08/16 - Meaningless Monday!

[HelloHello]

leaning toward cobbler b/c I've never had peach cobbler and the blueberry cobbler i had last week from our fav rib place was awesome!
Do you have a peach salsa recipe? We have enough for both

No recipe, sorry

 

[Charlene22]

Requester
remesh
Title
Remesh Conversation: Let's chat about work!
Description
Let's chat about work! (~30 minute live conversation) 01:18 PM Eastern (#1a5b9362)
HITs
1
Created
20s ago
Time Allotted
75 Min
Expires
in 20m
Reward
$6.90

https://worker.mturk.com/projects/33IW3HMO437F9IKXRWUORI6OLJCW35/tasks/3SX4X51T80K6JUC5RJ8EMDMW00EAOL?assignment_id=336KAV9KYR3WVPJXATTZ76WM8LFY2R&auto_accept=true

 

[Lumius]

be careful , reviews state that this requester rejects for random reasons.. at least on their other hits

If you saw how little effort people put into a generous paying hit, you'd see the rejections. Excessively easy task, people just being lazy and copy pasting. I saw the same copy pasted question about crabs and fish on many unrelated sections. The requester is great, as long as you try to pay the least bit of attention. Responded in less than a day both times I emailed them.

I've done hundreds of hits for them, never any issue.

I see the lazy work people did on their hits, and think:
(Mallory Archer/Jessica Walter Voice) "You want to get CR #1 quals before you can do any work? This is how we get CR #1 quals!"

 

[freekshow420]

If you saw how little effort people put into a generous paying hit, you'd see the rejections. Excessively easy task, people just being lazy and copy pasting. I saw the same copy pasted question about crabs and fish on many unrelated sections. The requester is great, as long as you try to pay the least bit of attention. Responded in less than a day both times I emailed them.

I've done hundreds of hits for them, never any issue.

Im not here debating on who does what, I just simply stated that based on the reviews of this requester, that they like to reject for random reasons. NOT like you say based off people being lazy.. That is a bit of a stretch for you to just assume that all workers are being lazy for the reason of rejections. Also if you read my post,,, I stated that it was on their other hits at least.

 

[Blakkat]

Title: Predict GPA scores of students | PANDA
Requester: Cindy Candrian [A2BT33K437721A]
TurkerView: [ $20.97 / hour ]
Description: Predict GPA scores based on student data. Get the chance to earn $5 bonus payment.
Duration: 60 Min
Available: 1
Reward: $1.25
Qualifications:

• Total approved HITs GreaterThan 500
• HIT approval rate (%) GreaterThan 98
• Location EqualTo US
• completed prior forecasting task DoesNotExist

[372YDQ1ULFVLCDE0RZ69Y5W06WUC8V]​

 

[Lumius]

Im not here debating on who does what, I just simply stated that based on the reviews of this requester, that they like to reject for random reasons. NOT like you say based off people being lazy.. That is a bit of a stretch for you to just assume that all workers are being lazy for the reason of rejections. Also if you read my post,,, I stated that it was on their other hits at least.

And I'm here to say, that they're a perfectly fine requester, if you put in even minimal effort

There are such broad acceptance on their chatbot hits, ask a child hits, that if they truly "randomly" rejected, one of my 1164 hits I've done for them would have been rejected.

They are a solid requester, and a new person/person who doesn't speak/ broken English claiming they were rejected randomly shouldn't be
really taken seriously. They could have been rejected randomly, certainly. But it's most likely based on not following the extremely simple guidelines

 

[Blakkat]

Title: Social Attitudes(~ 12 minutes) | PANDA
Requester: Rebecca Dyer [A11TDD9XOC0XWS]
TurkerView: [ $17.61 / hour ]
Description: Read a series of scenarios and answer questions.
Duration: 120 Min
Available: 17
Reward: $1.50
Qualifications:

• Total approved HITs GreaterThanOrEqualTo 100
• Exc: [313997-313408] DoesNotExist
• HIT approval rate (%) GreaterThanOrEqualTo 95
• CR Research Group #1 GreaterThanOrEqualTo 100
• Location In US

[3ZXEP6UEFFQDZ6M7SJ2V8X9JXSY8OS]​

 

[freekshow420]

And I'm here to say, that they're a perfectly fine requester, if you put in even minimal effort

thats all fine and dandy, you do you. No need to get offended by me looking at reviews. Just because you don't experience the random rejections doesn't mean other people dont..

Again , you are making your assumptions based off a target of people who do what you are stating,, not everyone does that. There are people who actually provide quality work and requesters still reject for random reasons.

