↓ Skip to main content

Verification in Referral-Based Crowdsourcing

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Verification in Referral-Based Crowdsourcing
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0045924
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victor Naroditskiy, Iyad Rahwan, Manuel Cebrian, Nicholas R. Jennings

Abstract

Online social networks offer unprecedented potential for rallying a large number of people to accomplish a given task. Here we focus on information gathering tasks where rare information is sought through "referral-based crowdsourcing": the information request is propagated recursively through invitations among members of a social network. Whereas previous work analyzed incentives for the referral process in a setting with only correct reports, misreporting is known to be both pervasive in crowdsourcing applications, and difficult/costly to filter out. A motivating example for our work is the DARPA Red Balloon Challenge where the level of misreporting was very high. In order to undertake a formal study of verification, we introduce a model where agents can exert costly effort to perform verification and false reports can be penalized. This is the first model of verification and it provides many directions for future research, which we point out. Our main theoretical result is the compensation scheme that minimizes the cost of retrieving the correct answer. Notably, this optimal compensation scheme coincides with the winning strategy of the Red Balloon Challenge.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Ireland 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Kenya 1 1%
Singapore 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 78 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 19%
Researcher 14 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 11 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 30 35%
Business, Management and Accounting 13 15%
Social Sciences 7 8%
Physics and Astronomy 4 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 16 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 October 2014.
All research outputs
#1,721,900
of 24,752,377 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#21,452
of 214,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,791
of 179,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#383
of 4,575 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,752,377 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 214,247 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 179,365 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,575 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.