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.
Ensuring high-quality crowd work is crucial for the sustainability of a microtask platform. Mechanisms such as voting by peer workers @cite_28 , establishing agreement between workers @cite_72 , and machine learning models trained on low-level behaviors @cite_65 , have been used to gauge and enhance the quality of crowd work. In addition to these techniques, task-specific feedback help crowd workers augment their behavior and improve their performance @cite_76 .
@cite_28 @cite_76 @cite_72 @cite_65
2143539737 2168765606 2125943921 2124994029
Manual evaluation of translation quality is generally thought to be excessively time consuming and expensive. We explore a fast and inexpensive way of doing it using Amazon's Mechanical Turk to pay small sums to a large number of non-expert annotators. For $10 we redundantly recreate judgments from a WMT08 translation task. We find that when combined non-expert judgments have a high-level of agreement with the existing gold-standard judgments of machine translation quality, and correlate more strongly with expert judgments than Bleu does. We go on to show that Mechanical Turk can be used to calculate human-mediated translation edit rate (HTER), to conduct reading comprehension experiments with machine translation, and to create high quality reference translations. 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. This paper addresses the repeated acquisition of labels for data items when the labeling is imperfect. We examine the improvement (or lack thereof) in data quality via repeated labeling, and focus especially on the improvement of training labels for supervised induction. With the outsourcing of small tasks becoming easier, for example via Rent-A-Coder or Amazon's Mechanical Turk, it often is possible to obtain less-than-expert labeling at low cost. With low-cost labeling, preparing the unlabeled part of the data can become considerably more expensive than labeling. We present repeated-labeling strategies of increasing complexity, and show several main results. (i) Repeated-labeling can improve label quality and model quality, but not always. (ii) When labels are noisy, repeated labeling can be preferable to single labeling even in the traditional setting where labels are not particularly cheap. (iii) As soon as the cost of processing the unlabeled data is not free, even the simple strategy of labeling everything multiple times can give considerable advantage. (iv) Repeatedly labeling a carefully chosen set of points is generally preferable, and we present a robust technique that combines different notions of uncertainty to select data points for which quality should be improved. The bottom line: the results show clearly that when labeling is not perfect, selective acquisition of multiple labels is a strategy that data miners should have in their repertoire; for certain label-quality cost regimes, the benefit is substantial. 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.