ABSTRACT

A crowdsourcing contest is the process of inviting the general public or a targeted group of individuals to submit their ideas or solutions to a specific problem or challenge within a predefined period of time. In this study, utilizing nearly 500 participants, we design and run a field experiment to model two types of feedback: rated and ranked. We also measure the effect of each on the likelihood of revising the generated ideas and their subsequent quality based on novelty, feasibility, and value criteria in a crowdsourcing contest. Our major findings indicate that providing any type of feedback, compared to no feedback, improves the quality of ideas generated. Furthermore, we show that, on average, ranked feedback increases the quality of ideas more than rated feedback. Rated feedback, on the contrary, increases the likelihood of revising and resubmitting ideas for the top participants (75^th percentile) more than the low participants (25^th percentile). Managers and entrepreneurs may use our findings to improve the effectiveness of their online crowdsourcing contests and to enhance the quality of ideas collected in a real setting.

摘要

众包竞赛是邀请公众或目标群体在预定时间内针对特定问题或挑战提交他们的想法或解决方案的过程。在这项研究中，我们利用近 500 名参与者设计并运行了一项现场实验，以模拟两种类型的反馈：评级和排名。我们还根据众包竞赛中的新颖性、可行性和价值标准，衡量每个想法对修改产生的想法的可能性及其后续质量的影响。我们的主要发现表明，与没有反馈相比，提供任何类型的反馈都能提高产生的想法的质量。此外，我们表明，平均而言，排名反馈比评级反馈更能提高想法的质量。额定反馈，相反，^{第 1 个}百分点）比低参与者（^第25^个百分点）更多。经理和企业家可以使用我们的发现来提高他们在线众包竞赛的有效性，并提高在真实环境中收集的想法的质量。