skip to main content
10.1145/3394486.3403369acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Prediction of Hourly Earnings and Completion Time on a Crowdsourcing Platform

Published:20 August 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

We study the problem of predicting future hourly earnings and task completion time for a crowdsourcing platform user who sees the list of available tasks and wants to select one of them to execute. Namely, for each task shown in the list, one needs to have an estimated value of the user's performance (i.e., hourly earnings and completion time) that will be if she selects this task. We address this problem on real crowd tasks completed on one of the global crowdsourcing marketplaces by (1) conducting a survey and an A/B test on real users; the results confirm the dominance of monetary incentives and importance of knowledge on hourly earnings for users; (2) an in-depth analysis of user behavior that shows that the prediction problem is challenging: (a) users and projects are highly heterogeneous, (b) there exists the so-called "learning effect" of a user selected a new task; and (3) the solution to the problem of predicting user performance that demonstrates improvement of prediction quality by up to 25% for hourly earnings and up to $32%$ completion time w.r.t. a naive baseline which is based solely on historical performance of users on tasks. In our experimentation, we use data about 18 million real crowdsourcing tasks performed by $161$ thousand users on the crowd platform; we publish this dataset. The hourly earning prediction has been deployed in Yandex.Toloka.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

3394486.3403369.mp4

mp4

262.4 MB

References

  1. R. Budylin, A. Drutsa, G. Gusev, P. Serdyukov, and I. Yashkov. 2018. Online evaluation for effective web service development. Tutorial at KDD'2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ricardo Buettner. 2015. A systematic literature review of crowdsourcing research from a human resource management perspective. In HICSS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Chris Callison-Burch. 2014. Crowd-Workers: Aggregating Information Across Turkers to Help Them Find Higher Paying Work. In HCOMP.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Justin Cheng, Jaime Teevan, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2015. Measuring Crowdsourcing Effort with Error-Time Curves. In CHI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Djellel Eddine Difallah, Michele Catasta, Gianluca Demartini, Panagiotis G Ipeirotis, and Philippe Cudré-Mauroux. 2015. The dynamics of micro-task crowdsourcing: The case of amazon mturk. In WWW. 238--247.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. A. Drutsa, V. Farafonova, V. Fedorova, O. Megorskaya, E. Zerminova, and O. Zhilinskaya. 2019. Practice of Efficient Data Collection via Crowdsourcing at Large-Scale. Tutorial at KDD'2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. A. Drutsa, V. Fedorova, D. Ustalov, O. Megorskaya, E. Zerminova, and D. Baidakova. 2020 a. Practice of Efficient Data Collection via Crowdsourcing: Aggregation, Incremental Relabelling, and Pricing. In WSDM'2020. 873--876.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Alexey Drutsa, Gleb Gusev, and Pavel Serdyukov. 2017. Using the Delay in a Treatment Effect to Improve Sensitivity and Preserve Directionality of Engagement Metrics in A/B Experiments. In WWW'2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. A. Drutsa, D. Rogachevsky, O. Megorskaya, A. Slesarev, E. Zerminova, D. Baidakova, A. Rykov, and A. Golomedov. 2020 b. Efficient Data Annotation for Self-Driving Cars via Crowdsourcing on a Large-Scale. In CVPR'2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Alexey Drutsa, Anna Ufliand, and Gleb Gusev. 2015. Practical Aspects of Sensitivity in Online Experimentation with User Engagement Metrics. In CIKM'2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. A. Drutsa, D. Ustalov, E. Zerminova, V. Fedorova, O. Megorskaya, and D. Baidakova. 2020 c. Crowdsourcing Practice for Efficient Data Labeling: Aggregation, Incremental Relabeling, and Pricing. In SIGMOD'2020. 2623--2627.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. David S Evans and Richard Schmalensee. 2016. Matchmakers: the new economics of multisided platforms. Harvard Business Review Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Siamak Faradani, Björn Hartmann, and Panagiotis G Ipeirotis. 2011. What's the Right Price? Pricing Tasks for Finishing on Time. Human comp., Vol. 11 (2011), 11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Tanya Goyal, Tyler McDonnell, Mucahid Kutlu, Tamer Elsayed, and Matthew Lease. 2018. Your Behavior Signals Your Reliability: Modeling Crowd Behavioral Traces to Ensure Quality Relevance Annotations. In HCOMP.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. B.V Hanrahan, D. Martin, J. Willamowski, and J.M Carroll. 2018. Investigating the Amazon Mechanical Turk Market Through Tool Design. CSCW, Vol. 27, 3--6 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Benjamin V Hanrahan, Jutta K Willamowski, Saiganesh Swaminathan, and David B Martin. 