skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Beyond Monetary Incentives: Experiments in Paid Microtask Contests

Published:13 June 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In this article, we aim to gain a better understanding into how paid microtask crowdsourcing could leverage its appeal and scaling power by using contests to boost crowd performance and engagement. We introduce our microtask-based annotation platform Wordsmith, which features incentives such as points, leaderboards, and badges on top of financial remuneration. Our analysis focuses on a particular type of incentive, contests, as a means to apply crowdsourcing in near-real-time scenarios, in which requesters need labels quickly. We model crowdsourcing contests as a continuous-time Markov chain with the objective to maximise the output of the crowd workers, while varying a parameter that determines whether a worker is eligible for a reward based on their present rank on the leaderboard. We conduct empirical experiments in which crowd workers recruited from CrowdFlower carry out annotation microtasks on Wordsmith—in our case, to identify named entities in a stream of Twitter posts. In the experimental conditions, we test different reward spreads and record the total number of annotations received. We compare the results against a control condition in which the same annotation task was completed on CrowdFlower without a time or contest constraint. The experiments show that rewarding only the best contributors in a live contest could be a viable model to deliver results faster, though quality might suffer for particular types of annotation tasks. Increasing the reward spread leads to more work being completed, especially by the top contestants. Overall, the experiments shed light on possible design improvements of paid microtasks platforms to boost task performance and speed and make the overall experience more fair and interesting for crowd workers.

