Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 26, Issue 4–6, pp 837–872 | Cite as

An Analysis of the Use of Qualifications on the Amazon Mechanical Turk Online Labor Market

  • Ianna SodréEmail author
  • Francisco Brasileiro


Several human computation systems use crowdsourcing labor markets to recruit workers. However, it is still a challenge to guarantee that the results produced by workers have a high enough quality. This is particularly difficult in markets based on micro-tasks, where the assessment of the quality of the results needs to be done automatically. Pre-selection of suitable workers is a mechanism that can improve the quality of the results achieved. This can be done by considering worker’s personal information, worker’s historical behavior in the system, or through the use of customized qualification tasks. However, little is known about how requesters use these mechanisms in practice. This study advances present knowledge in worker pre-selection by analyzing data collected from the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform, regarding the way requesters use qualifications to this end. Furthermore, the influence of using customized qualification tasks in the quality of the results produced by workers is investigated. Results show that most jobs (93.6%) use some mechanism for the pre-selection of workers. While most workers use standard qualifications provided by the system, the few requesters that submit most of the jobs prefer to use customized ones. Regarding worker behavior, we identified a positive and significant correlation between the propensity of the worker to possess a particular qualification, and both the number of tasks that require this qualification, and the reward offered for the tasks that require the qualification, although this correlation is weak. To assess the impact that the use of customized qualifications has in the quality of the results produced, we have executed experiments with three different types of tasks using both unqualified and qualified workers. The results showed that, generally, qualified workers provide more accurate answers, when compared to unqualified ones.

Key words

Crowdsourcing Micro-task marketplace MTurk Qualifications Worker pre-selection 



The authors are indebted to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and recommendations. Francisco Brasileiro is a CNPq/Brazil researcher.


Francisco Brasileiro is a CNPq/Brazil researcher (grant 311,297/2014–5).


