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!

DMU Psychology Lab

Is this your requester account?
University of Washington
  • Overview
  • Reviews 251
  • HITs 33

DMU Psychology Lab Ratings


Workers feel this requester pays generously

Good Communication

Approves Quickly

No Rejections

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

DMU Psychology Lab 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

scoot412 Fast Reader
Reviews: 1,210
Points: 5,460
Ratings: 737
Tornado Warning - $5.00

Underpaid

Unrated

Pending

$7.17 / hour

00:41:51 / completion time

Pros

none

Cons

One of the most poorly set up HITs I've ever done. 86 trials. Have to write a pointless (because the info you write is in front of your for the entire round) sentence for each one. Following that, six slider questions....each on its own page, naturally.
Promise of bonus of up to $5 is misleading. As well, this thing seems designed to negatively affect bonus at the end. (I had a $2 bonus until the final 10 or so trials...then, suddenly, each round went so poorly (not in my favor) that I lost it all. So, I wasted roughly 40 minutes on tedious, redundant, all-consuming crap for $5 and no bonus.
Following all of that, there were a few more pages of questions plus demographics.

Advice to Requester

Format your HIT better. Had you put all of the questions for each trial on the same page, this would be much more manageable.
As well, how about offering a fair base payment? A bonus (particularly one that depends entirely on chance) rarely works in favor of turkers...but, you probably already know that, right?. So, pay a decent hourly wage (remember, YOU stated that this HIT would take 1.5 HOURS) and make the bonus an actual bonus, even if it's just a small one.
Nov 21, 2018 | 4 workers found this helpful.

Penelope Fast Reader
Reviews: 10,545
Points: 10,999
Ratings: 2,846
Tornado Warning - $5.00 +1.00 bonus Confirmed!

Fair

Unrated

Approved

$8.48 / hour

00:42:27 / completion time

Pros

None really. Something to do if you have nothing else in your queue.

Cons

Seems the researcher stuck with the old version of this particular hit.
68 trials. Five sliders, one bubble and one writing prompt EACH. There are additional questions even after the experiment. Possibility of a bonus up to $5 which definitely will not be happening because there are too many trials. You do not earn the bonus in this hit but can only lose from what is initially given. And the losing option is so high that you're doomed from the start. Being risk-averse will get you a whopping $1 bonus. I was short by 120 points from getting $2. Also, this hit used to pay $1 for every 1000 points over 6640. Now it's a $1 for every 2000 over.
Dec 15, 2019 | 1 worker found this helpful.

Dragonfly Relaxed Pace
Reviews: 2,924
Points: 2,859
Ratings: 203
Tornado Warning - $5.00 +1.00 bonus Confirmed!

Low

Good

Approved

$7.15 / hour

00:50:20 / completion time

Pros

Fun (I like probablityi, but low pay.

Cons

Said you could get up to $5 bonus and this is absolutely impossible. If you ended with a certain number of points above 6640 you are to get a bonus of $1 yet at the end it said I had no bonus and my score was 7250. Requester has been contacted.

Updated with requester's response: " We agree that the payment is too low. It is too late to change the payment amount for this study (including batches in near future) as that would introduce inconsistencies in our methods, but we will carefully reconsider the payment amount for future studies."

They could simply bonus people more as other requesters do when they realize pay is too low.
Dec 16, 2019

Want to see DMU Psychology Lab's full profile?

Create Your Account

or Login

DMU Psychology Lab


A32X0GP7KOEGRB MTurk Search Contact Requester

Recently Reviewed HITs


Coronavirus Risk Perception Survey
Risk Perception Survey on a Health Issue
Risk Perception Survey on a Health Issue(~ 10 minutes)
Simulated School Closure Decision Task
Simulated School Closure Decision Tasks

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