References

  1. Nikolay Archak. 2010. Money, glory, and cheap talk: Analyzing strategic behavior of contestants in simultaneous crowdsourcing contests on TopCoder.com. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 21--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Zahra Ashktorab, Christopher Brown, Manojit Nandi, and Aron Culotta. 2014. Tweedr: Mining Twitter to inform disaster response. In Proceedings of the Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management Conference (ISCRAM’14).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. James Bennett and Stan Lanning. 2007. The Netflix prize. In Proceedings of the Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining Cup and Workshop (KDD’07). 35.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Michael S. Bernstein, Joel Brandt, Robert C. Miller, and David R. Karger. 2011. Crowds in two seconds: Enabling real-time crowd-powered interfaces. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, 33--42.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Michael S. Bernstein, David R. Karger, Robert C. Miller, and Joel Brandt. 2012. Analytic methods for optimizing realtime crowdsourcing. Collect. Intell. (2012). http://www.ci2012.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Michael S. Bernstein, Greg Little, Robert C. Miller, Björn Hartmann, Mark S. Ackerman, David R. Karger, David Crowell, and Katrina Panovich. 2015. Soylent: A word processor with a crowd inside. Commun. ACM 58, 8 (2015), 85--94. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Jeffrey P. Bigham, Chandrika Jayant, Hanjie Ji, Greg Little, Andrew Miller, Robert C. Miller, Robin Miller, Aubrey Tatarowicz, Brandyn White, Samual White, et al. 2010. VizWiz: Nearly real-time answers to visual questions. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, 333--342. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Kevin J. Boudreau, Nicola Lacetera, and Karim R. Lakhani. 2011. Incentives and problem uncertainty in innovation contests: An empirical analysis. Manage. Sci. 57, 5 (2011), 843--863. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Randy Burkett. 2013. An Alternative Framework for Agent Recruitment: From MICE to RASCLS. Retrieved from https://calhoun.nps.edu/handle/10945/43831.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Amparo Elizabeth Cano Basave, Andrea Varga, Matthew Rowe, Milan Stankovic, and Aba-Sah Dadzie. 2013. Making sense of microposts (# MSM2013) concept extraction challenge. In Proceedings of the Concept Extraction Challenge at the Workshop on ‘Making Sense of Microposts’ Co-Located with the 22nd International World Wide Web Conference (WWW’13), Amparo E. Cano, Matthew Rowe, Milan Stankovic, and Aba-Sah Dadzie (Eds.). CEUR-WS.org, 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Shuchi Chawla, Jason D. Hartline, and Balasubramanian Sivan. 2015. Optimal crowdsourcing contests. Games Econ. Behav. 113 (2015), 80--96.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. S. Cooper, F. Khatib, A. Treuille, J. Barbero, J. Lee, M. Beenen, A. Leaver-Fay, D. Baker, Z. Popović, et al. 2010. Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game. Nature 466, 7307 (2010), 756--760.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Peng Dai, Jeffrey M. Rzeszotarski, Praveen Paritosh, and Ed H. Chi. 2015. And now for something completely different: Improving crowdsourcing workflows with micro-diversions. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, 628--638.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Emmanuel Dechenaux, Dan Kovenock, and Roman M. Sheremeta. 2015. A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments. Exper. Econ. 18, 4 (2015), 609--669.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. 2010. Self-Determination. John Wiley 8 Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Gianluca Demartini, Djellel Eddine Difallah, and Philippe Cudré-Mauroux. 2013. Large-scale linked data integration using probabilistic reasoning and crowdsourcing. Very Large Data Base J. 22, 5 (2013), 665--687. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Sebastian Deterding, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled, and Lennart Nacke. 2011. From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments. ACM, 9--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. 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 Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web. 238--247. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Oluwaseyi Feyisetan, Thomas Drake, Borja Balle, and Tom Diethe. 2019. Privacy-preserving active learning on sensitive data for user intent classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.11112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Oluwaseyi Feyisetan, Markus Luczak-Rösch, Elena Simperl, Ramine Tinati, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2015. Towards hybrid NER: A study of content and crowdsourcing-related performance factors. In The Semantic Web: Latest Advances and New Domains. Springer, 525--540.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Oluwaseyi Feyisetan and Elena Simperl. 2016. Please stay vs let’s play: Social pressure incentives in paid collaborative crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Engineering. Springer, 405--412.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Oluwaseyi Feyisetan and Elena Simperl. 2017. Social incentives in paid collaborative crowdsourcing. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 8, 6 (2017), Article no 73.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Oluwaseyi Feyisetan, Elena Simperl, Markus Luczak-Roesch, Ramine Tinati, and Nigel Shadbolt. {n.d.}. An extended study of content and crowdsourcing-related performance factors in named entity annotation. Semantic Web 1--25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Oluwaseyi Feyisetan, Elena Simperl, Ramine Tinati, Markus Luczak-Roesch, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2014. Quick-and-clean extraction of linked data entities from microblogs. