Cited by 335Mobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingExpert finding and Q&A systemsOpen Source Software Innovations

Shepherding the crowd yields better work

Dow, Steven, Kulkarni, Anand, Klemmer, Scott, Hartmann, Björn·2012·Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work

Abstract

Micro-task platforms provide massively parallel, on-demand labor. However, it can be difficult to reliably achieve high-quality work because online workers may behave irresponsibly, misunderstand the task, or lack necessary skills. This paper investigates whether timely, task-specific feedback helps crowd workers learn, persevere, and produce better results. We investigate this question through Shepherd, a feedback system for crowdsourced work. In a between-subjects study with three conditions, crowd workers wrote consumer reviews for six products they own. Participants in the None condition received no immediate feedback, consistent with most current crowdsourcing practices. Participants in the Self-assessment condition judged their own work. Participants in the External assessment condition received expert feedback. Self-assessment alone yielded better overall work than the None condition and helped workers improve over time. External assessment also yielded these benefits. Participants who received external assessment also revised their work more. We conclude by discussing interaction and infrastructure approaches for integrating real-time assessment into online work.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2145204.2145355

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prior work has demonstrated that feedback improves the quality of crowd work.

    “Prior work has demonstrated that feedback improves the quality of crowd work [Dow et al. 2012]”

    From Peer and self assessment in massive online classes (2013) · cites this paper as Dow et al. 2012

  • Self-assessment provides learning gains not seen with external evaluation.

    “Similarly, self-assessment helps students reflect on gaps in their understanding, making them more resourceful, confident, and higher achievers [Zimmerman and Schunk 2001;Pintrich 1995;Pintrich and Zusho 2007], and provides learning gains not seen with external evaluation [Dow et al. 2012].”

    From Peer and self assessment in massive online classes (2013) · cites this paper as Dow et al. 2012

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dow, S., Kulkarni, A., Klemmer, S., & Hartmann, B.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work
Publisher
ACM
Published
2012-02-11
Pages
1013-1022
OpenAlex
W2168765606
Cited by
334
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 9
FWCI
19.20
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Expert finding and Q&A systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
Keywords
crowdsourcing, self-assessment, expert feedback, work quality, consumer reviews, worker learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review