How to take multiple factors into account when evaluating a Game with a Purpose? How is player behaviour or participation influenced by different incentives? How does player engagement impact their accuracy in solving tasks? In this paper, we present a detailed investigation of multiple factors affecting the evaluation of a GWAP and we show how they impact on the achieved results. We inform our study with the experimental assessment of a GWAP designed to solve a multinomial classification task.
In the context of (paid) crowdsourcing, assessment is usually conducted in relation to micro-work platforms @cite_1 , in which important features are related to cost minimization @cite_24 @cite_27 which is out of scope with respect to our work.
@cite_24 @cite_27 @cite_1
2168765606 2279346661 2277895402 2124994029
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. Microtask crowdsourcing has enabled dataset advances in social science and machine learning, but existing crowdsourcing schemes are too expensive to scale up with the expanding volume of data. To scale and widen the applicability of crowdsourcing, we present a technique that produces extremely rapid judgments for binary and categorical labels. Rather than punishing all errors, which causes workers to proceed slowly and deliberately, our technique speeds up workers' judgments to the point where errors are acceptable and even expected. We demonstrate that it is possible to rectify these errors by randomizing task order and modeling response latency. We evaluate our technique on a breadth of common labeling tasks such as image verification, word similarity, sentiment analysis and topic classification. Where prior work typically achieves a 0.25x to 1x speedup over fixed majority vote, our approach often achieves an order of magnitude (10x) speedup. Crowdsourced workflows are used in research and industry to solve a variety of tasks. The databases community has used crowd workers in query operators optimization and for tasks such as entity resolution. Such research utilizes microtasks where crowd workers are asked to answer simple yes no or multiple choice questions with little training. Typically, microtasks are used with voting algorithms to combine redundant responses from multiple crowd workers to achieve result quality. Microtasks are powerful, but fail in cases where larger context (e.g., domain knowledge) or significant time investment is needed to solve a problem, for example in large-document structured data extraction. In this paper, we consider context-heavy data processing tasks that may require many hours of work, and refer to such tasks as macrotasks. Leveraging the infrastructure and worker pools of existing crowdsourcing platforms, we automate macrotask scheduling, evaluation, and pay scales. A key challenge in macrotask-powered work, however, is evaluating the quality of a worker's output, since ground truth is seldom available and redundancy-based quality control schemes are impractical. We present Argonaut, a framework that improves macrotask powered work quality using a hierarchical review. Argonaut uses a predictive model of worker quality to select trusted workers to perform review, and a separate predictive model of task quality to decide which tasks to review. Finally, Argonaut can identify the ideal trade-off between a single phase of review and multiple phases of review given a constrained review budget in order to maximize overall output quality. We evaluate an industrial use of Argonaut to power a structured data extraction pipeline that has utilized over half a million hours of crowd worker input to complete millions of macrotasks. We show that Argonaut can capture up to 118 more errors than random spot-check reviews in review budget-constrained environments with up to two review layers. Detecting and correcting low quality submissions in crowdsourcing tasks is an important challenge. Prior work has primarily focused on worker outcomes or reputation, using approaches such as agreement across workers or with a gold standard to evaluate quality. We propose an alternative and complementary technique that focuses on the way workers work rather than the products they produce. Our technique captures behavioral traces from online crowd workers and uses them to predict outcome measures such quality, errors, and the likelihood of cheating. We evaluate the effectiveness of the approach across three contexts including classification, generation, and comprehension tasks. The results indicate that we can build predictive models of task performance based on behavioral traces alone, and that these models generalize to related tasks. Finally, we discuss limitations and extensions of the approach.