01/25 - Function Friday!

[theturkscribe]

OMG, it worked? He's put up an interesting HIT that intices me (not sure if it's the same one you did or not, but that's okay to keep the topic secret), then I finally am able to PANDA it and then it won't pop up (just a blank screen) disappointing me.

Today I finally took the watcher off for those I can never get them to work.

 

[ChristopherASA]

Wurd justt inn: Gov't is going to open again after a couple of votes.

 

[CrazyCatLady]

I didn't suggest the requester take any action based on time, only on bad/useless data. He was going to mass reject. As far as my suggestion of scamming being evident by TV showing an $80+ per hour. It think you're being overly touchy as I didn't say that TV users were the culprit, nor that TV was anything but an indicator of something fishy based on simple math($86/60min=$1.43minso @ $1.43 a minute a $10HIT would take about 7min), without making a statement on the voracity of the information, as I have no idea how the code processes avg_hourly, nor it's rate of error. I didn't realize it relied on user input or oversight, which would have made me not put any stock in the data, so I wouldn't have mentioned it, even though I only mentioned it as an aside.
I definitely didn't blame code or user maliciousness, as I don't suspect anyone. I only used the output data from the TV displayed on the HIT post for what it was, a piece of data that showed a trend. But, nobody(meaning me) looked at the TV data until the very last line, before I hit send on my last post about the topic. But, I surely, nor did the requester, "look at a completion time on TV & hop right to "scammer" i...without extra context". The data from TV had literally 0(zip, ziltch) input or mention in the conversation between myself and the requester. It was an aside that I mentioned a the end because I thought, "Oh, hey, doesn't TV pull it's data without user input? It may provide us with some useful information, if we looked at it," like an average completion time, which I figured must be sort of reliable. I guess I thought it was like a golf handicap, where it didn't average too few submissions. My fault for not being a TV user.

Sorry, you took this "some way" as it really should have been clear that I was trusting TV's data and therefore it's developer, not making any sort of claim about their user base, since I assumed the overlap between TV's user set and MTC's member set. Either way, I'll just go edit the line out and add a caveat, and it can be a non-issue.

Good morning MTC!. Funny what you wake up to.

This conversation is too serious.
It's like 4 paragraphs too long for me, lol.

And goodmorning/afternoon!

 

[C to the J]

Wurd justt inn: Gov't is going to open again after a couple of votes.

That's fine but I still refuse to recognize Rhode Island as a state.

 

[Theta Carinae]

Good morning MTC!. Funny what you wake up to.

dood I tried to tell him, but he mad.
if it helps, I feel like pretty much everyone else got what you meant.

 

[rsmath]

What an afternoon since I woke up. Chipped a tooth, am headed to the dentist soon to look at it, the best paying survey I have ever caught seems to be for students of a certain university (I'm not sure if the intro page participants section is accurate or not, and I am not willing to risk a rejection if the participants section wasn't changed to include anyone on mturk outside the university), and one decent batch is up with no reviews on the requestor so it's hard to know if I should do tons and rack up the numbers/dollars or if I will have a slew of rejections ruining my 99% aproval rate.

 

[Jerami]

This conversation is too serious.
It's like 4 paragraphs too long for me, lol.

And goodmorning/afternoon!

Me too. LOL. Didn't expect it but, figure I'd state what actually took place and how little(not at all) TV played in any decision. I forgot it was a thing, honestly.
I still haven't used it yet.


(Assuming my key will be invalidated because I have a "loose tongue" **This is also a joke** I hate discaimers)

 

[Merovign]

you'll want to check that before you bite into it @Merovign, guessing it'll have a hair in it if not worse.

I'd have to check the TO.

 

[humbleturker]

 

[Mr_AvocadoMan]

A few have popped up but I haven't caught any at all.

I just saw one!

 

[ChristopherASA]

That's fine but I still refuse to recognize Rhode Island as a state.

Rhode Island was such a recalcitrant state in the 1700s that it was called "Rogue Island." Pulled teeth to get them to ratify the Constitution.

 

[rsmath]

Wurd justt inn: Gov't is going to open again after a couple of votes.

and will close back down in 3 weeks.

 

[thismegan]

*sigh*, me too.

