee
  • The system use the good reputation and previous approval of the same requester as a parameter to form a committee
  • Users decide if they want to join the committee (not mandatory)
  • The committee evaluate the case
  • The case comes back to the requester and he decides to keep or change his opinion
  • The case is registered: both the decision of the requester and of the committee can be public seen.
  • The worker can decide to go for a platform-owner decision if he didn't like the final decision (Only if that is an option. The platform-owner will take all the parameters in consideration)
  • The committee's workers get some benefit for their work (money, reputation status, bonus, badges, etc)

Benefit for the committee

Although it's important for the community itself to have a method to guarantee that the fair and unfair cases are evaluated properly, it's important to thing about a beneficial system for the ones that will take their time to evaluate again a specific task. It's important to guarantee that it will be a positive thing for their career as a worker. We will let this part open-ended as the main focus is the committee idea.

Milestone Contributors

Our team:

  • Gabriel Bayomi - @gbayomi
  • Flavio Scorpione - @scorpione
  • Henrique Orefice - @horefice
  • Lucas Bamidele - @lucasbamidele
  • Teogenes Moura - @teomoura

The bold members are the ones that came up with the idea at the first place, but the contribution is general. You can check the other ideas here:

http://crowdresearch.stanford.edu/w/index.php?title=WinterMilestone_3_Dubs_ReputationIdea:_Daemo_Points http://crowdresearch.stanford.edu/w/index.php?title=WinterMilestone_3_Dubs:_Dark_Horse http://crowdresearch.stanford.edu/w/index.php?title=WinterMilestone_3_Dubs:_Long_Term_Ideas http://crowdresearch.stanford.edu/w/index.php?title=WinterMilestone_3_Dubs:_Actionable_Ideas