First of all, thank you so much for your feedback
First, your website claims that using the platform will lead to your project "sourcing high quality talent", but how can you guarantee the skills and experience of developers you take in? If anyone can join, wouldn't this still allow "low-level talent" to contribute to projects?
Yes contributors whether it' a low, mid or high level talent can apply to a project, but, not all contributors' applications will be approved. when you're getting applications, you can interview them. There's an application process so you can vet contributors, and on top of that, there's a peer review system within the application to prevent poor quality work from being done.
Second, how is the worth of a contribution quantified? If it's determined by project leaders, then how can you prevent them from putting the worth of everyone's contribution to a really low number and keeping the money to themselves? And if it's counted by the platform, then how do you deal with disagreements between what contributors feel they are owed and what project leads feel they owe to their contributors? What prevents a contributor from claiming to have made more contributions than they really have?
It's done on a task by task basis, where each task has a value associated with it. This can be a function of difficulty and/or time (or whatever you like as long as it's consistent), and, importantly, it's agreed upon before the task is undertaken. So you'll never actually be accepting a task before you're happy with the value it'll reward you. There's a 14 day review process that can be used after a task is completed, when you can raise any issues with value, quality or any other problems you have. There are also limitations on how many points can be assigned in one task, how many tasks can be accepted by one person and other processes to prevent exploitation. We also have a moderation service to help if things go wrong, but our issue rates are currently at about 0.05% per task because of the protection provided by all the other systems.
Finally, what about projects which never see the light of day? Do contributors still get compensated in that case? Does that mean that your platform also acts as a sort of risk mitigator for contributors? And if not, doesn't that mean that you're spreading the burden of risk over all contributors of a project?
When contributors join a project they're investing their expertise and time. If the project doesn't see the light of day, that means those who invested their time don't get paid just like any other investment. That's why it's so important that contributors evaluate projects for their feasibility and even evaluate the project creator before jumping in. This has the added benefit of creating a meritocratic system where good projects and creators are more likely to get contributors.
We actually have the documentation where you can find all information related to project creation & contribution on this page
https://crowdsourcer.io/nucleus/ . And I also understand that we need to update our web design and content to make visitors find the information they need even easier. We are working on it
Developer
