Live data from Hacker News

'Rater' is paid $10 hourly to teach Google's algorithm

finance.yahoo.com

51–60 of 117 posts

Re: 'Rater' is paid $10 hourly to teach Google's algorithm

#52
post #49
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>laughing their full heads off every time they think about how there are people who do free work for Google who think they are making the world a better place or something. So when you go to a store that Google Maps says is open, and find it's closed, you refuse to correct the hours and go "MUHAHAHAHA...I refuse to help Google, take that , corporate scum!"

What? Why on earth would I correct it?

I'm sure you can figure it out. I believe in you. (And that response is because I'm 100% treating your question in good faith and not "I know why I would, but also I know why I wouldn't and prefer that, so I'll pretend I don't know why I would".)

Re: 'Rater' is paid $10 hourly to teach Google's algorithm

#53
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It obviously doesn't work, otherwise stackoverflow ad-filled copies wouldn't exist.

Can you give me some? I love stackoverflow content, but hate the surface, e.g. how it loads jquery from google (???) and if I disable it, then the content breaks, because obviously the only way to implement a toggleable div is when you send your users browsing history to google directly..

You can find much more than just "some" here :) https://github.com/quenhus/uBlock-Origin-dev-filter

Re: 'Rater' is paid $10 hourly to teach Google's algorithm

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who do you reckon would cast the most votes? Correct, SEO bots.

If Google can't use it's vast array of user data to tell the difference between SEO bots and non-bot users, what's even the point of it collecting all that fucking data in the first place?

I would assume that if Google is paying 10$/hour for humans to rank content, someone else is paying 11$/hour to fool it with a human generating content, clicks, etc.

Additionally, people writing bots learn just like Google learns, and start generating what appears to be legitimate interactions. Same algorithms that fit to critique between 'bot' and 'non-bot' class can be used to create bots that fall into the 'non-bot' category.

It's a losing battle - but what we get is better than we would get if they collected less data.

Re: 'Rater' is paid $10 hourly to teach Google's algorithm

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google already has similar signals: 1. Do you click on the link in the results page? 2. After clicking on that link, do you go back to the search or not? 3. How long do you stay there before coming back? Adding an explicit up/downvote would capture some additional information, but it would overlap with the above, and most users would ignore the button. I’d guess Google has at some point experimented with this and fou…

I'm sure they have all sorts of fancy stuff but at the end of the day, there's a lot of SEO garbage at the top of the rankings that I would really love to downvote.

That’s assuming that the goal is to make search better and not say make more money.

Re: 'Rater' is paid $10 hourly to teach Google's algorithm

#56
Ex Google Search quality Rater here, based in Germany. From 2004 to 2006 I worked on SQR and "special projects", with a much better pay (maybe because of german circumstances). I've been tracking the SQR-guide since then (public version here https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/guidelines.raterh...), so I have still some current understanding. If you have questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them since my NDA has expired ;-).

Re: 'Rater' is paid $10 hourly to teach Google's algorithm

#57
post #51

When those reports come out that “The average Google employee makes $220k a year” or whatever, it’s totally misleading since it doesn’t account for all the outsourced labor at $10 an hour that is critical to tuning their algorithms.

I did voice training tasks for Google through a 3rd party I can't remember the name of. I was recruited via /r/beermoney or something. I enjoyed it, and it was easy work that fit around my schedule. It also gave a feeling of improving the lives of users, which was cool.

Re: 'Rater' is paid $10 hourly to teach Google's algorithm

#58

Dumb question - why can't I just upvote and downvote pages, and Google enhances its ranking for me based on that? Maybe that's why the search "X reddit" is so popular - it's got a bit of that social validation.

Google already has similar signals: 1. Do you click on the link in the results page? 2. After clicking on that link, do you go back to the search or not? 3. How long do you stay there before coming back? Adding an explicit up/downvote would capture some additional information, but it would overlap with the above, and most users would ignore the button. I’d guess Google has at some point experimented with this and fou…

Not exactly true. Most people would infrequently use the buttons, but when they do, you can be sure they want it that way.

I would suggest that the big reason not to go down the avenue of social buttons is the inevitable gamification of it. Already we have have ratings farms for apps and amazon. Of course we will have similar if search implemented this.

