TurkerView
  • Requesters
  • Institutions
  • Scripts
  • Queuebicle
  • API
  • Qualifeye
  • Forum
  • Search
  • Login
  • Login
    • Action
    • Another action
    • Something else here
    • Separated link

Search TurkerView

  • Requesters
  • HITs
  • Scripts

Sorry, have to turn this off for a day to try and fix a query search bug!

MTurk Answer Elicitation

Is this your requester account?
No Institutional Affiliation
  • Overview
  • Reviews 1040
  • HITs 279

MTurk Answer Elicitation Ratings


Workers feel this requester pays well

Poor Communication

Approves Quickly

Rejections Reported

No Blocks
Sorry, your browser doesn't support canvas elements.

MTurk Answer Elicitation Wage History


Sorry, your browser doesn't support canvas elements.
Heads up! We'll never hide reviews unless they violate our Terms of Service.

Top Worker Reviews

  • More
    • Best
    • Newest
    • Rejected
    • Hourly (High)
    • Hourly (Low)
    • My Reviews

Yoyo Average Pace
Reviews: 68
Points: 1,899
Ratings: 186
Write questions about Video Games with multiple hops - $1.25

Low

Poor

Rejected (All)

$1.29 / hour

00:58:09 / completion time
  • HIT Rejected

Pros

You only have to do five questions, technically

Cons

Takes waaaay too much time and effort to come up with questions that might be acceptable; the conditions for the questions are very confusing - what is the difference between a hop vs. a condition, why isn't it explained, and if only some questions require hops and some require conditions why are they part of the same HIT asking for hops? - and the amount of time you'll have to take out of your day in order to think up good questions, and research them to make sure they're acceptable (assuming you aren't rejected even after all this!) is just too much work for too little pay.

Advice to Requester

Given how long it takes to come up with good questions, only to be met with a rejection without good explanation "Not all questions required multiple hops (some had multiple conditions instead)", I feel like this HIT needs two changes made to it.

One, all of these types of HITs need to be much, MUCH clearer in what it wants. The examples often aren't very good at showing what types of questions are or aren't acceptable. If some questions require hops and some conditions, explain the difference between them, and which types go where. The instructions as is are short, and vague with poor examples that are open to interpretation. More than three examples would be great, too, as it seems there can be multiple different types of hops, and would help Workers understand what types of hops are hops, what types of hops might be conditional, and what types you're actually looking for, and what even a hop is, as that was not well explained! Saying it's two questions within one, but providing examples like "What is the name of the love interest of Luigi's twin brother?" and saying that this is an example of a two in one question with a hop ( who is Luigi's brother, who is the love interest) doesn't make a lot of sense, because it's not asking two questions. It's asking one question, with the assumption that you have the knowledge required to understand what it's referencing. So, again, not very clear what is actually required to pass a two-hop HIT, when it asks for a question within a question but the examples don't provide evidence of that.

Two, it can take quite a while to think up and research questions that will be acceptable to the criteria (assume they even are in the end!), so the pay needs to be a lot higher than $1.25. If effort is to be put in, the pay needs to reflect that, otherwise there's no reason to even bother working these HITs knowing that there's a chance for rejection even if you spend an hour working on it, trying to research and create unique questions and answers. $1.25 is just far, far too low. Even double that would not be enough. Low pay like this just encourages Workers to rush through it and put no time or effort in, leading to lower quality work, and more rejections on your part, leading to people being less and less likely to work for you as they become nervous about rejections.

Lastly, I think communication needs to be worked on. Saying "Not all questions required multiple hops (some had multiple conditions instead)" isn't clear at all of what I did wrong. Did I include multiple conditions when I should have had hops? Or were some questions of the five questions (let's say, two of the five) requiring hopes, while the others required conditions? That's how it sounds, but that wouldn't make little sense? Also, what even is the difference between a hop and condition in this case? As is, I literally have no idea what I did wrong, and so, it doesn't make me want to work differently in the future, it just makes me nervous to ever accept HITs like this again.
Oct 15, 2021 | 9 workers found this helpful.

AfterDarkMark Average Pace
Reviews: 1,229
Points: 4,923
Ratings: 483
Submit questions and answers about Ancient Civilizations - $2.00

Fair

Unrated

Approved

$11.45 / hour

00:10:29 / completion time

Pros

Pay is fair, but could be better (see cons).

Cons

Should pay more imo, as more work has been added (now need to cite two sources and give the answer for each question created (10)).
Times will be all over on these.
I averaged my time on three of these today to get my time, but my times varied by multiple minutes.
All writing, and will definitely take longer if you aren't quick at this type of task.
Aug 6, 2020 | 4 workers found this helpful.

