In this paper, the authors focused on the problem that due to the rapid growth of computing technology, current methods are not well supported by a single framework that can understand each new system in the context of old helpfully. Based on this research question, authors categorized multiple human computations systems aiming at identifying parallels between different systems, classifying systems into different dimensions, and disclosing defects which existed in current systems and work. Then, the authors compared human computing with other related ideas, terms, and areas. For example, deafferenting human computing with social computing, crowdsourcing. For the classification, the authors divided different systems into six dimensions: motivation, quality control, aggregation, human skill, process orders, and task request cardinality. For each dimension, the authors explained sample values and listed one example. Due to the development of human computation, new systems can be categorized into current dimensions, or new dimensions and sample values will be created in the future.
From this paper, I knew that human computing is a wild topic which is hard to be defined clearly. There are two main parts that consist of human computing: 1) problems fit the general paradigm of computation, 2) the human participation id directed by the computational systems or process. Human computation binds human activities and computers tightly. For the six dimensions, I am kind of confused that how authors categorized these systems into these six dimensions. I think that authors need to talk more about how and why. From this form, I can find that one system can be categorized into multiple dimensions due to its complex features, for example, Mechanical Turk. And I think this is one possible reason that systems are hard to be classified in human computing easily. Because one system may solve many human computing problems and implements multiple features increasing the difficulty of understanding its context. What’s more, I am quite interested in the “Process order” dimension. From this part, it helps me to understand how people interact with computers. For different process order, people can generate different questions that need them to solve. And it is impossible to come up with a solution as a panacea that works well in each processed order. We should consider questions like feedback, interactions, learning effects, curiosity and so on.
What’s more, I am interested in the idea that focusing on only one style of human computation may become a tendency that can potentially missing more suitable solutions to a problem. Thinking differently in multiple ways would help us quickly solve the research questions. We are not supposed to limit us on one narrow topic or one single area.
Question 1: how can we use this classification of human computation systems?
Question 2: how and why authors come up with these six dimensions? I think more explanations are needed.
Question 3: If one system is classified into multiple dimensions and sample values, can I treat these values equally? Or there is one majority values and dimension?