Like i said, you do you

 

[Pacis Amans]

I've never had that. I was going to have my daughter make some ice cream (but she's off with friends.......'too busy'

I *LOVE* peach ice cream! And peach season! I made this Saturday =)

Spoiler: You Little Tart

Log in or register now. to view Spoiler content!

 

[Lumius]

thats all fine and dandy, you do you. No need to get offended by me looking at reviews. Just because you don't experience the random rejections doesn't mean other people dont..

There are requester who reject randomly, underpaid and unethical requesters certainly.

I'd just be careful labeling someone who is at the opposite end, with generous pay, copy paste acceptance as long as it's in the text, and accepts some crap work, as randomly rejecting. To me, if someone with such a lax policy has to go to the effort to ban someone, it means they did really, really badly, and deserved the rejection, haha.

Ah well, I'll work on them whenever they're up, and you can avoid them.

 

[freekshow420]

There are requester who reject randomly, underpaid and unethical requesters certainly.

I'd just be careful labeling someone who is at the opposite end, with generous pay, copy paste acceptance as long as it's in the text, and accepts some crap work, as randomly rejecting. To me, if someone with such a lax policy has to go to the effort to ban someone, it means they did really, really badly, and deserved the rejection, haha.

Ah well, I'll work on them whenever they're up, and you can avoid them.

its not labeling.. its called looking at the reviews.

you shouldn't be so quick to judge,, but hey, to each their own.

 

[Blakkat]

Title: Answer a survey about your opinions | PANDA
Requester: Luming Wang [AF2LIN49YJDXP]
TurkerView: [ $14.66 / hour ]
Description: Give us your opinion
Duration: 60 Min
Available: 1
Reward: $1.20
Qualifications:

• Location EqualTo US

[37WX97CR61NQHKBTPXQ012AMSV3KIH]​

 

[Lumius]

@freekshow420 https://turkerview.com/requesters/AXGV36Y8I76HV-conversational-ai#

Here's the reviews. I suppose we could ask people with over 100k hits if they appeared to "like to reject people randomly". I would guess most pro turkers would be fine on working with them, but you'd have to ask. Based on the data,
only people with low/ limited posting experience ever got rejections.

Sarin saying someone is bad =/= "A new member" saying someone rejects randomly

I'm sorry we interpret the data differently-downvote all you want, but, to me, this is a "good" requester with >$25hr rates. But I can see how you could see the rejections and avoid it. Just might be cautious about the "randomly rejecting" label, as sub 50 rejections for hundreds of thousands of hits is really good.

We're going to have to disagree on this, and let @Blakkat get back to posting hits for us here

I simply posted the hit because it was valuable to me, had extensive and very good experience with them, seen shoddy work others had done in previous stages of the hit, and thought it beneficial to share with members of the forum here. I'm sorry if anyone was rejected by them!

 

[mew]

Spoiler: Qual Test

Log in or register now. to view Spoiler content!

 

[freekshow420]

@freekshow420 https://turkerview.com/requesters/AXGV36Y8I76HV-conversational-ai#

Here's the reviews. I suppose we could ask people with over 100k hits if they appeared to "like to reject people randomly". I would guess most pro turkers would be fine on working with them, but you'd have to ask. Based on the data,
only people with low/ limited posting experience ever got rejections.

Sarin saying someone is bad =/= "A new member" saying someone rejects randomly

I'm sorry we interpret the data differently-to me, this is a "good" requester with >$25hr rates. But I can see how you could see the rejections and avoid it. Just might be cautious about the "randomly rejecting" label, as sub 50 rejections for hundreds of thousands of hits is really good.

We're going to have to disagree on this, and let @Blakkat get back to posting hits for us here

wow you just don't stop do you?

ok since you are going to quote reviews..... first three reviews on turkerview: (not counting the first review left by someone who gave a long list of advice to the requester)


Rejected 16 out of 140. Some of them were deserved, not so sure about others.

Requester rejects HITs for the most ridiculous reasons. I'm done doing any HITs for them.
I reached out to them the last time they rejected HITs & they do not reply!


They will reject a bunch of hits for arbitrary reasons. I think they reject a certain percentage no matter what. They rejected in my case for a reason not listed ANYWHERE in the instructions, My advice is avoid these at all costs. It seems like a quick and easy batch, which it is, but there is a good chance they will randomly reject a portion of your hits.

