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!

Stanford University

Is this your requester account?
No Institutional Affiliation
  • Overview
  • Reviews 69
  • HITs

Stanford University Ratings


Workers feel this requester pays generously

Okay Communication

Approves Quickly

Rejections Reported

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

Stanford University 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

Buntastic Average Pace
Reviews: 1,173
Points: 1,454
Ratings: 413
Marking objects and relations in images. Bonuses for good work! On average $10/hour. (a 'Start Immediately!' task) - $10.00

Unrated

Unacceptable

Rejected

$18.42 / hour

00:32:34 / completion time
  • HIT Rejected

Pros

You can do multiple because each has different pictures.

Cons

Some pictures are super hard to mark 10/12 objects in (i.e. a picture of a giraffe in a field)
Updating my review since the rejection is not overturned. After several days of non issues (I had submitted 10 of these previously, all approved) the requester rejected. The reason of not enough things marked did not make sense, as the hit would not continue to the next page without enough items marked/related. I contacted him. While he responded in a decent amount of time, he was rude and unprofessional. He said due to '30 nonsensical responses" they decided to reject the bottom 3% of responses. This wasn't based on QUALITY, but on QUANTITY of items marked. The problem with this, which the requester pointed out himself, was many photos made it impossible to mark more than the bare minimum. Requester also commented that TV workers were not 'representative' of the results he got, but since he refused to check for quality, that isn't reassuring. He also followed up with me a few hours after I conversation with a very mocking "We aren't covered by the IRB so nothing they can do" message.
The Stanford account is shared. I actually feel bad for the next one that uses it, because as of now they are known as unprofessional and incompetent.
Jan 30, 2019 | 2 workers found this helpful.
Stanford University (Requester) Rejection Feedback:

hasn't marked enough objects/relations


Troy Average Pace
Reviews: 9,095
Points: 9,888
Ratings: 1,150
Marking objects and relations in images. Bonuses guaranteed. On average $10/hour. - $9.00

Generous

Unrated

Approved

$28.72 / hour

00:18:48 / completion time

Pros

look at that hourly. Once you get a hang of these, its goes by super quick. You can change the picture too if its too tough or there are too many things going on. Don't get discouraged when it askes for more detail. Just start tagging smaller stuff in the photo which will make the second part of each photo much much quicker. Think micro over macro for this HIT.

Cons

Jan 24, 2019 | 3 workers found this helpful.

sarin Unreliably Fast
Reviews: 10,091
Points: 10,085
Ratings: 1,705
Marking objects and relations in images. Bonuses for good work! On average $10/hour. (a 'Start Immediately!' task) - $10.00

Good

Unrated

Approved

$17.51 / hour

00:34:16 / completion time

Pros

Annotate all objects in 4 images, create descriptors for the annotated objects, then observe and point out the objects' relations to each other
Can be fun if you get enough objects to label properly
Interface is easy to use, and text is labeled with colors to help you distinguish the objects

Cons

Not enough objects and you have to get creative with what you consider to be objects
Too many objects and you'll suffer
Somewhat tedious
Jan 29, 2019 | 1 worker found this helpful.

Want to see Stanford University's full profile?

Create Your Account

or Login

Stanford University


AALPOIWHC4JFR MTurk Search Contact Requester

Recently Reviewed HITs


Answering short questions about images. Bonuses guaranteed. On average $15/hour.
bonus worker (only for workers who contacted requester) please don't do otherwise. will be rejected
Marking objects and relations in images (new!). Bonuses for good work! On average $10/hour.
Marking objects and relations in images (new!). Bonuses for good work! On average $10/hour. (a 'Start Immediately!' task)
Marking objects and relations in images. Bonuses for good work! On average $10/hour. (a 'Start Immediately!' task)

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