Paper detail

An Empirical Investigation of Worker Communities in TopCoder

Software crowdsourcing platforms employ extrinsic rewards such as rating or ranking systems to motivate workers. Such rating systems are noisy and provide limited knowledge about workers' preferences and performance. To develop better understanding of worker reliability and trustworthiness in software crowdsourcing, this paper reports an empirical study conducted on more than one year's real-world data from TopCoder, one of the leading software crowdsourcing platforms. To do so, first, we create a bipartite network of active workers based on common task registrations. Then, we use the Clauset-Newman-Moore graph clustering algorithm to identify worker clusters in the network. Finally, we conduct an empirical evaluation to measure and analyze workers' behavior per identified community in the platform by workers' rating. More specifically, workers' behavior is analyzed based on their performances in terms of reliability, trustworthiness, and success; their preferences in terms of efficiency and elasticity; and strategies in terms of comfort, confidence, and deceitfulness. The main result of this study identified four communities of active workers: mixed-ranked, high-ranked, mid-ranked, and low-ranked. This study shows that the low-ranked community associates with the highest reliable workers with an average reliability of 25%, while the mixed-ranked community contains the most trustworthy workers with average trustworthiness of 16%. Such empirical evidence is beneficial to help exploring resourcing options while understanding the relations among unknown resources to improve task success.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.