There were different time allotments per task, yes. In the Raterhub era, each task had an "Average Estimated Time" (AET) set by Google. A typical 5x5 side-by-si

There were different time allotments per task, yes. In the Raterhub era, each task had an "Average Estimated Time" (AET) set by Google. A typical 5x5 side-by-side search result comparison task would have been 9 minutes, for example. I may be forgetting something but I don't think we ever saw the individual URL rating tasks (which I think I recall were 1.5 mins? maybe it was 2. It's been so long) after the Raterhub switch. AETs were usually reasonable until the Ruth Porat era. After Porat, they seemed to be getting pretty aggressive about reducing them as far as possible to the point of absurdity. We could release tasks for insufficient AET. I suspect they added automated tooling in the Porat era to "optimize" AET in their favor. With only a few exceptions I can remember, AETs only went down, not up. If you were flagged by the bot, there was nothing you could do except wait for Leapforce to review you. That could take anywhere from a few hours to several days depending on how busy they were. I wouldn't say there was any meaningful appeal route; I mean, you could email their quality team, and maybe you could plead for leniency, but I don't know anyone had any real success with that. (I don't have personal experience with that; as I said, I was a PA/senior, which was a quality-based designation, so it follows that I tended to be pretty good at the job! But I always felt bad for other raters in chat who had to deal with that, seeing their livelihoods put at risk in such an arbitrary and robotic manner. If someone isn't a good fit for the job, then yes, it's not going to work out, but I do believe they should be given feedback and guidance on how to improve and a fair chance to do so.)