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Semantic Systems (SEM’14). ACM, 5--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Oluwaseyi Feyisetan, Elena Simperl, Max Van Kleek, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2015. Improving paid microtasks through gamification and adaptive furtherance incentives. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web. 333--343.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Tim Finin, Will Murnane, Anand Karandikar, Nicholas Keller, Justin Martineau, and Mark Dredze. 2010. Annotating named entities in Twitter data with crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Creating Speech and Language Data with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Association for Computational Linguistics, 80--88.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Brent Frei. 2009. Paid crowdsourcing. Current State 8 Progress toward Mainstream Business Use, Smartsheet.com Report, Smartsheet.com 9 (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Bruno S. Frey and Reto Jegen. 2001. Motivation crowding theory. J. Econ. Surveys 15, 5 (2001), 589--611.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Drew Fudenberg and Jean Tirole. 1986. A theory of exit in duopoly. Econometr.: J. Econometr. Soc. (1986), 943--960.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Ujwal Gadiraju, Ricardo Kawase, and Stefan Dietze. 2014. A taxonomy of microtasks on the web. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media. ACM, 218--223. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Huiji Gao, Geoffrey Barbier, and Rebecca Goolsby. 2011. Harnessing the crowdsourcing power of social media for disaster relief. IEEE Intell. Syst. 3 (2011), 10--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Benjamin M. Good and Andrew I. Su. 2011. Games with a scientific purpose. Genome Biol. 12, 12 (2011), 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Jeff Howe. 2006. The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired Mag. 14, 6 (2006), 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Lilly C. Irani and M. Silberman. 2013. Turkopticon: Interrupting worker invisibility in amazon mechanical turk. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 611--620.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Nicolas Kaufmann, Thimo Schulze, and Daniel Veit. 2011. More than fun and money. Worker motivation in crowdsourcing-A study on mechanical turk. In Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS’11), Vol. 11. 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Aniket Kittur. 2010. Crowdsourcing, collaboration and creativity. ACM Crossroads 17, 2 (2010), 22--26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Aniket Kittur, Jeffrey V. Nickerson, Michael Bernstein, Elizabeth Gerber, Aaron Shaw, John Zimmerman, Matt Lease, and John Horton. 2013. The future of crowd work. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 1301--1318. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Aniket Kittur, Boris Smus, Susheel Khamkar, and Robert E. Kraut. 2011. Crowdforge: Crowdsourcing complex work. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, 43--52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Markus Krause and René Kizilcec. 2015. To play or not to play: Interactions between response quality and task complexity in games and paid crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the 3rd AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Robert E. Kraut, Paul Resnick, Sara Kiesler, Moira Burke, Yan Chen, Niki Kittur, Joseph Konstan, Yuqing Ren, and John Riedl. 2012. Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-based Social Design. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Vijay Krishna and John Morgan. 1997. An analysis of the war of attrition and the all-pay auction. J. Econ. Theory 72, 2 (1997), 343--362.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Walter S. Lasecki, Christopher Homan, and Jeffrey P. Bigham. 2014. Architecting real-time crowd-powered systems. Hum. Comput. 1, 1 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Walter S. Lasecki, Christopher Miller, Adam Sadilek, Andrew Abumoussa, Donato Borrello, Raja Kushalnagar, and Jeffrey Bigham. 2012. Real-time captioning by groups of non-experts. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, 23--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Walter S. Lasecki, Christopher D. Miller, and Jeffrey P. Bigham. 2013. Warping time for more effective real-time crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2033--2036. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Walter S. Lasecki, Kyle I. Murray, Samuel White, Robert C. Miller, and Jeffrey P. Bigham. 2011. Real-time crowd control of existing interfaces. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, 23--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Edith Law, Ming Yin, Kevin Chen Joslin Goh, Michael Terry, and Krzysztof Z. Gajos. 2016. Curiosity killed the cat, but makes crowdwork better. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 4098--4110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Tracy Xiao Liu, Jiang Yang, Lada A. Adamic, and Yan Chen. 2011. Crowdsourcing with all-pay auctions: A field experiment on Taskcn. Proc. Assoc. Info. Sci. Technol. 48, 1 (2011), 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Thomas W. Malone, Robert Laubacher, and Chrysanthos Dellarocas. 2010. The collective intelligence genome. MIT Sloan Manage. Rev. 51, 3 (2010), 21.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. David Martin, Benjamin V. Hanrahan, Jacki O’Neill, and Neha Gupta. 2014. Being a turker. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, 224--235. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Winter Mason and Duncan J. Watts. 2010. Financial incentives and the performance of crowds. ACM SigKDD Explor. Newslett. 11, 2 (2010), 100--108. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Elisa D. Mekler, Florian Brühlmann, Klaus Opwis, and Alexandre N. Tuch. 2013. Disassembling gamification: The effects of points and meaning on user motivation and performance. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems—Extended Abstracts (CHI’13). ACM, 1137--1142.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Pietro Michelucci. 