What Quality Control Mechanisms do We Need for High-Quality Crowd Work?

Crowd sourcing and human computation has slowly become a mainstay for many application areas that seek to leverage the crowd in the development of high quality datasets, annotations, and problem solving beyond the reach of current AI solutions. One of the major challenges to the domain is ensuring h...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Margeret Hall, Mohammad Farhad Afzali, Markus Krause, Simon Caton
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: IEEE 2022-01-01
Series:IEEE Access
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9893786/
_version_ 1811206259723993088
author Margeret Hall
Mohammad Farhad Afzali
Markus Krause
Simon Caton
author_facet Margeret Hall
Mohammad Farhad Afzali
Markus Krause
Simon Caton
author_sort Margeret Hall
collection DOAJ
description Crowd sourcing and human computation has slowly become a mainstay for many application areas that seek to leverage the crowd in the development of high quality datasets, annotations, and problem solving beyond the reach of current AI solutions. One of the major challenges to the domain is ensuring high-quality and diligent work. In response, the literature has seen a large number of quality control mechanisms each voicing (sometimes domain-specific) benefits and advantages when deployed in largescale human computation projects. This creates a complex design space for practitioners: it is not always clear which mechanism(s) to use for maximal quality control. In this article, we argue that this decision is perhaps overinflated and that provided there is “some kind” of quality control that this obviously known to crowd workers this is sufficient for “high-quality” solutions. To evidence this, and provide a basis for discussion, we undertake two experiments where we explore the relationship between task design, task complexity, quality control and solution quality. We do this with tasks from natural language processing, and image recognition of varying complexity. We illustrate that minimal quality control is enough to repel constantly underperforming contributors and that this is constant across tasks of varying complexity and formats. Our key takeaway: quality control is necessary, but seemingly not how it is implemented.
first_indexed 2024-04-12T03:44:43Z
format Article
id doaj.art-c888ebfe45ae45cd8fee2db92bd19ed7
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2169-3536
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-12T03:44:43Z
publishDate 2022-01-01
publisher IEEE
record_format Article
series IEEE Access
spelling doaj.art-c888ebfe45ae45cd8fee2db92bd19ed72022-12-22T03:49:11ZengIEEEIEEE Access2169-35362022-01-0110997099972310.1109/ACCESS.2022.32072929893786What Quality Control Mechanisms do We Need for High-Quality Crowd Work?Margeret Hall0https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1049-3040Mohammad Farhad Afzali1https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7457-9148Markus Krause2Simon Caton3https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9379-3879Department of Strategy and Innovation, Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, Vienna, AustriaCollege of Information Science and Technology, University of Nebraska Omaha, Omaha, NE, USABrainworks.ai, Berkeley, CA, USASchool of Computer Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, IrelandCrowd sourcing and human computation has slowly become a mainstay for many application areas that seek to leverage the crowd in the development of high quality datasets, annotations, and problem solving beyond the reach of current AI solutions. One of the major challenges to the domain is ensuring high-quality and diligent work. In response, the literature has seen a large number of quality control mechanisms each voicing (sometimes domain-specific) benefits and advantages when deployed in largescale human computation projects. This creates a complex design space for practitioners: it is not always clear which mechanism(s) to use for maximal quality control. In this article, we argue that this decision is perhaps overinflated and that provided there is “some kind” of quality control that this obviously known to crowd workers this is sufficient for “high-quality” solutions. To evidence this, and provide a basis for discussion, we undertake two experiments where we explore the relationship between task design, task complexity, quality control and solution quality. We do this with tasks from natural language processing, and image recognition of varying complexity. We illustrate that minimal quality control is enough to repel constantly underperforming contributors and that this is constant across tasks of varying complexity and formats. Our key takeaway: quality control is necessary, but seemingly not how it is implemented.https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9893786/Quality controlhuman computationnatural language processingimage recognitioncrowd work
spellingShingle Margeret Hall
Mohammad Farhad Afzali
Markus Krause
Simon Caton
What Quality Control Mechanisms do We Need for High-Quality Crowd Work?
IEEE Access
Quality control
human computation
natural language processing
image recognition
crowd work
title What Quality Control Mechanisms do We Need for High-Quality Crowd Work?
title_full What Quality Control Mechanisms do We Need for High-Quality Crowd Work?
title_fullStr What Quality Control Mechanisms do We Need for High-Quality Crowd Work?
title_full_unstemmed What Quality Control Mechanisms do We Need for High-Quality Crowd Work?
title_short What Quality Control Mechanisms do We Need for High-Quality Crowd Work?
title_sort what quality control mechanisms do we need for high quality crowd work
topic Quality control
human computation
natural language processing
image recognition
crowd work
url https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9893786/
work_keys_str_mv AT margerethall whatqualitycontrolmechanismsdoweneedforhighqualitycrowdwork
AT mohammadfarhadafzali whatqualitycontrolmechanismsdoweneedforhighqualitycrowdwork
AT markuskrause whatqualitycontrolmechanismsdoweneedforhighqualitycrowdwork
AT simoncaton whatqualitycontrolmechanismsdoweneedforhighqualitycrowdwork