12/08 - Wild Wintry Weather Wednesday

There's nothing like wasting a half hour to send an angry email to someone who definitely doesn't care.

But that was stress relieving...

Spoiler: Here's the long email if you want to read it >:)

I asked you a relatively simple question, yet you cannot even seem to answer that. It is almost as if you know that the information will poorly reflect on you and this research study.

Your refusal to provide data on the number of rejections in relationship to the acceptances is all but proof of there being a large variance between your HIT qualifications and the results. As previously stated, you accepted 790 HITs, it would be realistic for you to have only denied ~40 HITs. This is taking into consideration that the original HIT had a 95% acceptance rate qualification, meaning that EVERY single participant has completed AT LEAST 95% of their submitted work with perfect accuracy. A large variance from this acceptance rate would signal that there is some underlying fault with the construction of the study itself that has managed to make a large number of submissions unuseable, as opposed to some fault with the supply of workers. However, the Requester account from which the HIT was originally sent betrays your attempt to hide such data as it currently has an acceptance rate of 79%, far below what any requester that utilizes 95% acceptance rate workers would ever have.

Refusing to acknowledge such a simple fact is quite rude and overall not a good look for a researcher who wishes to conduct themself in a way that will reflect well upon themself and their university. As anyone can see, there is obviously an extreme variance between the amount of data that you have deemed "useable" and the quality of the workers who supplied the data to you. Your attempts to deride the quality of the workers is also a miserable attempt to save face. It gives off the idea that you do not truly respect the intelligence of those who worked on this task as well. I would like to remind you that although you may think that you have already accomplished significant achievements within your life and obtained great accolades, this sort of elitist attitude will not serve you well in your interactions with others and that acknowledging one's mistakes and graciously accepting defeat is a virtuous quality that men should aspire to have. Have you learned nothing from the tales of Greek heroes, whose hubris and reckless belief in their own abilities, led to their own downfalls?

Also, calling yourself a researcher, professor, or other kind of academic and purposefully misrepresenting and withholding the actual nature of data is, perhaps, as scummy as you could realistically get. As a "distinguished" representative of your university, you should seek to uphold yourself in a manner befitting your titles and the prestige of your university. If you can not even answer such a simple question without giving off a negative appearance, then you should sit and have a long, hard think about what brought you into such a situation in the first place and, perhaps, acknowledge that you were in the wrong.

Individuals like you (with your "I know best" attitude and your attempts to mislead those who you seem to think are not smart enough to catch on) are one of the main reasons that many academics get such a bad wrap and more and more individuals are happy to write off the opinions and discoveries of researchers in favor of their new variety of ignorance and "street smarts".

But, NO, I am not interested in redoing work, which I already adequately completed for a research study run by a gaggle of idiots who couldn't even do their research right the first time and would rather blame their participants rather than accept that their own mismanagement of their study came back to bite them in the ass.

The only thing that I am truthfully interested in is an apology, for you having, so thoroughly, wasted my time and efforts

I wish you nothing but the worst.

Have a terrible day!

 

Dan Way [A32BTE1NJ2HYAM] Work on a task and make decisions as part of a research study - participation reward ($2) + bonus (approx. range $0.00-$4.00) - $2.00 $2.15 bonus | PANDA

Unrated

Unrated

Unrated

$16.71 / hour
00:14:54 / completion time

​

Pros:
This task is split in 2 phases - basically a sharing game - instructions are very simple to follow with comprehension questions - could be done faster - potential to earn up to $4.00 bonus - approval and bonus payment done on the same day - fair pay

Cons:

Catchability: Terrible (HIT Last Seen: an hour ago)
Qualifications: DGW DoesNotExist ; HIT approval rate (%) > 97; Location EqualTo US;

To read Dan Way's full profile check out TurkerView!​

 

This is like the written form of taking off your glove and slapping someone with it. So deserved and so satisfying-

 

Wow! You have made my day!! Fantastic letter I could not have even come close to writing a better reply!!

 

Greetings from Amazon Mechanical Turk,

You've received a bonus from NIMH-CompPsych for work related to 3MJ9GGZYP85FTAYMZKSJ991GGSZ2A1.
The value of your bonus is: $3.00 USD

The Requester included this note:
for the long version and fair play of the HIT "3MJ9GGZYP85FTAYMZKSJ991GGSZ2A1"

Thanks for being a Worker on Mechanical Turk!

