Paper detail

Crowdsourcing with Endogenous Entry

We investigate the design of mechanisms to incentivize high quality in crowdsourcing environments with strategic agents, when entry is an endogenous, strategic choice. Modeling endogenous entry in crowdsourcing is important because there is a nonzero cost to making a contribution of any quality which can be avoided by not participating, and indeed many sites based on crowdsourced content do not have adequate participation. We use a mechanism with monotone, rank-based, rewards in a model where agents strategically make participation and quality choices to capture a wide variety of crowdsourcing environments, ranging from conventional crowdsourcing contests to crowdsourced content as in online Q&A forums. We first explicitly construct the unique mixed-strategy equilibrium for such monotone rank-order mechanisms, and use these participation probabilities and quality distribution to address the design of incentives for two kinds of rewards that arise in crowdsourcing. We first show that for attention rewards as in crowdsourced content, the entire equilibrium distribution improves when the rewards for every rank but the last are as high as possible. In particular, when producing the lowest quality content has low cost, the optimal mechanism displays all but the worst contribution. We next investigate settings where there is a total reward that can be arbitrarily distributed amongst all participants, as in crowdsourcing contests. Unlike with exogenous entry, here the expected number of participants can be increased by subsidizing entry, which could potentially improve the expected quality of the best contribution. However, we show that free entry is dominated by taxing entry- making all entrants pay a small fee, which is rebated to the winner along with whatever rewards were already assigned, can improve the quality of the best contribution over a winner-take-all contest with no taxes.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

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 map preview

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.