Maybe amazon decides based on the number of blocks a requester gives? If they're giving it out often then obviously it's meaningless. Either they're being jerks or they're using it to prevent duplicates. If they rarely give it out, then it's going to be a quality control issue
I caught the tail end but he wanted ideas to make something. I told him that most people who do scripts and things usualy have their own ideas, do it, and just release it to us in the void. He was the opposite. Supposedly talented. No ideas.
That's why I thought he was fishing. To see what amazon should be working on blocking or something. Idk
Yeah. I dunno. I was only popping in and out, I wasn't in the mood to watch a dick measuring contest and I can't not read a post if its in my face so his long winded posts were making it hard for me to work
There must be some way that they determine which blocks matter though. We've all been blocked many times to prevent duplicates without having any action taken against our accounts or getting emails
We get that question a bunch, and it's a very fair one. I don't have a definitive answer, but if something is "awesome" enough to make you smile, that seems like a valid enough reason to mark it as funny. The point is you're free to use your judgment on those; there's not really a "right" answer. I think it's actually kind of amusing (if counterproductive) that some people are "paranoid" about what we'll think of you if you rate a joke a certain way. We are actually super flexible with your ratings, as long as you read the jokes and have a least a little bit of consistency in your ratings and don't repeatedly mark our attention checks as being hilarious. Remember that guy I just posted about who found 0.2% of our jokes funny and only spent 3 seconds reading them? I'm guessing you're nothing like that guy, so you really don't need to be paranoid.
Bear is trying to conjour up Razor then he'll bitch about it when the ghost of Razor past appears. Now that would make a good story. To bad it's not Xmas time. Who knows? Bear said he was bored/gored, whatever. Could of been Bear doing all the wall-ing.
While you are here. Just pointing out again, if you reduced your auto approval time to one to two days people would be much less afraid to touch them. A lot of people will not do more until all the ones they have done are approved. A lot of newer people love your hits but are afraid to do more than a few.
Amazon's tools for requesters are comically bad. (No offense Amazon, we love you. But seriously, it's not 2006 anymore.) Amazon lets requesters hard block workers, and that's the only tool they expose for preventing certain workers from doing your task. We learned the hard way (hah) that that's a shitty way to do things because it massively screws over workers. The reason Amazon may be denying that "soft blocking" is a thing is that it's not really something THEY offer explicitly. Instead, if a requester wants to soft block a user, they basically have to require a qualification for their hit and then only give the qual to workers they want doing the hit. They can then remove the qual for workers they want to soft block, and they have to make sure not to let the soft-blocked user regain the qual later. Basically, it's something that requesters can implement on top of the crappy Amazon APIs, but it requires quite a bit of effort on the part of the requester to get all of that infrastructure in place. We've done that (and a whole lot more), because we're using the crap out of AMT (we're the number one requester right now, by far, I think). But I have no idea why Amazon doesn't make these sorts of things easier for requesters who don't have the time / programming resources we do. (And to preemptively deflect questions about why we aren't paying more if we have all these resources: it's not that we have lots of money, it's that we're literally spending most of it on you guys already, and about 1/3 of our programmer time is being spent dealing with AMT stuff.)