Sincerely,
Amazon Mechanical Turk
https://www.mturk.com

W00! Double weekly goal passed!

 

Gustavo F Novoa [AB36WO33O68Z8] Political Statements(~ 28 minutes) - $7.50 | PANDA

Unrated

Unrated

Unrated

$25.35 / hour
00:17:45 / completion time

​

Pros:
Look At Me, Hector.

Cons:

Catchability: Okay (HIT Last Seen: 30 minutes ago)
Qualifications: TP Panel: -290823352 N >= 100; Total approved HITs >= 100; Exc: [332611-332022] DoesNotExist ; HIT approval rate (%) >= 95; CR Research Group #1 >= 100; Location In US;

To read Gustavo F Novoa's full profile check out TurkerView!​

 

Holy shit, just saw something move in my peripheral vision and got spooked af, but it was actually just my own hand scratching my own head.

I'mma go make another coffee.

 

Title: Answer a survey about different consumer products | PANDA
Requester: cmfrieder [A3S9YXZP157MQI]
TurkerView: [ $26.12 / hour ]
Description: The survey will examine online advertising and will help us better understand how people get the information they need to make decisions about what they purchase.
Duration: 60 Min
Available: 1
Reward: $0.50
Qualifications:

• HIT approval rate (%) GreaterThan 98
• Total approved HITs GreaterThan 5000
• Location EqualTo US

[330XZFCZ81BMTUDULF3KAH7U97DTXM]​

 

There was an $8.00 HIT on here today, or at least I caught it today, by the time I realized it was in my que I only had an hour and ten minutes left to complete it - I tried my best to get it done but I ran out of time....I went ahead and finished it with the hopes I could email the requester...however, now I can't find who the requester is....it was about building satellites. Does anyone remember that one and by chance have the requester's name? TIA!!

 

UCLA Anderson Researcher [A3F2ELCFTPI9GB] Consumer Decisions(~ 10 minutes) - $1.25 | PANDA

Unrated

Unrated

Unrated

$21.43 / hour
00:03:30 / completion time

​

Pros:

Cons:

Catchability: Okay (HIT Last Seen: 26 minutes ago)
Qualifications: Total approved HITs >= 100; Exc: [-547035132-334942] DoesNotExist ; HIT approval rate (%) >= 95; CR Research Group #1 >= 100; Location In US;

To read UCLA Anderson Researcher's full profile check out TurkerView!​

 

NerdLab Lab Group [ATMRMLDNGYDJT] Short academic study (~4 minutes)(~ 4 minutes) - $0.40 | PANDA

Unrated

Unrated

Unrated

$10.83 / hour
00:02:13 / completion time

​

Pros:

Cons:

Catchability: Okay (HIT Last Seen: 11 minutes ago)
Qualifications: Exc: [671547560-335297] DoesNotExist ; CR Research Group #1 >= 100; Location In US;

To read NerdLab Lab Group's full profile check out TurkerView!​

 

Had the same experience with my own hair lol

 

Helpfull [A3HLHEC0D17ZSJ] Fast 18 questions survey - $1.50 | PANDA

Low

Unrated

Unrated

$10.63 / hour
00:08:28 / completion time

​

Pros:

Cons:
"Fast, 18 questions"... First thing that popped into my mind was some bubbles. Nope. This is a 100% writing HIT.

Writing x18

Catchability: Great (HIT Last Seen: a second ago)
Qualifications: audience1f8f428eb0f >= 1;

To read Helpfull's full profile check out TurkerView!​

 

mturk-ta-requester [A2RKIHBW76RRDK] Microphone Required: Recording your voice - $4.50 | PANDA

Unrated

Unrated

Unrated

$20.93 / hour
00:12:54 / completion time

​

Pros:

Cons:

Catchability: Great (HIT Last Seen: 3 seconds ago)
Qualifications: Exclude from future research DoesNotExist ; HIT approval rate (%) > 95; CRA_MTurk_Study_1_Completed DoesNotExist ; Location EqualTo US;

To read mturk-ta-requester's full profile check out TurkerView!​

 

