In response to Webb and Tangney (2022) we call into question the conclusion that data collected on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) was “at best—only 2.6% valid” (p. 1). We suggest that Webb and Tangney made certain choices during the study-design and data-collection process that adversely affected the quality of the data collected. As a result, the anecdotal experience of these authors provides weak evidence that MTurk provides low-quality data as implied. In our commentary we highlight best practice recommendations and make suggestions for more effectively collecting and screening online panel data.

中文翻译：

---

传闻太少，不真实？Mechanical Turk 并不全是机器人和不良数据：对 Webb 和 Tangney (2022) 的回应

为了回应 Webb 和 Tangney (2022)，我们对亚马逊 Mechanical Turk (MTurk) 上收集的数据“至多只有 2.6% 有效”的结论提出质疑（第 1 页）。我们认为韦伯和唐尼在研究设计和数据收集过程中做出了某些选择，这对所收集数据的质量产生了不利影响。因此，这些作者的轶事经验提供了微弱的证据表明 MTurk 提​​供了暗示的低质量数据。在我们的评论中，我们强调了最佳实践建议，并提出了更有效地收集和筛选在线面板数据的建议。