5 ms·
I worked on tooling and organization of those queues for several companies so I am very familiar with the topic. This article is a bit misleading and contains
by dfadsadsf 2y ago
I worked on tooling and organization of those queues for several companies
so I am very familiar with the topic. This article is a bit misleading and contains mostly half-truths
- Queues with gore and violations pay more than regular queue. You can be paid $X/hour for marking traffic lanes or roughly $1.5-1.8X for looking at somebody getting killed. This is personal choice and some people handle it better than others. If you have high empathy, you should absolutely not do it. On the other hand 5% of population are psychopaths with inhibited empathy and they do not care. This is similar to real life jobs - what you see in queues is not that different from what police see day to day in downtown SF or South Chicago.
- Same goes for sexually-explicit/porn queues. If you are 18 year old male you should absolutely not do them - it will fuck up your sexuality (similar to watching porn 8 hours/day). You will also burn out in a couple weeks anyway. The most success we saw was with 50+ year old women working from home - some worked on those queues for years.
- From the article you will notice that Africans worked on African countries queues/moderation - so it's not even imperialism or whatever where they worked on rating rich-countries content. They rated their fellow Africans.
- Africa is not that big in content moderation. Reliable coachable people are hard to find and infrastructure is not great. Salaries are also pretty high - I am not sure where they find workers for $1/hour but we paid significantly more. India does way more moderation, people are more reliable and overall it's much easier to work with Indian BPO.
- xigoi 2y ago> On the other hand 5% of population are psychopaths with inhibited empathy and they do not care. Do you want psychopaths to be the ones to determine what content is too violent?
- dfadsadsf 2y agoGuidelines are written by product, legal, privacy, comms, policy and other folks in HQ - raters (psychopath or not) do not really influence them. Guidelines in my experience suffer from "design by committee" syndrome but everyone working on them is pretty empathetic and genuinely tries to do best inside constraints. Acceptable/Unacceptable violence is clearly defined in guidelines with examples - no moral judgement from rater is required. On raters - they are doing pretty mechanical work and we generally do robust quality checks. Some % of tasks are randomly sent to two raters and if there is disagreement, task is sent to auditor. Raters with high disagreement rate with auditor are coached and if disagreement rate contienues to be high, they are fired. Overall quality is controlled by using "golden set" - tasks that have "right" answer decided by HQ. We look at disagreement between raters and right answer. There are other ways to control for quality - this is all pretty standard and everyone is doing the same things. Does not really matter if rater is phychopath or not if he can follow guidelines.