Mohin [A10RLPMKYATS7D] Short survey (~4 minutes)(~ 4 minutes) - $0.50 | PANDA

Generous

Unrated

Unrated

$30.51 / hour
00:00:59 / completion time

​

Pros:

Cons:

Catchability: Okay (HIT Last Seen: 19 minutes ago)
Qualifications: Exc: [335975-335386] DoesNotExist ; Total approved HITs >= 500; HIT approval rate (%) >= 98; CR Research Group #1 >= 100; Location In US;

To read Mohin's full profile check out TurkerView!​

 

Expertise in Critical Thinking III 2021
34VKX0JC68UUCSVL4I599208U1XRBI $8.00 2

UNSW

Learn and remember imaginary cartoon satellites (~50 min - 1 hour)
3QLL1RLFYWZC2YYWT0C5NY6AJRKG4F $8.00

Schapiro Lab

Those were the two I saw!

 

[PCM]
Was it this one?
Title: Learn and remember imaginary cartoon satellites (~50 min - 1 hour) | PANDA
Requester: Schapiro Lab [A2JHLFAX4NTZ3L] (Req TV): $11.22/hr/hr
(TO): [Pay: N/A] [Fair: N/A] [Comm: N/A] [Fast: N/A]
Description: Takes approx. 50 minutes to an hour. Using your mouse you will virtually build and paint "imaginary: cartoon satellites.
Time: 4 hour(s)
HITs Available: 1
Reward: $8.00
Qualifications: Total approved HITs GreaterThan 1000; has_done_paintcat DoesNotExist ; HIT approval rate (%) GreaterThanOrEqualTo 98; Location EqualTo US;

 

Be careful with this kinda stuff. Amazon has been known to suspend accounts based on "hostile" communication from worker -> requester

 

I'll play the devil's advocate here.

While the Requester's tone in one of the emails posted here was certainly dismissive and antagonistic, they did clearly outline the
trickily-located submission code process, prefacing it with instructions to ignore previous guidance, under threat of rejection.

Your letter was well-written, but there are many, many examples that I've personally seen reviewing backend work for "Does the worker properly do X"-style HITs, where workers ignore, speed-through, or put in minimal effort.

Just today, while reviewing "Write 1-2 sentences decribing Mugen" and people putting "hi" "abcs" "fu" etc
or simple, rude, nonsensical responses, or just submitting with one letter etc. More complex tasks have even worse examples of low effort.

It would easy to attribute these nonsense/careless responses to Non-English-speaking individuals, were it not the US-State
quals on the tasks. While some people probably didn't deserve a rejection, many probably did.


I'm sure you've seen Remeshes. Some people sadly aren't at the appropriate level of reading, writing, or comprehension needed. Some are, but speed through, or are up late/on their 1000th hit of the day.

I'm sure you've seen the reviews: People tossing back Choice labs because of "writing exp/misc" in return reviews.

Did they write a confusing code process? Yes. Did they make it hard? Yes. Does all the fault lie with them? No.


As an IRB reviewed the issue, and agreed with him to uphold the rejections, it would seem at least some culpability
lay with some people in going too quickly, taking things for granted, assuming they knew how to do the survey.

His "deplorables"-style responses were certainly not a good reflection on his institution, but let's be realistic:
most of people's complaints were not going to be as well-phrased or stylistically well thought-out as yours.

I'm sure dealing with so many people's attitudes and complaints aggravated him.

I, for one, won't do any more of their hits, even though they accepted both of mine (all of mine since July approved) simply because
because of the way they treated people. It wasn't classy, and I'd not endorse him as a faculty of any university. But if you are willing to wish someone ill based on a rejection that is partly your own fault, imagine how many other, less polite or well-spoken people treated him.

Let's be fair though: ~80% of us were accepted, and this rejection was not entirely undeserved for some.

 

PickFu [AI2HRFAYYSAW7] Compare 2 options, 1 written response - $0.13 | PANDA

Unrated

Unrated

Unrated

$9.96 / hour
00:00:47 / completion time

​

Pros:

Cons:

Catchability: Great (HIT Last Seen: a second ago)
Qualifications: Age Range In 3, 4, 5; PickFu NDA EqualTo 1; Gender In 2; TWL >= 10; Income In 2, 3, 4; Location EqualTo US;

To read PickFu's full profile check out TurkerView!​