2016. Handbook of Human Computation. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Benny Moldovanu and Aner Sela. 2001. The optimal allocation of prizes in contests. Amer. Econ. Rev. (2001), 542--558.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Benny Moldovanu, Aner Sela, and Xianwen Shi. 2012. Carrots and sticks: Prizes and punishments in contests. Econ. Inquiry 50, 2 (2012), 453--462.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. B. Norrander. 2006. The attrition game: Initial resources, initial contests and the exit of candidates during the U.S. presidential primary season. Brit. J. Polit. Sci. 36, 3 (2006), 487--507.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Oded Nov, Ofer Arazy, and David Anderson. 2014. Scientists@ home: What drives the quantity and quality of online citizen science participation? PloS One 9, 4 (2014), e90375.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Jordan Raddick, Georgia Bracey, Pamela L. Gay, Chris J. Lintott, Phil Murray, Kevin Schawinski, Alexander S. Szalay, and Jan Vandenberg. 2010. Galaxy zoo: Exploring the motivations of citizen science volunteers. Astron. Edu. Rev. 9, 1 (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Neal Reeves, Peter West, and Elena Simperl. 2018. “A game without competition is hardly a game”: The impact of competitions on player activity in a human computation game. In Proceedings of the 6th AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing (HCOMP’18). AAAI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Alan Ritter, Sam Clark, Oren Etzioni, et al. 2011. Named entity recognition in tweets: An experimental study. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1524--1534. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Markus Rokicki, Sergiu Chelaru, Sergej Zerr, and Stefan Siersdorfer. 2014. Competitive game designs for improving the cost effectiveness of crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 1469--1478.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Markus Rokicki, Sergej Zerr, and Stefan Siersdorfer. 2015. Groupsourcing: Team competition designs for crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web. 906--915. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Razvan Rughinis. 2013. Gamification for productive interaction: Reading and working with the gamification debate in education. In Proceedings of the 8th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI’13). IEEE, 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Katie Seaborn and Deborah I. Fels. 2015. Gamification in theory and action: A survey. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Studies 74 (2015), 14--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Burr Settles. 2012. Active learning. Synth. Lect. Artific. Intell. Mach. Learn. 6, 1 (2012), 1--114.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Victor S. Sheng, Foster Provost, and Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis. 2008. Get another label? Improving data quality and data mining using multiple, noisy labelers. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 614--622. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. John C. Tang, Manuel Cebrian, Nicklaus A. Giacobe, Hyun-Woo Kim, Taemie Kim, and Douglas Beaker Wickert. 2011. Reflecting on the DARPA red balloon challenge. Commun. ACM 54, 4 (2011), 78--85. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Ramine Tinati, Markus Luczak-Roesch, Elena Simperl, and Wendy Hall. 2017. An investigation of player motivations in Eyewire, a gamified citizen science project. Comput. Hum. Behav. 73 (2017), 527--540. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Sudheendra Vijayanarasimhan and Kristen Grauman. 2014. Large-scale live active learning: Training object detectors with crawled data and crowds. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 108, 1--2 (2014), 97--114. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Luis von Ahn and Laura Dabbish. 2004. Labeling images with a computer game. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’04). ACM, New York, NY, 319--326.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Luis Von Ahn and Laura Dabbish. 2008. Designing games with a purpose. Commun. ACM 51, 8 (2008), 58--67. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Xianzhong Xie, Helin Yang, Athanasios V. Vasilakos, and Lu He. 2014. Fair power control using game theory with pricing scheme in cognitive radio networks. J. Commun. Netw. 16, 2 (2014), 183--192.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. Yan Yan, Romer Rosales, Glenn Fung, and Jennifer G. Dy. 2011. Active learning from crowds. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML’11), Vol. 11. 1161--1168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Dejun Yang, Xi Fang, and Guoliang Xue. 2012. Game theory in cooperative communications. IEEE Wireless Commun. 19, 2 (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Gabe Zichermann. 2011. Gamification has issues, but they aren’t the ones everyone focuses on. O’ReillyRadar.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Matthew Zook, Mark Graham, Taylor Shelton, and Sean Gorman. 2010. Volunteered geographic information and crowdsourcing disaster relief: A case study of the Haitian earthquake. World Med. Health Policy 2, 2 (2010), 7--33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Beyond Monetary Incentives: Experiments in Paid Microtask Contests

      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

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Social Computing
        ACM Transactions on Social Computing  Volume 2, Issue 2
        June 2019
        123 pages
        EISSN:2469-7826
        DOI:10.1145/3340675
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2019 Owner/Author

        This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs International 4.0 License.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 13 June 2019
        • Revised: 1 March 2019
        • Accepted: 1 March 2019
        • Received: 1 February 2018
        Published in tsc Volume 2, Issue 2

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format