  1. Agrawal, Rakesh; and Ramakrishnan Srikant (1994). Fast algorithms for mining association rules in Large Databases. In Jorge B. Bocca, Matthias Jarke; and Carlo Zaniolo (eds.): VLDB’94. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Santiago, Chile, 12 September – 15 September 1994. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., pp. 487–499.Google Scholar
  2. Allahbakhsh, Mohammad; Boualem Benatallah; Aleksandar Ignjatovic; Hamid Reza Motahari-Nezhad; Elisa Bertino; and Schahram Dustdar (2013). Quality Control in Crowdsourcing Systems: Issues and Directions. IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 76–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amazon Web Services (2017). Amazon Mechanical Turk - Requester UI Guide. AWS Documentation. Amazon Web Services (AWS), 2017. Accessed 28 January 2017.
  4. Archak, Nikolay (2010). Money, Glory and Cheap Talk: Analyzing Strategic Behavior of Contestants in Simultaneous Crowdsourcing Contests on TopCoder.Com. In Michael Rappa, Paul Jones, Juliana Freire; and Soumen Chakrabarti (eds.): WWW’10. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, Raleigh, NC, USA, 26–30 April 2010. New York: ACM, pp. 21–30.Google Scholar
  5. Barowy, Daniel W.; Charlie Curtsinger; Emery D. Berger; and Andrew McGregor (2012). AutoMan: A Platform for Integrating Human-based and Digital Computation. In Gary T. Leavens and Matthew B. Dwyer (eds.): OOPSLA’12. Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications, Tucson, AZ, USA, 21–25 October 2012. New York: ACM, pp. 639–654.Google Scholar
  6. Bernstein, Michael S.; 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. Communications of the ACM, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Callison-Burch, Chris (2009). Fast, Cheap, and Creative: Evaluating Translation Quality Using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. In Philipp Koehn and Rada Mihalcea (eds.): EMNLP’09. Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Singapore, 6–7 August 2009. Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 286–295.Google Scholar
  8. Carletta, Jean (1996). Assessing Agreement on Classification Tasks: the kappa Statistic. Computational Linguistics, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 249–254.Google Scholar
  9. Difallah, Djellel Eddine; Gianluca Demartini; and Philippe Cudré-Mauroux (2012). Mechanical Cheat: Spamming Schemes and Adversarial Techniques on Crowdsourcing Platforms. In Ricardo A. Baeza-Yates, Stefano Ceri, Piero Fraternali; and Fausto Giunchiglia (eds.): CrowdSearch’12. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Crowdsourcing Web Search, Lyon, France, 17 April 2012. Aachen: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pp. 26–30.Google Scholar
  10. Dow, Steven; Anand Kulkarni; Brie Bunge; Truc Nguyen; Scott Klemmer; and Björn Hartmann (2011). Shepherding the Crowd: Managing and Providing Feedback to Crowd Workers. In Desney Tan, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, Carl Gutwin, Bo Begole; and Wendy A. Kellogg (eds.): CHI EA’11. CHI’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May 2011. New York: ACM, pp. 1669–1674.Google Scholar
  11. Eickhoff, Carsten; and Arjen P. de Vries (2011). How Crowdsourcable is your Task? In Matthew Lease, Vitor R. Carvalho; and Emine Yilmaz (eds.): CSE’10. Proceedings of the SIGIR 2011 Workshop on Crowdsourcing for Search Evaluation, Hong Kong, China, 9 February 2011. New York: ACM, pp. 11–14.Google Scholar
  12. Feldman, Ronen; and James Sanger (2007). The Text Mining Handbook: Advanced Approaches in Analyzing Unstructured Data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gadiraju, Ujwal; Ricardo Kawase; and Stefan Dietze (2014). A Taxonomy of Microtasks on the Web. In Leo Ferres, Gustavo Rossi, Virgilio Almeida; and Eelco Herder (eds.): HT’14. Proceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media, Santiago, Chile, 1–4 September 2014. New York: ACM, pp. 218–223.Google Scholar
  14. Grier, David Alan (2013). When Computers Were Human. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hartigan, John A.; and Manchek A. Wong (1979). Algorithm AS 136: A k-means Clustering Algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics), vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 100–108.Google Scholar
  16. Hsu, Chih-Wei; Chih-Chung Chang; and Chih-Jen Lin (2016). A Practical Guide to Support Vector Classification. Online guide. National Taiwan University, 2016.∼cjlin/paper s/guide/guide.pdf. Accessed 28 January 2017.
  17. Ipeirotis, Panagiotis G. (2010). Analyzing the Amazon Mechanical Turk Marketplace. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ipeirotis, Panagiotis G.; Foster Provost; and Jing Wang (2010). Quality Management on Amazon Mechanical Turk. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Human Computation, Washington, DC, USA, 25 July 2010. New York: ACM, pp. 64–67.Google Scholar
  19. Khanna, Shashank; Aishwarya Ratan; James Davis; and William Thies (2010). Evaluating and Improving the Usability of Mechanical Turk for Low-income Workers in India. In Andrew Dearden, Tapan Parikh; and Lakshminarayanan Subramanian (eds.): ACM DEV ‘10. Proceedings of the First ACM Symposium on Computing for Development, London, UK, 17–18 December 2010. New York: ACM, pp. 12:1–12:10.Google Scholar
  20. Khazankin, Roman; Harald Psaier; Daniel Schall; and Schahram Dustdar (2011). QoS-Based Task Scheduling in Crowdsourcing Environments. In Gerti Kappel, Zakaria Maamar; and Hamid R. Motahari-Nezhad (eds.): ICSOC’11. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing, Paphos, Cyprus, 5–8 December 2011. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 297–311.Google Scholar
