Prototype Tasks: Improving Crowdsourcing Results through Rapid, Iterative Task Design

July 18, 2017 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› arXiv.org

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Snehalkumar "Neil" S. Gaikwad, Nalin Chhibber, Vibhor Sehgal, Alipta Ballav, Catherine Mullings, Ahmed Nasser, Angela Richmond-Fuller, Aaron Gilbee, Dilrukshi Gamage, Mark Whiting, Sharon Zhou, Sekandar Matin, Senadhipathige Niranga, Shirish Goyal, Dinesh Majeti, Preethi Srinivas, Adam Ginzberg, Kamila Mananova, Karolina Ziulkoski, Jeff Regino, Tejas Sarma, Akshansh Sinha, Abhratanu Paul, Christopher Diemert, Mahesh Murag, William Dai, Manoj Pandey, Rajan Vaish, Michael Bernstein arXiv ID 1707.05645 Category cs.HC: Human-Computer Interaction Citations 6 Venue arXiv.org Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Low-quality results have been a long-standing problem on microtask crowdsourcing platforms, driving away requesters and justifying low wages for workers. To date, workers have been blamed for low-quality results: they are said to make as little effort as possible, do not pay attention to detail, and lack expertise. In this paper, we hypothesize that requesters may also be responsible for low-quality work: they launch unclear task designs that confuse even earnest workers, under-specify edge cases, and neglect to include examples. We introduce prototype tasks, a crowdsourcing strategy requiring all new task designs to launch a small number of sample tasks. Workers attempt these tasks and leave feedback, enabling the re- quester to iterate on the design before publishing it. We report a field experiment in which tasks that underwent prototype task iteration produced higher-quality work results than the original task designs. With this research, we suggest that a simple and rapid iteration cycle can improve crowd work, and we provide empirical evidence that requester "quality" directly impacts result quality.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Human-Computer Interaction

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted