h a l f b a k e r yThe word "How?" springs to mind at this point.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I am a fan of the show "How it's Made". I am impressed that although robots do much actualy building of mass produced items, the process still often concludes by having the finished items in their multitude stream by a line of humans who do quality control, picking out rejects. Recycled materials are
sorted by a similar process. It is hard to beat a human eye for complex pattern recognition.
This work could be farmed out using the internet. It is conditional on each piece inhabiting a specific space on the belt such that it can be individually identified.
I log in. I watch pieces passing by on my screen. Maybe they tumble as they move. If one looks good l right click. If one looks bad I left click. If I have a Mac with a one button mouse I weep and tear my hair. Acceptance or rejection of a piece is done by majority opinion. I am given a credit for participating with the majority in the correct categorization of a piece. A local robot does the work of flipping the reject off the belt.
The credit algorithm could vary. If rejects are in the minority then I might receive more credits for participating in their identifcation. But if I incorrectly (per the majority) note something to be a reject I may be docked a credit or ultimately lose my work slot.
Credits would convert to pay according to # participating at a given time: if you work when everyone else does, your credits are lower than if you work odd hours.
One could cheat the system by logging in with a number of coconspirateurs and systematically marking large numbers as rejects. Pattern recognition would detect that given IP addresses were voting as a bloc, and not in sync with others and kick them off or dock thir pay.
Ultimately as regards cheaters, dilution is the solution to pollution. This system would allow large numbers of people to work from home at odd hours and for short and irregular periods: disabled, elderly, unemployed, Warcraft gold farming Chinese, etc.
Beaufort's Dyke
http://en.wikipedia...i/Beaufort%27s_Dyke
Too close for comfort. [8th of 7, Sep 22 2010]
Operation Davy Jones' Locker
http://en.wikipedia...avy_Jones%27_Locker
What an imaginative name [8th of 7, Sep 22 2010]
Death Waits Patiently on a Belgian Beach
http://www.greatwar...efault-knokkee.html
What's wrong with this picture ? [8th of 7, Sep 22 2010]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
//If I have a Mac with a one button mouse I weep and tear my hair.// <MrT> Pity the Option-Key fool! </MrT> |
|
| |
The basic idea, as embodied in the title, seems
fine. I'm just confused about the 'voting' aspect. |
|
| |
Is there really a need and is it efficient/cost
effective to employ multiple 'inspectors' for all
quality control operations? I wouldn't think so. Too
much overhead, for one thing, and too slow. One
QC person, given a clear set of (pass/no pass)
standards, does the job quite well. |
|
| |
Internet voting on each piece might be worthwhile
with recycling of waste products, I dunno. |
|
| |
/One QC person, given a clear set of (pass/no pass) standards, does the job quite well. / |
|
| |
One QC person in person on the job does quite well. A given random somewhere in the world might just want to screw with people with no possibility of repercussion. Redundancy makes this less damaging. |
|
| |
// dilution is the solution to pollution. // |
|
| |
We think the jury's still out on that one in the real world, actually, bearing in mind your species propensity for trying to get rid of stuff by dumping it in the sea; nuclear waste and chemical weapons are the main concerns, closely followed by .... well, just about everything, actually. |
|
| |
//...bearing in mind your species propensity for
trying to get rid of stuff by dumping it in the sea.// |
|
| |
I'm for sending our stuff into outer space, damn the
expense. There's no one there to bother. |
|
| |
So it's GWAP with a purpose? |
|
| |
//as regards cheaters, dilution is the solution//
Better if the
workers had more persistent identities (albeit anonymous
ones --
i.e. user accounts) 'cause it would strengthen the
incentive
to earn a
record of good-quality work.
That would leave a smaller problem -- human error -- for
dilution to solve. |
|
| |
Edit: I just thought of an argument against the above.
There might be a secondary market in the identities of
good workers. Perhaps you could make more money
working just long enough to earn credit as a good worker,
then selling your account to a sloppy, careless person, who
would do poor-quality work, for a high-quality fee, just
long enough for the system to catch on and reduce the
fee. Might be interesting to model and see under what set
of assumptions that activity would be profitable. |
|
| |