Crowd workers are distributed and decentralized. While decentralization is designed to utilize independent judgment to promote high-quality results, it paradoxically undercuts behaviors and institutions that are critical to high-quality work. Reputation is one central example: crowdsourcing systems depend on reputation scores from decentralized workers and requesters, but these scores are notoriously inflated and uninformative. In this paper, we draw inspiration from historical worker guilds (e.g., in the silk trade) to design and implement crowd guilds: centralized groups of crowd workers who collectively certify each other's quality through double-blind peer assessment. A two-week field experiment compared crowd guilds to a traditional decentralized crowd work model. Crowd guilds produced reputation signals more strongly correlated with ground-truth worker quality than signals available on current crowd working platforms, and more accurate than in the traditional model.
Crowdsourcing platforms have collected work feedback through requesters, workers, using self-assessment rubrics, and with the help of expert evaluators. The Shepherd system @cite_76 allows workers to exchange synchronous feedback with requesters. Crowd guilds scale up this notion of distributed feedback @cite_38 to make peer assessment and collective reputation management a core feature of a crowdsourcing platform.
@cite_38 @cite_76
2168765606 2131723483 2132962756 2098865355
Micro-task platforms provide massively parallel, on-demand labor. However, it can be difficult to reliably achieve high-quality work because online workers may behave irresponsibly, misunderstand the task, or lack necessary skills. This paper investigates whether timely, task-specific feedback helps crowd workers learn, persevere, and produce better results. We investigate this question through Shepherd, a feedback system for crowdsourced work. In a between-subjects study with three conditions, crowd workers wrote consumer reviews for six products they own. Participants in the None condition received no immediate feedback, consistent with most current crowdsourcing practices. Participants in the Self-assessment condition judged their own work. Participants in the External assessment condition received expert feedback. Self-assessment alone yielded better overall work than the None condition and helped workers improve over time. External assessment also yielded these benefits. Participants who received external assessment also revised their work more. We conclude by discussing interaction and infrastructure approaches for integrating real-time assessment into online work. In modern crowdsourcing markets, requesters face the challenge of training and managing large transient workforces. Requesters can hire peer workers to review others' work, but the value may be marginal, especially if the reviewers lack requisite knowledge. Our research explores if and how workers learn and improve their performance in a task domain by serving as peer reviewers. Further, we investigate whether peer reviewing may be more effective in teams where the reviewers can reach consensus through discussion. An online between-subjects experiment compares the trade-offs of reviewing versus producing work using three different organization strategies: working individually, working as an interactive team, and aggregating individuals into nominal groups. The results show that workers who review others' work perform better on subsequent tasks than workers who just produce. We also find that interactive reviewer teams outperform individual reviewers on all quality measures. However, aggregating individual reviewers into nominal groups produces better quality assessments than interactive teams, except in task domains where discussion helps overcome individual misconceptions. Online labor markets, such as Amazon's Mechanical Turk, have been used to crowdsource simple, short tasks like image labeling and transcription. However, expert knowledge is often lacking in such markets, making it impossible to complete certain classes of tasks. In this work we introduce an alternative mechanism for crowdsourcing tasks that require specialized knowledge or skill: communitysourcing --- the use of physical kiosks to elicit work from specific populations. We investigate the potential of communitysourcing by designing, implementing and evaluating Umati: the communitysourcing vending machine. Umati allows users to earn credits by performing tasks using a touchscreen attached to the machine. Physical rewards (in this case, snacks) are dispensed through traditional vending mechanics. We evaluated whether communitysourcing can accomplish expert work by using Umati to grade Computer Science exams. We placed Umati in a university Computer Science building, targeting students with grading tasks for snacks. Over one week, 328 unique users (302 of whom were students) completed 7771 tasks (7240 by students). 80 of users had never participated in a crowdsourcing market before. We found that Umati was able to grade exams with 2 higher accuracy (at the same price) or at 33 lower cost (at equivalent accuracy) than traditional single-expert grading. Mechanical Turk workers had no success grading the same exams. These results indicate that communitysourcing can successfully elicit high-quality expert work from specific communities. Crowdsourcing services, such as Amazon Mechanical Turk, allow for easy distribution of small tasks to a large number of workers. Unfortunately, since manually verifying the quality of the submitted results is hard, malicious workers often take advantage of the verification difficulty and submit answers of low quality. Currently, most requesters rely on redundancy to identify the correct answers. However, redundancy is not a panacea. Massive redundancy is expensive, increasing significantly the cost of crowdsourced solutions. Therefore, we need techniques that will accurately estimate the quality of the workers, allowing for the rejection and blocking of the low-performing workers and spammers. However, existing techniques cannot separate the true (unrecoverable) error rate from the (recoverable) biases that some workers exhibit. This lack of separation leads to incorrect assessments of a worker's quality. We present algorithms that improve the existing state-of-the-art techniques, enabling the separation of bias and error. Our algorithm generates a scalar score representing the inherent quality of each worker. We illustrate how to incorporate cost-sensitive classification errors in the overall framework and how to seamlessly integrate unsupervised and supervised techniques for inferring the quality of the workers. We present experimental results demonstrating the performance of the proposed algorithm under a variety of settings.