Edit: (actually i will insert the advice from the first reviewer on the turkerview page for the requester)

Advice to Requester

I don't think anyone from your account or research team will ever check this, but in case you do:

Up the approval rating if you want better data.
Consider a qual task.
Weed out bad workers.
Stop driving away good workers through sometimes seemingly random rejections. Manually review them, at least.
*Communicate with us. We can save you a lot of money and help you get a much higher quality of data.*
And there's probably a lot more advice to be given that I can't think of. Hope at some point you get in touch with some workers or figure out how to make your hits great again. The batch I just worked on is indicative of the cycle I mentioned above. You are driving away better workers and just looking through your hits, it is easy to see that the quality of the dialogues is going down drastically because of it.



again. learn to read. i stated that they do so on other hits at least..... i never once said anything about the batch hit you posted other then to be careful with this requester... Simply stating "do at your own risk"

You get offended to easily, take a chill pill, smoke some weed , drink some alcohol, meditate. play patty cake IDK , do something other then get mad at me for warning people

 

[Mikey Chlanda]

wow you just don't stop do you?

ok since you are going to quote reviews..... first three reviews on turkerview: (not counting the first review left by someone who gave a long list of advice to the requester)


Rejected 16 out of 140. Some of them were deserved, not so sure about others.

Requester rejects HITs for the most ridiculous reasons. I'm done doing any HITs for them.
I reached out to them the last time they rejected HITs & they do not reply!


They will reject a bunch of hits for arbitrary reasons. I think they reject a certain percentage no matter what. They rejected in my case for a reason not listed ANYWHERE in the instructions, My advice is avoid these at all costs. It seems like a quick and easy batch, which it is, but there is a good chance they will randomly reject a portion of your hits.

Edit: (actually i will insert the advice from the first reviewer on the turkerview page for the requester)

Advice to Requester

I don't think anyone from your account or research team will ever check this, but in case you do:

Up the approval rating if you want better data.
Consider a qual task.
Weed out bad workers.
Stop driving away good workers through sometimes seemingly random rejections. Manually review them, at least.
*Communicate with us. We can save you a lot of money and help you get a much higher quality of data.*
And there's probably a lot more advice to be given that I can't think of. Hope at some point you get in touch with some workers or figure out how to make your hits great again. The batch I just worked on is indicative of the cycle I mentioned above. You are driving away better workers and just looking through your hits, it is easy to see that the quality of the dialogues is going down drastically because of it.



again. learn to read. i stated that they do so on other hits at least..... i never once said anything about the batch hit you posted other then to be careful with this requester... Simply stating "dp at your own risk"

You get offended to easily, take a chill pill, smoke some weed , drink some alcohol, meditate. play patty cake IDK , do something other then get mad at me for warning people

Speaking for myself, I like hearing both sides. I want someone pointing out a requestor with low approval rates, or using majority rules for approval, or seemingly random rejections. I know I turn down a lot of hits with a low approval rating, but usually for a buck or two or less. If's it a $5 survey and a slow day, I'll look into it. Ditto with batch hits - if they have a low rating, I'll do a few and watch. If no approval rating, I may go ham on them - some of the best batches I've done were in this way. Then again, I have a cushion of over 10K hits before my approval goes below 99%. I do a bunch of batches where the TO is mediocre or worse, but I do well on 'em. And I am sure I've passed up ones b/c of the TO that would have worked out for me.
Just nice to hear both sides - if I come across it, I'll def. look at TO and decide for myself. Thx guys - I appreciate it

 

[chessgame44]

First survey of the day and it said I didn't pass the attention check even though I definitely did.

“Almost always disagree. “


Gave me a code too, but I'm not about to risk rejection for $0.35.

 

[Lumius]

@freekshow420 Those are rejection reviews. There are 3 rejections. 1 person had 16 of them. There's many, many more times the accepted reviews, if you open those tabs!

Anecdotally-I did 182 of that particular task, 0 rejections-why? because it said the requester needed to match the previous conversation, and that's what I did!

If they think they don't deserve a rejection for not using the exact phrase/two words when the requester literally tells you to copy paste it or type it "exactly" to match previous conversation, it might be good to slow down and read the instructions.

I am not offended or angry, and respect your right to an opinion, I just think, that, given a >99% acceptance rate, >$20 pay, warning people that
they like to randomly reject isn't a fair assessment. There are requesters who do (Ahem Amazon Requester and Angela Listy)

I understand why you might think they're bad, and it might be educational to look at the requester as a whole, to understand how I can see that they are good, even if I am wrong

Conversational AI has worked very well for me in the past, with me seeing the laziness of previous iterations people did, while you think it's worth warning about, due to random rejections. Both are valid viewpoints.

Feel free to message me if you want to discuss it more, but let's keep the thread clear for new Hits!

 

[Mikey Chlanda]

@swag US swagbucks code https://www.swagbucks.com/offer?oid=12332

 

[Mikey Chlanda]

First survey of the day and it said I didn't pass the attention check even though I definitely did.

“Almost always disagree. “


Gave me a code too, but I'm not about to risk rejection for $0.35.

I get rejected every day for less than that. Oh wait, you're telling me we're talking about mturk and not bars, huh?