AfterDarkMark Average Pace
Reviews: 1,229
Points: 4,923
Ratings: 483
Submit questions and answers about Historical Figures - $2.00

Fair

Unrated

Approved

$11.45 / hour

00:10:29 / completion time

Pros

Pay is fair, but could be better (see cons).

Cons

Should pay more imo, as more work has been added (now need to cite two sources and give the answer for each question created (10)). Times will be all over on these. I averaged my time on three of these today to get my time, but my times varied by multiple minutes. All writing, and will definitely take longer if you aren't quick at this type of task.
Aug 6, 2020 | 3 workers found this helpful.

Want to see MTurk Answer Elicitation's full profile?

Create Your Account

or Login

MTurk Answer Elicitation


A29OI0AQIEGQJJ MTurk Search Contact Requester

Recently Reviewed HITs


¿Estas respuestas tienen un hecho que nunca cambiará?
Annotation Test
Answer questions about yourself in a demographic survey
Answer Validation
Ask about 10 trending topics happening in India today

Ratings Legend

Wage Aggregates

Reward Sentiment

Communication Scores

Approval Tracking

Wage Aggregate Tracking

This is fairly straightforward: we take the completion time & the reward amount (where available) and calculate the average hourly rate for the task. We then apply that number to a simple range based on US minimum wage standards to color-code the data for easy to digest numerical data.

Color Pay Range (Hourly) Explanation
RED < $7.25 / hr Hourly averages below US Federal minimum wage
ORANGE $7.25 - $10.00 / hr Hourly averages between Federal & highest statewide (CA) minimum wages.
GREEN > $10.00 / hr Hourly averages above all US minimum wage standards

Reward Sentiment

Not all HITs are created equal. Sometimes an hourly wage doesn't convey the full story of a HIT's true worth, so we encourage workers to give their opinion on the overall pay of the task. Was it $8/hr to rate pictures of puppies? A worker could justifiably bump up the rating a bit for something so adorable. 10 hours locked in Inquisit? Even for $10/hr many workers would appreciate the heads up on such a task. The Pay Sentiment rating helps connect workers beyond the hard data.

Icon Rating Suggested Guidelines
Underpaid 1 / 5
  • Very low or no pay
  • Frustrating work experience
  • Inadequate instructions
Low 2 / 5
  • Below US min-wage ($7.25/hr)
  • No redeeming qualities to make up for pay
Fair 3 / 5
  • Minimum wages for task (consider SE taxes!)
  • Work experience offers nothing to tip the scales in a positive or negative direction
Good 4 / 5
  • Pay is above minimum wage, or compensates better than average for the level of effort required.
  • The overall work experience makes up for borderline wages
Generous 5 / 5
  • Pay is exceptional.
  • Interesting, engaging work or work environment
  • Concise instructions, well designed HIT.

Communication Ratings

Communication is an underrated aspect of mTurk. Clear, concise directions. A fast response to a clarification question or a resolution to a workflow suggestion can all be valuable aspects of interaction between Requesters & Workers and its worth keeping track of. Plus everyone enjoys the peace of mind knowing that if something does go wrong there will be an actual human getting back to you to solve the issue.

Icon Rating Suggested Guidelines
Unacceptable 1 / 5
  • No response at all
  • Rude response without a resolution
Poor 2 / 5
  • Responsive, but unhelpful
  • Required IRB or extra intervention
Acceptable 3 / 5
  • Responded in a reasonable timeframe
  • Resolves issues to a minimum level of satisfaction.
Good 4 / 5
  • Prompt Response
  • Positive resolution
Excellent 5 / 5
  • Prompt response time
  • Friendly & Professional
  • Helpful / Solved Issues
  • Interacts within the community

Approval Time Tracking

This rating is strictly for approval times. Let's face it, no one wants to mix approval time ratings with how fast a Requester rejects a HIT, so we've saved rejection flags for another category. This provides a more straightforward way to know about how long your HIT might sit pending before paying out. The default auto-approval for most MTurk tasks is 3 days, the maximum is 30 days. We've tried to base our ratings around those data-points.

Icon Rating Approval Time
Very Slow 1 / 5 Over 2 weeks
Slow 2 / 5 ~1 - 2 Weeks
Average 3 / 5 ~3 - 7 Days
Fast 4 / 5 ~1 - 3 Days
Very Fast 5 / 5 ~24 hours or less

Login

Login Failed! Please check your username/password and try again.
TurkerHub Member? Just use your normal TurkerHub credentials to log in to TurkerView.
Don't have an account? Register Here!

2025 TurkerView Privacy Terms Blog Contact