Claire Gardent CNRS/LORIA Ratings
Claire Gardent CNRS/LORIA Wage History
Top Worker Reviews
Larsanix Unreliably Fast
Write 1 question about entities. Initial qualification is auto-approved. Clearer instructions, easier task. - $0.07
Underpaid
Acceptable
Approved
$ / hour
00:00:00 / completion time
Pros
Everything you need to complete the hit is in the iframe, including the necessary wiki information to write the questions so you don't/shouldn't have to actually go to the Wikipedia page to find additional information about the given object/subject.The requester has been very communicative in my experience, as they have answered all of the questions I asked through email.
These are very similar to AI Research's rephrasing machine-generated questions HITs, but a lot more simplified and "seemingly" easier to understand, and write.
Cons
They threaten rejections very often, in the actual HIT itself, in the HIT feedback, and even through email.The requester doesn't seem to know what it is that they want. Their instructions make the task seem straight and to the point, but then they'll tack on additional details that aren't included about what they would have preferred despite the grammar being correct, and the sentence structure being written in an acceptable format.
e.g., I asked them a question about one of the HITs I submitted, but before they answered the HIT was already approved, and in the HIT's feedback it said,
"The question is well written. This meets our requirements. Please keep up the good work!"
But later they responded to my email and said that I should not have included a connective and that it would have been rejected had it not been one of the HITs I submitted in my "familiarisation phase", as they call it.
So two different responses, on the same HIT. One said it was right, the other said it was wrong. Red flag.
I should also mention that they openly admitted to me that the instruction to exclude connective words is NOT included in the HITs instructions and that that was an error on their part, so had I not asked, I could've potentially been rejected had I done it again.
It really appears they'll reject you for the most minute, minuscule reasons that they can muster up. I haven't been rejected, fortunately, but I've decided to stop working for them after their latest email telling me I should've written my sentence as, "Which city is the known as _____". Yes, this was their sentence, not mine, so their own example should've been rejected given that it does not sound natural and includes a grammatical error.
I'm zeroing out my time for these because my completion time would probably lead others to believe that A) this is good filler work, or B) a decently paying batch. Seeing that the requester has a 97% approval rate and they've been posting thousands of HITs, I can't even say for sure you'll be so lucky when it comes to being approved.
tl;dr: The requester will reject you for practically nothing, and their instructions are seriously lacking in their ability to, well, instruct.
May 12, 2020 | 6 workers found this helpful.
Soldan Average Pace
Rate Correspondence Between Data and Text [qualification HIT] - $0.15
Unrated
Unrated
Pending
$6.14 / hour
00:01:28 / completion time
Pros
ezCons
low paying
Nov 6, 2020
boy skippy New Reviewer
Answer basic questions about quality of short texts - $0.05
Good
Unrated
Approved
$8.57 / hour
00:00:21 / completion time
May 3, 2021