Revision as of 04:22, 6 December 2010 by <bdi>Ghe.llm11</bdi> (talk | contribs) (→‎Definitions)
3.2.1 Microtasks: Amazon Mechanical Turk; Microtask.com
*1. The task is outsourced through an open call from the employer;
*2. The recipients of the call, whether or not they elect to participate, comprise a large, undefined crowd.
Microtasks: Amazon Mechanical Turk; Microtask.com
In other words, crowdsourcing games aren't really "free" -- companies have to spend time and money figuring out a way to convert a task into a game that is sufficiently fun that people will play it voluntarily. While the total sum might be significantly less than what it would cost to pay each worker/player, it lessens the sense that the crowd is being exploited if creating such games is not without effort and cost to the employer. Moreover, offering compensation might bring players closer to the brink of addiction: if players were earning money, however trivial an amount, they might feel compelled to keep playing, more so than if they were only playing it for enjoyment, although further research is needed on this point. Alternately, players might actually play less if offered a token amount to play rather than an amount that reflects of the value of their work, because they would feel exploited, even though they would be getting more than if they were paid nothing, similar to the psychology behind the ultimatum game.[98] Again, however, more research is needed.
According to von Ahn, people played over 9 billion hours of Solitaire in 2003. (See video [99] at 7:00-7:04.) Solitaire is a game without a purpose, other than to entertain.[100] So if von Ahn's statistic is accurate, people are perfectly willing to devote a significant amount of time to entertaining themselves. If the games on Gwap serve that function, why should they be penalized for simultaneously being useful?