Rejection stats

I've also been wondering if there are certain kinds of HITs which are easier to get rejected for? I have yet to be rejected, but I don't know if this is simply because of the kind of HITs I choose, or if I'm just really good at this.

 

Well no details,but in your account it should contain the details next to the Rejected section. Or if you're curious contact the requester.

 

On the 3 rejected hits I got they did explain why. One was certainly my fault, one I could debate, but just won't do that sort of hit again. (it was the mark up of all the images of xxx).

 

I agree, I just got my rejection stats slaughtered by Quality Review, who alone out of all the 180 submissions I have done so far, said either I had not followed what they said to do, or my cookies were not enabled, using an AUTOMATED RESPONSE. How suspicious is that? It is like they already decided they are going to reject all hits beforehand and set up an auto-reply!

Despite joining up to the site being reviewed, receiving a confirmation URL, validating the link and writing a 5 point review covering what they asked.

I certainly will not be touching them with a bargepole any more, I cannot afford to risk them being the sort of scammers mentioned in Wikipedia, the ones that reject most hits even though nothing is wrong, just to save paying out.

The trouble is, Amazon state they are not interested in policing the requestors, we have to take it up with them. They just ignore us if they want to.

Is there a list of requestors that are known to reject more than their fair share of submissions?

I nominate Quality Reviews to be included.

I think in future the best tactic we can all take is to do ONLY ONE HIT for a new unknown (to us) requestor, and see if they try to scam us, or if we genuinely have made an error that we can learn from and correct next time.

That way you do not get hammered by half a dozen rejections, that drop you below the >95% accepted quality mark most requestors want.

It is going to take a lot of minor hits that I know are safe to do, in order to build up my average again to reduce the damage these herberts have done to my stats.
It would help if they answered requests for clarification.

 

I seem to be more lost on this than anybody.
I don't even know who is rejecting me.
Where should I be looking?

 

Go to your Status page & check out if any HITs are rejected. If there's any rejection, go to that specific day's status page & see who rejected it.

 

Despite joining up to the site being reviewed, receiving a confirmation URL, validating the link and writing a 5 point review covering what they asked.
Yes there is a way to check a requester out to see if they are a scammer or or a legit requester. You should check it out turkopticon, is a source where it has been reliable to see if they are legit. You can load it up on firefox and you can get the results right as you are screening the HITs they have red and that would mean they a review by a worker or workers. If it is blue it means nobody has reviewed them yet and that you should check it out with caution.



I personally only do 3 HITS for a new requester it means if they reject all three I put flags up. If 1 get's approved and 2 rejected I am like okay maybe I don't understand the HIT. If all 3 get accepted I will go crazy on them. I always try to write to the requester before hand before I do a boat load of a new requester also. Hope this helps you out. Plus it gives me the chance to check out multiple new requesters with a low rejection rate I have. 18,268 HITS completed and only 58 rejections. 99.7% acceptance rate right now.

 

I got a few rejections from the same requester. The issue was very trivial and really p*ssed me off. There was a space where you were asked for the URL for a website. I typed in "none". According to the requester I was to leave the area blank. The instructions did not indicate that. I sent a message to the requester but it was never answered.

 

Sounds like nitpicking to try to get out of paying.

None and blank mean the same thing - no URL. Insane.

 

That was the whole point the person made, the requester did NOT say to leave blank, and if it was so important the requester should have made the instructions include this crucial point.

I sometimes actually tell requesters to improve their descriptions to include what happens for blank or null fields, when they have not said what to do, because of the chance of rejections like this case.

Especially if I suspect they are using a simple schoolboy-standard string parsing algorithm to compare the expected answer with the one submitted.