Sombrigallina wrote: Almost 50 dollars and is it bad????? Its great bro!
For those without a baseline to compare, it is great, especially when you start. Those who worked for years and have a baseline, things change. When I started doing surveys online on direct panels, I was earning $600 a month on average, eventually most if not all the good panels were acquired and become bad, so I joined GPT, on CS for many years $300-$400 a month consistent was a standard. So those who were earning very well in the past, have a baseline to compare against, when you go from earning 3 figures a month down to 2, it's considered a very bad month, when there is always something to compare against. Survey rates were just as good as CS here, if not better in some areas, when the site launched - things quickly changed, the rates have gone down considerably, and keep going down, this may be a major factor why earnings are going down, especially for those of us who were struggling to get surveys in the first place.
How come some members here are getting very high paid surveys, and others aren't at all, was this the case ever on CS ? I think the rates were the same.
Right!! In the past, when there were significantly fewer contributors it was easier to make nice money. Unfortunately, things have changed and there isn´t anything we can do about it. Appen opened the hatches to everbody, (good paying) surveys are for many hard to get by. So it is what it is.
Not only that, there were significantly more WORK (task authors), before this whole Figure8 AI stuff. Even in the days of CS there were new contributors joining every day, but yeah, one crowd is not like having 2 crowds share the same work. Appen has its own crowd and its own exclusive tasks it does not share with us, and these you can only do through their platform. However F8 tasks, they share with both crowds. But the number of task authors and units has gone down considerably, because one of the big selling points for Figure8 was integrating AI/ML into tasks, this caught the interest for an acquisition - and AI/ML means less costs to authors, it also means less work for contributors, because now authors need a fraction of the units, they still and will always need human workers to keep the AI trained for new items - but the amount of work is a fraction of what it was, yet the crowd has gone up massively.
The only way to reduce dilution is close registrations to new members until there is a demand - unfortunately site owners do not think this way - they have a guaranteed salary and income stream and they think of their bottom line, after all it's a business not a charity.......but we are the ones suffering from this dilution. One company I worked for in the past, took that measure, cut new registrations, they figured that more users were joining, complaining a lot about no work, and creating a negative sentiment across the community - some companies are hurt by negative sentiment, maybe not financially, but the image. Companies that keep their customers happy and a positive sentiment among employees, get better productivity, have higher employee retention.
Situation is so bad with tasks now, in the past I was able to do guaranteed daily market research tasks, 4 x 2 cents, and 4 x 3 cents, they never ran out of work. Nowadays, it is very difficult to get those tasks, some days yes, other days no.....Everyone should get a chance for work, if there is so much dilution, there should be a system to rotate jobs and consider those who have not had work for a period of time - it would be a more fair system than always the same people getting the work. Of course nobody can change geotargeted tasks, that's up to authors, but otherwise the tasks that aren't geotergeted, should be spread equally and FAIRLY. Some people can do 500 units of a job, whilst many others can do only 4, this is NOT fair distribution of work. There is always going to be a % of the group who gets little to no work most of the time.