Title: A survey about conflicts in your workplace (Must be employed) Requester: Researcher [AQF6JU3WFUX1I] (TO) TO Ratings: ***** 5.00 Communicativity ***** 2.50 Generosity ***** 5.00 Fairness ***** 5.00 Promptness Number of Reviews: 2 (Submit a new TO rating for this requester) Description: The purpose of this survey is to learn about organizational culture and your style in resolving organizational conflicts. Reward: $0.30 Qualifications: Total approved HITs is not less than 500, HIT approval rate (%) is not less than 95 Not sure if it was posted. 4 minutes.
OH SHEESH! *goes out to the wild and plucks you from the snow* LOL Cave is not underground SILLY! Its in BIG FOREST. *puts you on his shoulders and skips back to our home*
Title: News Article Bias Evaluation Requester: William West [AVSS3NMRITTDU] (TO) TO Ratings: ***** 4.00 Communicativity ***** 5.00 Generosity ***** 5.00 Fairness ***** 5.00 Promptness Number of Reviews: 2 (Submit a new TO rating for this requester) Description: Read two news articles and answer brief questions about the relative amount of bias in each article. Reward: $0.45 Qualifications: Total approved HITs is greater than 500, News Article Bias Evaluation (Qualification Test) is 100, HIT approval rate (%) is greater than 95, Location is US I did one. I thought it would be polite for me to wait until he gets back to me on some 0.00 HITs I did the other night. (He approved all 185 I submitted. He wanted me to do two more than that, and I can see them, but they are fake-available (show up in red when I use that script, tell me there's no more if I try to preview). I think they're a very cost-effective HIT for fast readers (as long as they understand the nuances involved in determining relative bias he wants, where if two articles are equally rabid they get judged as 'no bias').. --- the price on the new batch is 0.45, although I still see a fake-available HIT at 0.40, too
I'm kind of unsure what to write for justifications of things. How much writing did you do per instance? EDIT : nevermind, realized I don't have to do it for answering neither. That helps.
Title: Answer a survey about your personality and preferred relationship with service providers. Requester: Personality Research [A1YA3C388K2MW3] (TO) Description: Fairly compensated short survey with plenty of time to tell us about your personality and preferred relationship with service providers. This is for US Residents only. Only one survey per MTurker, and only quality submissions please. Reward: $1.65 Qualifications: Total approved HITs is not less than 0, HIT approval rate (%) is not less than 90, Location is US Link: https://www.mturk.com/mturk/preview?groupId=2KC6F0OHOVR6LVVZI3C9CHED4G734R [size=-2]Powered by non-amazonian script monkeys ��[/size] 9 Minutes, GOOD TO
So this is going on outside right now here in East Lansing after the MSU victory. lol For those of you that don't know, it's tradition for us to burn couches after big losses or victories. lol smh.
I'm into him for $45 so far today. I've done them in the past and he's approved them all. Part of me wants to keep doing them... I guess at this point, if he's going to go all reject happy, I'm already screwed. Seeing them sitting there, they're really tempting to keep working on. Especially now that I'm at the point that I've seen most of the articles already.
Yeah, that made it a lot easier. The Requester does read what people write in the justification boxes, so it can't hurt to explain anything you consider a close call. But since most of them probably won't have much relative bias, you don't have to. To those of you who dislike writing: instructions say that a couple words can suffice I write pretty long paragraphs at times, but you people in this Forum already knew that.
heh. That's precisely the corner I painted myself into last weekend, and those 185 0.00 HITs were my way of making it up to William West so that he didn't mass reject mine. He was initially skeptical about my ability to do some in under a minute (not including Preview time), but it turned out too that I had been using the wrong criteria on some of them .. so I spent about 19 hours doing them over. Xref: Also wrote about those HITs last night.