Re: 'Rater' is paid $10 hourly to teach Google's algorithm

#59
post #6

This is 100% a race to the bottom. Years ago the Leapforce (now Appen as mentioned in the article) and Lionsbridge "contractors" could average over $18/hr. They would only work on Google tasks and adhere to Google's policies. The work seemed inconsistent (people would have 5 hours of work some days, none the next) and about what you would expect for AI training. No worker protections, benefits, etc.-- all while doing…

Former longtime Leapforce/RaterLabs preferred/senior rater here. There was always some exploitation going on, but it got way worse under Ruth Porat's tenure.

Standard Leapforce US English raters were paid $13.50/hr. If you were lucky enough to get promoted to "Preferred Agent" (PA), you made $17.40/hr. The criteria for PA promotion was basically to be in the top 5% or so on their quality metrics, plus various subjective quality requirements. Promotion rounds were irregular and random.

Leapforce's US English pay rates never changed over time. There were no raises, other than the aforementioned rare and seemingly luck-based promotion opportunity. I was one of the fortunate ones.

Leapforce raters were misclassified as 1099 contractors. There were no benefits. Training time was unpaid. Originally, raters could work as many hours as they wanted, subject to work availability. Around the end of 2013, they added a 40 hour/week limit because they were afraid a court or regulator might rule the "contractors" were employees and force them to pay retroactive overtime.

If a state dared to go after Leapforce or Google for misclassification, they would leave that state and fire the workers there. No severance, of course. There were numerous states they did not hire in, including their home state of California.

Task availability was usually very good for US English raters, but there were definitely periods (often around holidays) where that was not the case. There was never any communication about projected task availability. We certainly would have appreciated a quick heads-up of "hey, many of our engineers will be on vacation between mid-December and mid-January, so expect task availability to be light. Tasks will be added daily at 8AM PST, but probably won't last more than two or three hours."

I understand other locales were not as fortunate as we were for task availability.

Work availability for a particular rater was not necessarily as consistent. If you scored poorly on a monthly quality review or random quality audit, you could be abruptly suspended, fired, or limited to an hour or two a day until the next monthly review. There would be no prior warning of this. There were automated tripwires (which we called the "bot") that would flag and suspend you if your ratings were considered outliers, or if your task comments were too similar (even when there was a batch of tasks that were very similar), or if you worked too fast, or if you worked too slowly, or a million other reasons. If you were flagged by the bot, you had no work until the Leapforce quality people got around to reviewing you. There was no compensation for missed hours even if it turned out you hadn't done anything wrong.

Even more insultingly, Google loved to use quality reviews to informally implement guideline changes without actually changing the guidelines. If you weren't good at guessing their future direction, you could easily have your hours cut for the next month.

Around 2017, Google realized they (not just Leapforce or Lionbridge) could be sued for this misclassification nonsense, so they forced Leapforce and Lionbridge to convert their misclassified contractors to employees. Leapforce morphed into RaterLabs in what appeared to be some kind of liability-dodging scam. As employees, they cut us to 26 hours/week so they wouldn't have to pay for health insurance. There were still no benefits other than the minimum required by state law, if you were lucky enough to be in a state that required any. Nominal pay rates were cut in what seemed like a random and inconsistent (not even location based) way; depending on the cut, you got a few cents raise after accounting for the self-employment tax you no longer had to pay (which RaterLabs was quick to point out), or a pay cut.

There was a rater revolt around that time, but nothing seemed to come of it.

Appen bought Leapforce and RaterLabs later in 2017. Leapforce founders Daren Jackson and Caine Lai made off with a pile of cash. His employees weren't so fortunate. Now people are making $10/hr. for a job that paid $13.50/hr. in 2009, which would be the equivalent of $18.38/hr. in today's dollars.

Re: 'Rater' is paid $10 hourly to teach Google's algorithm

#60
post #5

On a related note, am I right in understand that the "Google Experts" [1] do it for free? [1] https://developers.google.com/community/experts/

This is probably one of the more embarrassing and shameful parts of Google's labor ecosystem. These "Google $title Experts" work as uncompensated customer support (a legal requirement that they treat as such, if the quality is any indicator) on various social media outlets like Reddit and Twitter. They don't just provide free labor, they also go to bat for Google's reputation, acting as marketing and PR liaisons to p…

AOL got in hot water for this. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_Community_Leader_Program

Post reply on HN