  21. Kittur, Aniket; Ed H. Chi; and Bongwon Suh (2008). Crowdsourcing User Studies with Mechanical Turk. In Mary Czerwinski, Arnie Lund; and Desney Tan (eds.): CHI’08. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence, Italy, 5–10 April 2008. New York: ACM, pp. 453–456.Google Scholar
  22. Kittur, Aniket; Jeffrey V. Nickerson; Michael Bernstein; Elizabeth Gerber; Aaron Shaw; John Zimmerman; Matt Lease; and John Horton (2013). The Future of Crowd Work. In Amy Bruckman, Scott Counts, Cliff Lampe; and Loren Terveen (eds.): CSCW’13. Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 23–27 February 2013. New York: ACM, pp. 1301–1318.Google Scholar
  23. Kohavi, Ron (1995). A Study of Cross-validation and Bootstrap for Accuracy Estimation and Model Selection. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence - Vol. 2, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 20–25 August 1995. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., pp. 1137–1143.Google Scholar
  24. Kokkodis, Marios; and Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis (2013). Have You Done Anything Like That?: Predicting Performance Using Inter-category Reputation. In Stefano Leonardi, Alessandro Panconesi, Paolo Ferragina; and Aristides Gionis (eds.): WSDM’13. Proceedings of the Sixth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, Rome, Italy, 4–8 February 2013. New York: ACM, pp. 435–444.Google Scholar
  25. Le, John; Andy Edmonds; Vaughn Hester; and Lukas Biewald (2010). Ensuring Quality in Crowdsourced Search Relevance Evaluation: The Effects of Training Question Distribution. In Vitor R. Carvalho, Matthew Lease; and Emine Yilmaz (eds.): CSE’10. Proceedings of the SIGIR 2010 Workshop on Crowdsourcing for Search Evaluation, Geneva, Switzerland, 23 July 2010. New York: ACM, pp. 21–26.Google Scholar
  26. Mason, Winter; and Duncan J. Watts (2010). Financial Incentives and the Performance of Crowds. ACM SigKDD Explorations Newsletter, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 100–108.Google Scholar
  27. Oleson, David; Alexander Sorokin; Greg Laughlin; Vaughn Hester; John Le; and Lukas Biewald (2011). Programmatic Gold: Targeted and Scalable Quality Assurance in Crowdsourcing. In Luis von Ahn and Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis (eds.): AAAIWS’11. Proceedings of the 11th AAAI Conference on Human Computation, San Francisco, CA, USA, 8 August 2011. Palo Alto: AAAI Press, pp. 43–48.Google Scholar
  28. Ponciano, Lesandro; and Francisco Brasileiro (2013). On the Dynamics of Micro-and Macro-task Human Computation Markets. Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, Brazil: Distributed Systems Lab, Department of Systems and Computing.Google Scholar
  29. Ponciano, Lesandro; Francisco Brasileiro; Nazareno Andrade; and Lívia Sampaio (2014). Considering Human Aspects on Strategies for Designing and Managing Distributed Human Computation. Journal of Internet Services and Applications, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Quinn, Alexander J.; and Benjamin B. Bederson (2011). Human Computation: A Survey and Taxonomy of a Growing Field. In Desney Tan, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, Carl Gutwin, Bo Begole; and Wendy A. Kellogg (eds.): CHI’11. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May 2011. New York: ACM, pp. 1403–1412.Google Scholar
  31. Rzeszotarski, Jeffrey M.; and Aniket Kittur (2011). Instrumenting the Crowd: Using Implicit Behavioral Measures to Predict Task Performance. In Jeff Pierce, Maneesh Agrawala; and Scott Klemmer (eds.): UIST’11. Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 16–19 October 2011. New York: ACM, pp. 13–22.Google Scholar
  32. Schulze, Thimo; Dennis Nordheimer; and Martin Schader (2013). Worker Perception of Quality Assurance Mechanisms in Crowdsourcing and Human Computation Markets. In Proceedings of the 19th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, IL, USA, 15–17 August 2013. Red Hook: Curran Associates, Inc., pp. 4046–4056.Google Scholar
  33. Snow, Rion; Brendan O’Connor; Daniel Jurafsky; and Andrew Y. Ng (2008). Cheap and Fast—but is It Good?: Evaluating Non-expert Annotations for Natural Language Tasks. In Mirella Lapata and Hwee Tou Ng (eds.): EMNLP’08. Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Honolulu, Hawaii, 25–27 October 2008. Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 254–263.Google Scholar
  34. Su, Qi; Dmitry Pavlov; Jyh-Herng Chow; and Wendell C. Baker (2007). Internet-scale Collection of Human-reviewed Data. In Carey Williamson, Mary Ellen Zurko, Peter Patel-Schneider; and Prashant Shenoy (eds.): WWW’07. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 8–12 May 2007. New York: ACM, pp. 231–240.Google Scholar
  35. Vakharia, Donna; and Matthew Lease (2013). Beyond AMT: An Analysis of Crowd Work Platforms. Computing Research Repository, vol. abs/1310.1672, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
  36. Ward, Joe H. (1963). Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 58, no. 301, pp. 236–244.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yu-Wei, Chiu David Chiu (2015). Machine Learning with R Cookbook. Birmingham: Packt Publishing LtdGoogle Scholar
  38. Zar, Jerrold H. (2007). Biostatistical Analysis (5th Edition). Upper Saddle River,: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
  39. Zhu, Dongqing; and Ben Carterette (2010). An Analysis of Assessor Behavior in Crowdsourced Preference Judgments. In Vitor R. Carvalho, Matthew Lease; and Emine Yilmaz (eds.): CSE’10. Proceedings of the SIGIR 2010 Workshop on Crowdsourcing for Search Evaluation, Geneva, Switzerland, 23 July 2010. New York: ACM, pp. 17–20.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Sistemas e ComputaçãoUniversidade Federal de Campina GrandeCampina GrandeBrazil

Personalised recommendations