05/24 - Fickle Friday!

y tho

 

You're worth more then that. Don't sell yourself for such low pay.

 

Is she? Damn I was going to pay her a few bucks to build a house.

 

Title: Movie booking chat-bot: booking tickets for users | PANDA
Requester: Ziming Li [A1U2FE0E0PYQ82]
TurkerView: [ $ / hour ]
Description: try to book a movie ticket for a customer (ID: movie_booking_1550167950)
Duration: 30 Min
Available: 20
Reward: $0.07
Qualifications:

• Location In AU, CA, GB, NL, NZ, US,

[372YDQ1UKE1XXAA828G26OG87WKC83]​

 

Title: SH: A survey about your ability to coordinate with others | PANDA
Requester: Berkeley Neuroecon Lab [ANTAEB3MYXYPZ]
TurkerView: [ $13.96 / hour ]
Description: A survey about your general knowledge and ability to coordinate with others
Duration: 30 Min
Available: 0
Reward: $0.75
Qualifications:

• Completed MBC/SBC Survey DoesNotExist
• HIT approval rate (%) GreaterThanOrEqualTo 97,
• Location EqualTo US,

[3GC8IVJ10EVAR5KP5CX5JZK9CFVN9Q]​

 

Now that your receipt rejection cherry has been popped, remember to never do receipts again.

 

You sure you want your average turkey to build you a house?

 

I never said that I would be living in it.

 

It's for his brother

 

That was my first thought when I saw it. She was a chain smoker.

 

@Pronewbi3 missed it.

 

Stanford GSB Behavioral Lab [A3OSXTUM1QEXNY] A study of teamwork and social perceptions(~ 20 minutes) - $2.40 $0.30 bonus | PANDA

Good

Unrated

Unrated

$10.27 / hour
00:15:46 / completion time

​

Pros:

Cons:
Almost whole expirment is timed pages so you can't get too much better with hourly.

Qualifications: Total approved HITs >= 100; TP Panel: -431364648 N >= 100; HIT approval rate (%) >= 95; Exc: [4778388-148817] DoesNotExist ; Location In US;

To read Stanford GSB Behavioral Lab's full profile check out TurkerView!​

 

Exactly.

 

I made the right choice in returning this

 

return all the surveys

 

Yes sir you did.

 

Next step p9r!

 

Imagine doing surveys, lol.

 

Given woefully insufficient information about some fictitious person, click the bubbles to say how much (on a scale like 1 to 10) this person is e.g.: "Disciplined", "Lacking self-control", "Selfish", "Unselfish", etc.

"There are no right or wrong answers" ... but "nonsensical" answers will be rejected, say the notes.

With virtually NO useful information about the person — (she stared at a food photo, so what?) — the truth is:

"I don't know if she's disciplined." — "I don't know if she lacks self-control." ...
"I've no clue how selfish she is." — "I've no clue how unselfish she is." ...

She stared at a food photo. — That does NOT inspire me to adopt any opinion about the attributes.

(This is why I'm not good with these surveys. I refuse to adopt opinions with insufficient evidence. My brain hates that. Yes I should just answer and take the $0.30, but my brain resists.)

On the scale of 1-to-10 or whatever, do I pick the middle option like "5" to mean "I don't know" for each attribute?

No, in this case I assume the middle option does NOT mean "IDK" — rather it probably means "MODERATELY YES". ... ("1" means "She does NOT have that attribute" — 3 means "she SLIGHTLY has it" — 5 means "she MODERATELY has it" — 8 means "she CLEARLY has it" — 10 means "she TOTALLY maxes out on that attribute.")

So to avoid a "nonsensical" response — such as picking "5" for every contrasting attribute, which would result in contradictions because "5" means "moderately yes" (NOT "I don't know") — I must make these relative judgments on these contrastic attributes (such as "Disciplined" and "Lacking self-control", one must be greater than the other; likewise "Selfish" and "Unselfish", one must be greater than the other).

How do I say "I don't know "? — I don't know to what degree she has each of these contrasting attributes. — But the survey won't let me say that.

Returned, forget the $0.30.