<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>A Cross-Country Comparison of Crowdworker Motivations · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1711.03115/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1711.03115/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>A Cross-Country Comparison of Crowdworker Motivations — mentioned by inputcoffee</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15697304</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1711.03115:15697304</guid><pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:43:49 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I suggest that the undergrads be encouraged to go to Arxiv and browse papers, try to work through them and see the range of papers. The reason for this is that many papers aren&amp;#x27;t all that well written and well argued. Many are, to be sure, but it will get undergrads to understand what is clear, what is not. It will also ensure that they are not intimidated by papers and the math on them. They should know they can dive into one and learn something and come out the other end. But if you want specific recommendations, I find that the HCI (Human Computer Interaction) papers are very readable.…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1711.03115/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.SI</category></item></channel></rss>
