12/26 - Tylenol Tuesday!

[Starslip]

So how'd everyone do today?

 

[BskiCHI]

So how'd everyone do today?

PE: $35.50

 

[InfiniteChanges]

Rude. Why didn't he save me?

He told me he doesn't like your face.

 

[Pallandius]

Only just started. John Doe hits drying up. Doesn't seem to be much.

 

[hamster wheel]

Just tried one myself and received what I am guessing is the same error.

Thanks! I'm glad it's not just me. Hopefully they fix it. I know receipt batches are a drag, but these didn't seem to pay too badly.

 

[SAJ]

Title: Quick Survey Tuesday, December 26, 2017 #7 | Accept Requester: Nate Hodges [A1AQHR31NR4J6N] Contact TV: [Hrly: $29.64] [Pay: 4.58] [Fast: null] [Comm: null] [Rej: 0] [ToS: 0] [Blk: 0] TO: [Pay: 3.53] [Fast: 4.71] [Comm: 4.60] [Fair: 5.00] [Reviews: 73] [ToS: 0] TO2: [Hrly: ---] [Pen: ---] [Res: ---] [Rec: ---] [Rej: 0] [ToS: 0] [Brk: 0] Reward: $10.00 Duration: 2 hours 20 minutes Available: 1 Description: Please take a look at a few questions and provide us with your thoughts. Requirements: ICO 200 Deep Exists; HIT approval rate (%) GreaterThan 90; Location EqualTo US [tr][td] HIT exported from Mturk Suite v2.0.7​

[/td][/tr]

[tr][td][/td][/tr]

 

[Vanyanka]

He told me he doesn't like your face.

Now, I know you're lying. No one has ever said that before and they never will.

 

[InfiniteChanges]

Now, I know you're lying. No one has ever said that before and they never will.

I don't like your face. Now someone has.

 

[hamster wheel]

So how'd everyone do today?

Not too well: $3.66. I only do this in the evenings after my full time job, though, so...

 

[Vanyanka]

I don't like your face. Now someone has.

But you're lying so it doesn't count.

 

[Jharkan]

But you're lying so it doesn't count.

I don't know what your face looks like, and I'm not remotely curious.

 

[Bluedogan]

?doNotRedirect=true just stopped working for me

...

this means no more hit database II

You mean you still had been able to get it to work? I haven't. I got two rejects this past week on doing surveys I apparently did months ago again.

 

[Jharkan]

you see, @Vanyanka ...

Spoiler: when you get to see THIS in the mirror whenever you want

Log in or register now. to view Spoiler content!

the rest of the world starts turning gray and blurry

 

[InfiniteChanges]

you see, @Vanyanka ...

Spoiler: when you get to see THIS in the mirror whenever you want

Log in or register now. to view Spoiler content!

the rest of the world starts turning gray and blurry

That needs a NSFW tag.

 

[Achilles2357]

I am betting this person has spent a while sending out emails, unless it's a copy/pasta



Fair response? I have no problem eating the rejection, technically I wasn't paying attention after I thought I was finished with the survey and missed the code, but that still doesn't mean putting it there wasn't shady as fuck. I was willing to let it go.

This strikes me as a case where it might be viable to complain to the IRB. I haven't followed this whole discussion, but this seems to be a university experiment. This is really a shifty move by the requester. I suspect it arises simply from the requester not really grasping how people actually do online experiments, but it is shifty nonetheless. Anyone who has done more than a few genuine "studies" (as opposed to the dime a dozen psych and social science stuff) knows how to differentiate the real study from the surrounding technical stuff, and if experimenters don't know that, then that is their fault. Nobody expects shifty attention check stuff in boilerplate parts of an actual experiment, and it is unreasonable to expect otherwise. The IRB often does have actual power over requesters, and a well-thought message might bring results.

 

[Jessie Bustin]

Thanks! I'm glad it's not just me. Hopefully they fix it. I know receipt batches are a drag, but these didn't seem to pay too badly.

Looks like they might be trying to fix them, they updated them a few minutes ago.

 

[electrolyte]

This strikes me as a case where it might be viable to complain to the IRB. I haven't followed this whole discussion, but this seems to be a university experiment. This is really a shifty move by the requester. I suspect it arises simply from the requester not really grasping how people actually do online experiments, but it is shifty nonetheless. Anyone who has done more than a few genuine "studies" (as opposed to the dime a dozen psych and social science stuff) knows how to differentiate the real study from the surrounding technical stuff, and if experimenters don't know that, then that is their fault. Nobody expects shifty attention check stuff in boilerplate parts of an actual experiment, and it is unreasonable to expect otherwise. The IRB often does have actual power over requesters, and a well-thought message might bring results.

IIRC, it wasn't a university research requester/HIT and was a business thing.

 

[Starslip]

This strikes me as a case where it might be viable to complain to the IRB. I haven't followed this whole discussion, but this seems to be a university experiment. This is really a shifty move by the requester. I suspect it arises simply from the requester not really grasping how people actually do online experiments, but it is shifty nonetheless. Anyone who has done more than a few genuine "studies" (as opposed to the dime a dozen psych and social science stuff) knows how to differentiate the real study from the surrounding technical stuff, and if experimenters don't know that, then that is their fault. Nobody expects shifty attention check stuff in boilerplate parts of an actual experiment, and it is unreasonable to expect otherwise. The IRB often does have actual power over requesters, and a well-thought message might bring results.

Honestly they just set up their HIT in a stupid way. Rather than providing unique codes at the end or tying it to your mturk ID, they asked you to create a code they couldn't verify other than by the code being in a certain format. There was no way for them to identify which mturk IDs did which HITs, and once they started sending out rejections where they described what the code should have been it became pointless because now everyone knew what the code was. The whole thing was a silly mess they could easily have avoided.

 

[Achilles2357]

IIRC, it wasn't a university research requester/HIT and was a business thing.

Well, I guess businesses can just screw everyone. Don't invest in that business!

 

[El Pablo]

This strikes me as a case where it might be viable to complain to the IRB. I haven't followed this whole discussion, but this seems to be a university experiment. This is really a shifty move by the requester. I suspect it arises simply from the requester not really grasping how people actually do online experiments, but it is shifty nonetheless. Anyone who has done more than a few genuine "studies" (as opposed to the dime a dozen psych and social science stuff) knows how to differentiate the real study from the surrounding technical stuff, and if experimenters don't know that, then that is their fault. Nobody expects shifty attention check stuff in boilerplate parts of an actual experiment, and it is unreasonable to expect otherwise. The IRB often does have actual power over requesters, and a well-thought message might bring results.

You're probably right, just not sure it's worth the time and effort. Probably a lazy mentality on my part, but someone else can be the hero here.

IIRC, it wasn't a university research requester/HIT and was a business thing.

I know in my emails with him/her there isn't an .edu or university referenced.