Title: Answer a Short Survey About Receiving Prize Requester: University of Pennsylvania Ph.D. Research [A1D2JWISJX5DC7] (TO) TO Ratings: (Submit a new TO rating for this requester) Description: Please provide answers to the following questions Reward: $0.25 Qualifications: Total approved HITs is greater than 1000, HIT approval rate (%) is greater than 95, Location is US
Title: Survey about your informal mentoring relationship Requester: Alex Rechlin [A873L77I0P8GJ] (TO) TO Ratings: (Submit a new TO rating for this requester) Description: You are invited to participate in a research study about your informal mentoring relationship. To participate, you must be over 18, work at least part-time, and be in an informal mentoring relationship. Reward: $1.00 Qualifications: HIT approval rate (%) is not less than 95, Location is US
Mine went from 91% to all of a sudden 50%. Horse Feathers. I cherry pick those things and only do the ones that are in focus and readable. No rejections but I'm not going to take a chance on them. They're going to lose a lot of good workers IMO.
The math on this doesn't work. The individual percentages are okay, but the overall is wrong. It should be 87.3%. Anybody else done their math and seen this kind of error?
It says that up top in the first set - 87.3% I'm assuming the 72.73 is overall in all of the ones they graded (i remember i had a 0% for one icon, and they rejected me for it. It could have factored in the final total)
This is all sounding like instead of improving the problem, they're making it worse. I was willing to give them the benefit of doubt and keep working their HITs, but now I'm really beginning to have my doubts ... I'm waiting on 62 nutrients pending from the 15th. The last round left me with a 90% rating, which I still think is dubious, but if my rating goes down any further, like so many others, that's the last time I'll be doing any foodies.
Agreed. They need to come out of their own dreamy world and explain how their rating system works. Nothing wrong with taking feedback when you make mistakes but that should work both ways.
Anyone do any of these? Are they good? Title: Tag the emotion(s) on a sentence Requester: Houdini Inc. [A2NJKX8WSVKPVX] (TO) TO Ratings: (Submit a new TO rating for this requester) Description: Tag the emotion(s) on a sentence Reward: $0.05 Qualifications: Total approved HITs is greater than 500, HIT approval rate (%) is greater than 95, Location is US
There definitely is something odd about all of it. I'm still on the fence, but my current thoughts are that it was that week of batches. I mean, they have obviously been flooded with emails and the TO reviews they have gotten - it can only go up from here right? I'd still be willing to do their batches, but I would be more inclined to stick to claims and icons. Where as before I was willing to do nutrients as well despite the low pay (Because I liked them as a requester and got good at it after a while). We'll see what happens, I would rather not lose them as a source of work. I've made too much money.
So you think they haven't done any kind of reset or anything else, they're just blindly going forward with this nonsense, adding rates from last week to this week? Do you really think you've gotten over 25% of their HITs wrong in the last ~10 days or so?
Title: Choose between two options Requester: Alexander OConnor [A1T1PL3JJSZD7J] (TO) TO Ratings: (Submit a new TO rating for this requester) Description: Average 1min30secs to complete. Five questions ask you to choose between two options. Reward: $0.10 Qualifications: HIT approval rate (%) is not less than 90, Location is US Less than a minute.