 

[scrmcasey]

I didn't suggest the requester take any action based on time, only on bad/useless data. He was going to mass reject. As far as my suggestion of scamming being evident by TV showing an $80+ per hour. It think you're being overly touchy as I didn't say that TV users were the culprit, nor that TV was anything but an indicator of something fishy based on simple math($86/60min=$1.43minso @ $1.43 a minute a $10HIT would take about 7min), without making a statement on the voracity of the information, as I have no idea how the code processes avg_hourly, nor it's rate of error. I didn't realize it relied on user input or oversight, which would have made me not put any stock in the data, so I wouldn't have mentioned it, even though I only mentioned it as an aside.
I definitely didn't blame code or user maliciousness, as I don't suspect anyone. I only used the output data from the TV displayed on the HIT post for what it was, a piece of data that showed a trend. But, nobody(meaning me) looked at the TV data until the very last line, before I hit send on my last post about the topic. But, I surely, nor did the requester, "look at a completion time on TV & hop right to "scammer" i...without extra context" We only used other context. TV data didn't factor, at all.. The data from TV had literally 0(zip, ziltch) input or mention in the conversation between myself and the requester. It was an aside that I mentioned a the end because I thought, "Oh, hey, doesn't TV pull it's data without user input? It may provide us with some useful information, if we looked at it," like an average completion time, which I figured must be sort of reliable. I guess I thought it was like a golf handicap, where it didn't average too few submissions. My fault for not being a TV user.

Sorry, you took this "some way" as it really should have been clear that I was trusting TV's data and therefore it's developer, not making any sort of claim about their user base, since I assumed the overlap between TV's user set and MTC's member set. Either way, I'll just go edit the line out and add a caveat, and it can be a non-issue.

Good morning MTC!. Funny what you wake up to.

I can safely say that I didn't complete the Hits that posted over the past couple days from this requester. I did them in November, and they were completely different. Speaking for myself as one of those "completed with a $100/hr TV reviews", I know I did my work correctly, and as @ChrisTurk kindly pointed out, I was even bonused. You may have misinterpreted the reviews there, but its a bit concerning to know that we could lose a good requester based on possibly wrong information given to him. (And just for the record, I'm not a scammer).

 

[ChristopherASA]

What an afternoon since I woke up. Chipped a tooth, am headed to the dentist soon to look at it, the best paying survey I have ever caught seems to be for students of a certain university (I'm not sure if the intro page participants section is accurate or not, and I am not willing to risk a rejection if the participants section wasn't changed to include anyone on mturk outside the university), and one decent batch is up with no reviews on the requestor so it's hard to know if I should do tons and rack up the numbers/dollars or if I will have a slew of rejections ruining my 99% aproval rate.

Boy! Hell of a day, huh?!?!

 

[A6_Foul_Out]

not making any sort of claim about their user base

Another bit of proof of straight up scamming, TV hourly

 

[ChristopherASA]

and will close back down in 3 weeks.

Let's take this one hour at a time.

 

[C to the J]

I can safely say that I didn't complete the Hits that posted over the past couple days from this requester. I did them in November, and they were completely different. Speaking for myself as one of those "completed with a $100/hr TV reviews", I know I did my work correctly, and as @ChrisTurk kindly pointed out, I was even bonused. You may have misinterpreted the reviews there, but its a bit concerning to know that we could lose a good requester based on possibly wrong information given to him. (And just for the record, I'm not a scammer).

The fact they paid $100/hr and then bonus'd us even more money was just wonderful.
Top notch requester.

 

[nmelssx]

This conversation is too serious.
It's like 4 paragraphs too long for me, lol.

And goodmorning/afternoon!

Wait I'm confused. He's saying TV shows reviews that completed the $10 HIT in 7 minutes. Is that just a few people, or is it a bunch of people?

 

[jenaling]

I can safely say that I didn't complete the Hits that posted over the past couple days from this requester. I did them in November, and they were completely different. Speaking for myself as one of those "completed with a $100/hr TV reviews", I know I did my work correctly, and as @ChrisTurk kindly pointed out, I was even bonused. You may have misinterpreted the reviews there, but its a bit concerning to know that we could lose a good requester based on possibly wrong information given to him. (And just for the record, I'm not a scammer).

Yes. And it's important to be sure of the situation before recommending things like blocks. That doesn't help turkers or requesters.