2015. TurkBench: Rendering the market for Turkers. In HFCS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Kotaro Hara, Abigail Adams, Kristy Milland, Saiph Savage, Chris Callison-Burch, and Jeffrey P Bigham. 2018. A Data-Driven Analysis of Workers' Earnings on Amazon Mechanical Turk. In CHI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Simo Hosio, Jorge Goncalves, Vili Lehdonvirta, Denzil Ferreira, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2014. Situated crowdsourcing using a market model. In UIST. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Panagiotis G Ipeirotis. 2010. Analyzing the amazon mechanical turk marketplace. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students, Vol. 17, 2 (2010), 16--21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Lilly C Irani and M Silberman. 2013. Turkopticon: Interrupting worker invisibility in amazon mechanical turk. In CHI.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. T. Kaplan, S. Saito, K. Hara, and J. P Bigham. 2018. Striving to earn more: a survey of work strategies and tool use among crowd workers. In HCOMP'2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. R. Kohavi, R. Longbotham, D. Sommerfield, and R. M Henne. 2009. Controlled experiments on the web: survey and practical guide. DMKD, Vol. 18, 1 (2009).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Pavel Kucherbaev, Florian Daniel, Stefano Tranquillini, and Maurizio Marchese. 2016. ReLauncher: crowdsourcing micro-tasks runtime controller. In CSCWSC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Adam Marcus, Aditya Parameswaran, et almbox. 2015. Crowdsourced data management: Industry and academic perspectives. FTD, Vol. 6, 1--2 (2015), 1--161.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. David Martin, Benjamin V Hanrahan, Jacki O'Neill, and Neha Gupta. 2014. Being a turker. In CSCWSC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. P. Minder, S. Seuken, A. Bernstein, and M. Zollinger. 2012. Crowdmanager-combinatorial allocation and pricing of crowdsourcing tasks with time constraints. In Workshop on Social Computing and User Generated Content in ACM EC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Liudmila Prokhorenkova, Gleb Gusev, Aleksandr Vorobev, Anna Veronika Dorogush, and Andrey Gulin. 2018. CatBoost: unbiased boosting with categorical features. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 6638--6648.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. John Prpić, Araz Taeihagh, and James Melton. 2015. The fundamentals of policy crowdsourcing. Policy & Internet, Vol. 7, 3 (2015), 340--361.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Mejdl Safran and Dunren Che. 2018. Efficient Learning-Based Recommendation Algorithms for Top-N Tasks and Top-N Workers in Large-Scale Crowdsourcing Systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), Vol. 37, 1 (2018), 2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Susumu Saito, Chun-Wei Chiang, Saiph Savage, Teppei Nakano, Tetsunori Kobayashi, and Jeffrey P Bigham. 2019. TurkScanner: Predicting the Hourly Wage of Microtasks. In The World Wide Web Conference. ACM, 3187--3193.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Thimo Schulze, Simone Krug, and Martin Schader. 2012. Workers' task choice in crowdsourcing and human computation markets. (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Jing Wang, Siamak Faridani, and Panagiotis Ipeirotis. 2011. Estimating the completion time of crowdsourced tasks using survival analysis models. Crowdsourcing for search and data mining (CSDM 2011), Vol. 31 (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Jing Wang and Panagiotis Ipeirotis. 2013. A framework for quality assurance in crowdsourcing. (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Chaolun Xia and Shan Muthukrishnan. 2017. Revenue-Maximizing Stable Pricing in Online Labor Markets. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Yandex. Since 2014. Yandex.Toloka. http://toloka.aiGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Yandex.Toloka. 2020. Dataset "Toloka Users & Tasks". https://toloka.ai/datasetsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Y. Zhang, H. Qin, B. Li, J. Wang, S. Lee, and Zh. Huang. 2018. Truthful mechanism for crowdsourcing task assignment. Tsinghua Science and Technology, Vol. 23, 6 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Prediction of Hourly Earnings and Completion Time on a Crowdsourcing Platform

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          KDD '20: Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining
          August 2020
          3664 pages
          ISBN:9781450379984
          DOI:10.1145/3394486

          Copyright © 2020 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 20 August 2020

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate1,133of8,635submissions,13%

          Upcoming Conference

          KDD '24

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader