Talk:Human-based computation game

New Results in Foldit

The new results in Foldit, in which the working groups at home provided an actual and novel solution to the morphology of a protein, after having requested and receiving a new tool for the analysis and folding processes, seem to indicate that the description given in that section would now be somewhat inaccurate. This new development means that the untrained human effort has vastly outstripped both the software and the expert skill-set which were, together, unable to find the proper morphology.

While this new refinement might be formalized in either software or methodology at a later date, we can easily imagine that a similar "surpassing" event might happen again, perhaps repeatedly or even reliably. This puts the non-technical effort in an entirely new light, doesn't it? (Sort of like an encyclopedia written by the public at large surpassing the expertise previously applied, and soon to surpass the expertise currently applied.)

For a reference, I cite: http://www.nature.com/nsmb/journal/v18/n10/extref/nsmb.2119-S1.pdf which mentions the request for a new tool which was foreign to the formal methodology previously applied. (I wonder just how many times the requests were refused before they were finally granted?)

Yours truly, in exile outside the French Castle, TheLastWordSword (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Phylo

The paragraph about Phylo is a joke, right? Not only is it astoundingly purple, but multiple sequence alignment is a well-understood problem for which relatively efficient computer algorithms exist (e.g. Clustal). DES (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Change to "List of" article?

I'd like to add Fraxinus to this article, but it really seems that this article is a "List of" article, not an encyclopedic article. There has been sufficient media attention to this general idea of games with a purpose, that it would seem a real article could be written (I unfortunately don't have time at the moment, otherwise I would just do it.) --Jacob J. Walker (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I've got the same issue: Zooniverse clear seems to fit the list, but it would just be adding to a "List of". Is there a reason this page is needed, or could it simply be included as some text on the Serious game page? If it is retained, the guidelines for List articles should be followed and the list should be re-organised in alphabetical order, perhaps with other information such as first and last release data and software platform. I think there is enough value in this to avoid the problems noted in the Wikipedia is not a directory page. Pvanheus (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Restructure the article

I am attempting to improve this page for the Social computing Course at University of Pittsburgh. I agree with Jacob J. Walker that this page as it is should be a list and not a full article. I believe a good approach to fix this is to put all the current information into an examples section. I believe on top of moving all the listed games to an example section, their descriptions should be shorted to concise one sentence overviews. Along with the examples section, perhaps a history/overview section, development section, and impacts section could be added provided that there is enough relevant information for these sections. If anyone has other ideas for sections that could be added please post them. Dbl rt (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this article should be considered as a list, rather than a full article. More sections are needed to improve the article. Based on what you have recommended, research goal section can be used to end this article, which is used to apply the topic into our daily life.-------Qiangli802

I think this article can be both an article and a list. First a section describing more in depth on human computation games and GWAPS - as concepts and purpose. Where they are used, why and how? who first came up with this, what field of study and so son. Then there should be a list of all the games or most of the games in a chronological order. We can work together on updating the information. I do think there is a lot of information missing. - Blab1234 (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Blab1234

A list and an article are two different things so I don't think we should try to do both on one page. Some articles have links to list, but the article itself doesn't actually list the material. I think what really should be done for this topic is to create pages for each of the GWOPs listed here, make a list page with links to the GWOP pages, and then add a link to the list page on this article. This article should have examples, however if we want a more complete list, it should be on a separate list page and under the examples sections we should say something akin to "for a more complete list of GWOPs, see list of GWOPs page". Perhaps this is out of the scope of this project though? Dbl rt (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Dbl rt, from my point of view, the list of examples is just a optional part of this article. Talking about aspects of human-based computation game should be the main idea of this article.Pzy927 (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Missing content

Like what is mentioned by Pvanheus and Dbl rt, I also consider the current version is more like a list, which may not be regarded as a good article described by Wikipedia. To improve it, I believe that the article would be more structured if we add more content and organize them by dividing them into several sections, just like what other good articles did in Wikipedia. As far as I am concerned, it is advisable to add sections such as “Overview”, “History”, “Development”, “Research”, and put all the current examples into one “Example” section or “Classification” section, if possible. In addition, to have a better illustration of these examples, more images are welcomed to attached to this article. --Pzy927 (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I think images and illustrations will be a welcome addition to this page. Do you think images of actual game footage or more conceptual images would be more helpful? Also I like the sections you proposed to improve the article. Dbl rt (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

More sections are indeed necessary to further improve the article. But, maybe we do not have to put all current examples into one "Example section". There is so many examples, we just need to input parts of those examples that is most representative into one section named "Example section".------Qiangli802

I definitely think we should add all of these sections, especially the history and more details on the overview. We should discuss more recent uses o this approach and examples of games. I have listed some references we can use. Let's divide up the work. Each person chooses a section and an example - so I could focus on history and EyeWire perhaps, or other examples. I think we can each work on a section. what do you all think? -Blab1234 Blab1234 (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the advice and suggestions for improving this article. Dbl rt, talking about adding images, I would prefer conceptual images than actual game footage because conceptual images could provide much deeper thoughts in understanding the article, not just focusing on the example itself. Pzy927 (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Details of Apetopia

I think the Apetopia section need more information to detail this game, which may be easier to understand what the game is for readers. The Apetopia Game is to help scientists understand perceived color differences. In this section, two steps are needed to play this game. The first step is to visit the website and press 'play' to view the instructions. And the second step is to finish the game to identify what the color is. The website of this game has been posted in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qiangli802 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Apetopia does lack information and I didn't really understand what the game was based off of the description provided. I think it will be a good idea to go though all the games listed here and make sure their descriptions are well written and informative. However I think that there are too many games listed here (which is part of the reason the article appears as a list). I recommend that we go through the games listed on the page, pick a few that seem to do a good job representing the class of "games with a purpose", and strengthening the descriptions of those few. Dbl rt (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course, I agree with your statement that the examples provided seems redundant. We can perform some group discussions to select some examples that can be most represent the class of game with a purpose'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qiangli802 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I believe there are a few sections that have significantly little and unhelpful information/ uninformative, not just Apetopia - which is mainly associated with the books on GWAPS. EyeWire and other sections are also missing information. My suggestion is that we create new sections and restructure the page, while adding more content to these smaller sections - which could be attributed to as examples. We could have a list of examples of most recent games. Perhaps even an internal link to them from this page. We should each choose a new section and an existing section to work on. - Blab1234 Blab1234 (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Improvement of the Article

I strongly agree with what my partners have mentioned before. The topic of this article is 'human-based computation game', while the content of this topic is just giving a large amount of examples to demonstrate which games can be viewed as a kind of human-based computation game. Of course, this illustration are not able to make readers absolutely understand the topic. According to what my partners have posted before. Here is what I think is the best way to organize this article. 1. For the definition of this topic, the last sentence('Recently, video games with a purpose have been proposed to lower the cost of annotations and increase the level of player's engagement.') has nothing to do with this definition. So, it can be removed from the article. 2. As what I have posted before, The details of Apetopia are needed to make newers of this game to better understand it. 3. All the games presented in the article can be assembled to just one section named 'Examples of Human-based computation game'. 4. some other sections are necessarily to be added to the article page. Judging from what is known about how to organize this kind of article.

   Definition section, this section is to give definition of the topic.
   History section, this section is to make readers know how and when this kind of game come out.
   Development section, this section is to illustrate its development up to now.
   Examples of Human-based computation game section, to show some examples of this game.
   Research goal section, this section is to demonstrate why experts to study this topic and to know what it can be used for.

if anyone has different points, we can discuss it to further improve this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qiangli802 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be the same list that Pzy927 posted above. I agree with both of you that these are good sections for the article. Dbl rt (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for listing these sections. I strongly agree that we need to include these, especially history. I am curious to know how recent this theory is and how it is currently used as well as who originated this school of thought. I gathered some references that could be useful. I'd love to work in that history section. - Blab1234 Blab1234 (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Good structure with description, I do consider that it would be preferable if we figure out and come to an agreement about the initial structure of this article before we actually editing it.Pzy927 (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

References and Ideas for Article Improvent

As part of my social computing class in an effort to work together with others through social computing means on editing and improving an article, I would like to make a few suggestions for this particular article. Even Wikipedia seems to agree as the banner sates this article needs improvement.

Despite this topic being a newer topic, some of the cited work dates back to 2006 (theory) and some more recent examples 2012-2015. It is interesting to find newer research (only 20150 to contribute and to enrich this article. This article seems to be missing a lot of information. Perhaps also some diagrams could be added to visually emphasize some of the examples or content.

Some sections that need more additional information:

• The main section about Computation games and GWAPS
• Play to Cure: Genes in Space
• EyeWire
• and Apetopia

Some articles to consider for the extension and expansion of the main section on Computation games and GWAPS:

• Liapis, Antonios, Georgios N. Yannakakis, and Julian Togelius. "Computational game creativity." Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computational Creativity. 2014.

• Banks, Sam, Rachael Rafter, and Barry Smyth. "The Recommendation Game: Using a Game-with-a-Purpose to Generate Recommendation Data." Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. ACM, 2015.

• Jurgens, David, and Roberto Navigli. "It's All Fun and Games until Someone Annotates: Video Games with a Purpose for Linguistic Annotation." Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 2 (2014): 449-464.

More recent research:

• Reis, Willian MP, Levi HS Lelis, and Y. Gal. "Human Computation for Procedural Content Generation in Platform Games." Conference of Comp. Intell. and Games. IEEE. 2015.
• Banks, Sam, Rachael Rafter, and Barry Smyth. "The Recommendation Game: Using a Game-with-a-Purpose to Generate Recommendation Data." Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. ACM, 2015. (this is related to my social computing class!)

Readings related to Play to Cure: Genes in Space:

• Coburn, Cassandra. "Play to Cure: Genes in Space." Lancet Oncology 7.15 (2014): 688.
• Huilgol, Nachiket. "Play to cure: Genes in space." Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics 10.3 (2014): 792.

Eyewire related readings:

• Lee, Kisuk. "Crowd Intelligence in EyeWire."
• Ballakur, Sarita. "From EyeWire Jump to: navigation, search."

Books that can be used for eye-wire and Apetopia, related to GWAPS:

• Lafourcade, Mathieu, Alain Joubert, and Nathalie Le Brun. Games with a Purpose (GWAPS). John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
• Lafourcade, Mathieu, Alain Joubert, and Nathalie Le Brun. "Unclassifiable GWAPs." Games with a Purpose (Gwaps) (2015): 73-89.

-Blab1234 Blab1234 (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the references. However, while I agree that much information needs to be added in regard to overview, history, development, etc... I'm not sure that we should be putting so much information into the games listed in the article. My understanding is that an examples section should give a user an understand of how these sort of games work in general. While I believe that the finer details of all these games does belong on Wikipedia, perhaps this article is not the place for them. Users are probably coming to this page to learn about GWOPs in general in which case all the extra detail will be distracting and unhelpful. If wishes to learn more about a particular game, ideally the game would have its own page and that is where I believe this information belongs. Please let me know if you agree with this train of thought. Dbl rt (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your references, but I still think that the additional sections I have posted before is essential. As for the topic of this article, we need to have a depth understanding of it. SO, those sections are indeed needed. your references is important, but that is not what this assignment want us to do. If you have some other suggestions, I am glad to discuss with you to better refine this article.------Qiangli802

I think we are on the page (literally). We all agree that we should add sections. We all agree that we should make the article more thorough. Some of the examples listed have a lot of information while others have one or two sentences. We can have an article followed by a list of examples. But some examples do need more information as well. We can create links to other pages where those examples exist if that is more appropriate. -Blab1234 Blab1234 (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have mentioned before that we can select some examples that are more representative. According to what you have said just before, we can create some links targeted to another page where exits the examples that we do not have posted on our original page. So, I agree with you that It would be better to create links.---------Qiangli802

I strongly agree with Qiangli802's opinion on these examples. According to Wikipedia's six good article criteria, a good article stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. It is impossible and unnecessary to cover all related examples and details. In my opinion, selecting and using representative examples with conceptional diagrams (if it is possible) is good enough to support the main topic for the article.Pzy927 (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Decision of Changes

Based on our group discussions, there are three major changes of this article in general.

1. Selecting some examples that can be most represent "games of purpose". And assembling them into one new section calling "Examples". For each example we have chosen, we need to specifically describe the example to let readers know what it is. To have a better illusion of these examples, some images can be attached to this article. Of course, these examples should be presented in a chronological order.
2. some other sections are necessarily to be added to the article page. Judging from what is known about how to organize this kind of article.

     Definition section this section is mainly to give definition of the topic.
     History and Development section, this section is to make readers know how and when this kind of game come out and to illustrate its development up to now.
     Examples section, to show some examples of this game.
     Research goal section, this section is to demonstrate why experts to study this topic and to know what it can be used for.

3. We need to figure out additional reference lists according to above changes.Qiangli802 (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you propose that we create new pages for the GWOPs that we will link to in change 1? Perhaps generating new pages is out of the scope of this project, what do you think? Other than that I agree with everything and this sounds like a good plan of action. Dbl rt (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

According to your statement, I have revised it about change 1.Qiangli802 (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Given the OK to make the changes!

Hello friends,

We were given the OK to make the changes we suggested. We must complete these changes by December 2nd. I will be without Internet Access during the holidays November 24-December 1. Therefore I would like to get started on the edits ASAP.

To summarize again the changes we agreed on:

1. We decided to add new sections/edit existing sections:

• Definition -Blab1234
• History -Dbl_rt
• Examples - Qiangli802
• Research goals - Pzy927

Since there are four major sections and there are four of us, why don't we each put our username by the section we choose to write.

2. We wanted to create a separate examples page and have a link to it from this page, but then we decided that this may be out of our scope. Therefore for the examples section, the person in charge of that section can add new examples. Perhaps some examples can be in a list form with internal links to that list from the example section above. (Or if you have other suggestions, please let us know)

3. We wanted to add new and more recent references. I believe for each section that we each edit, we can add new references individually.

What do you all think?

I want to make sure we all contribute and make this the best article it can be before the deadline. But I am concerned with my own availability during the Holidays and therefore would like to divide the tasks and roles ASAP.

Thank you!

- Blab1234 Blab1234 (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I can take History. Dbl rt (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I ccan re-list examples at the Examples section.Qiangli802 (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I will be responsible for the research goals part.Pzy927 (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I am we are all on the same page. I will have the definition ready and shared with you all by the end of this weekend. I will not be able to review much of your work next week, therefore if possible, please share with me your work ASAP :) I want to help and be involved but am limited on availability. Though I can provide feedback December 1st and 2nd before it is due. Thank you for your corporation. - Blab1234 Blab1234 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Writing Process

Hello again,

I will post shortly my idea/proposal for the first section write-up.

As i did some reading, I wanted to share some notes:

Luis von Ahn says in his Human Computation paper (http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/anon/usr/ftp/home/ftp/2005/CMU-CS-05-193.pdf):

"An example of a human algorithm game is the ESP Game (Chapter 3). ESP is a popular online game: many people play over 40 hours a week. By playing, they provide meaningful, accurate keyword labels for images on the Web (an image with a dog, for instance, gets the label “dog”). These labels can be used, among other things, to improve the accuracy of image search. In only a few months of deployment, the ESP Game collected over 10 million image labels, and if it were deployed at a popular gaming site like MSN or Yahoo! Games, all images on the Web could be labeled in a matter of weeks. Rather than using computer 12 vision techniques that don’t work well enough, the ESP Game constructively channels people to do the work as a form of entertainment. In this thesis we introduce, along with the ESP Game, multiple examples of human algorithm games:

• Peekaboom (Chapter 4), a game that helps to locate objects in images, and has been played for

thousands of human-hours. The data produced by Peekaboom (freely available for research use) can be used to train computer vision algorithms.

• Phetch (Chapter 5), a game that annotates images with descriptive paragraphs. These

paragraphs can help, among other things, to improve accessibility of the Web by providing descriptions of images to the visually impaired.

• Verbosty (Chapter 6), a game that collects “common-sense” knowledge that can be used to

train reasoning algorithms"

Some of these games can be further researched and added to the example section - Blab1234 Blab1234 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Your feedback

Hello team,

Here is my suggestion for the re-write of the definition section. Please let me know what you think. Feel free to edit this piece and provide feedback in this section.

A human-based computation game or game with a purpose (GWAP[1]) – is a human-based computation (existing internal link) technique of outsourcing steps within a computational process to humans in an entertaining (gamification (new link 1)) way.

Luis von Ahn (new link 2) first proposed the idea of “human algorithm games” in order to harness human time and energy for addressing problems that computers cannot yet tackle on their own. He argues that games constitute a general mechanism for using brainpower to solve open computational problems. In this technique, human brains are compared to processors in a distributed system, each performing a small task of a massive computation. However, humans require an incentive to become part of a collective computation. Online games are used as a means to encourage participation in the process. [3]

The tasks presented in these games are easy for humans to compute, and very hard for computers. These tasks can include labelling images to improve web searching, transcription of ancient text, and any activity requiring common sense or human experience. People play the games not because they are interested in solving an instance of a computational problem, but because they wish to be entertained. Human intellect is an important resource and contribution to the enhancement of computer processing and human computer interaction. This technique can be used for building the semantic web, annotating and classifying collected data, crowdsourcing general knowledge, and generally improving the computer process. [3]

“Games with a purpose” have a vast range of applications in variety of areas such as security, computer vision, Internet accessibility, adult content filtering, and Internet search.[2]Recently, video games with a purpose have been proposed to lower the cost of annotations and increase the level of player's engagement.[4]

Internal link 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification Internal link 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_von_Ahn

Thank you,

-blab1234 Blab1234 (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Great job! One more thing, it would be better if you use Wikipedia inner reference mark. Just click "help" in edit mode, then you will find several examples and templates under "references".Pzy927 (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Examples

I will work on Examples Section. In order to get a deep understanding of this topic. Some representative specific examples are necessary, which may be easier to understand what the game is for readers.

Apetopia: The Apetopia Game, which was launched by University of Berlin, is designed to help scientists understand perceived color differences. Apetopia is an easy game, accessible to all the public which requires no special skills except manual dexterity that all the experts of this kind of game usually possess. Two steps are needed to play this game. The first step is to visit the website and press 'play' to view the instructions. And the second step is to finish the game to identify what the color is. The Apetopia game helps determine perceived color differences. Players choices are used to model better color metrics.. This game is intended to provide data on how the shades of color are perceived by people in order to model the best color parameters.

Reverse The Odds: Reverse The Odds is a mobile based game which helps researchers learn about analyzing cancers. By incorporating data analysis into Reverse The Odds, researchers can get thousands of players to help them learn more about different cancers including head and neck, lung, and bladder cancer. You’re analysing in the same way researchers do, but because there are a lot more of you, we can get through data much more quickly, freeing up more of our researchers valuable time and unveiling clues about cancer sooner. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/support-us/citizen-science-apps-and-games-from-cancer-research-uk/reverse-the-odds

Smorball: In the browser-based game Smorball, Players are asked to type the words they see as quickly and accurately as possible to help their team to reach victory in the fictional sport of Smorball. The game presents players with phrases from scanned pages in the Biodiversity Heritage Library. After verification, the words players type are sent to the libraries that store the corresponding pages, allowing those pages to be searched and data mined and ultimately making historic literature more usable for institutions, scholars, educators, and the public. The game was developed by Tiltfactor Lab.

Phrase Detectives: Phrase Detectives is an "annotation game" geared towards lovers of literature, grammar and language. It lets users indicate relationships between words and phrases to create a resource that is rich in linguistic information. Players are awarded with points for their contributions and are featured on a leader board. It was developed by academics Jon Chamberlain, Massimo Poesio and Udo Kruschwitz at the University of Essex.

Train Robots: Train Robots is an annotation game similar to Phrase Detectives. Players are shown pairs of before/after images of a robot arm and blocks on a board, and asked to enter commands to instruct the robot to move from the first configuration to the second. The game collects natural language data for training linguistic and robotic processing systems.

Wikidata Game[edit: The Wikidata Game represents a gamification approach to let users help resolve questions regarding persons, images etc. and thus automatically edit the corresponding data items in Wikidata, the structured knowledge repository supporting Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, the other Wikimedia projects, and more.

ZombiLingo: ZombiLingo is a French game where players are asked to find the right head (a word or expression) to gain brains and become a more and more degraded zombie. While playing, they in fact annotate syntactic relations in French corpora. It was designed and developed by researchers from LORIA and Université Paris-Sorbonne.

Foldit: Crowdsourcing has been gamified in games like Foldit, a game designed by the University of Washington, in which players compete to manipulate proteins into more efficient structures. A 2010 paper in science journal Nature credited Foldit's 57,000 players with providing useful results that matched or outperformed algorithmically computed solutions. Foldit, while also a GWAP, has a different type of method for tapping the collective human brain. This game challenges players to use their human intuition of 3-dimensional space to help with protein folding algorithms. Unlike the ESP Game which focuses on the results that humans are able to provide, Foldit is trying to understand how humans approach complicated 3 dimensional objects. By 'watching' how humans play the game, researchers hope to be able to improve their own computer programs. Instead of simply performing tasks that computers cannot do, this gwap is asking humans to help make current machine algorithms better.

ESP Game: The ESP Game is a human-based computation game developed to address the problem of creating difficult metadata. The idea behind the game is to use the computational power of humans to perform a task that computers cannot (originally, image recognition) by packaging the task as a game. It was originally conceived by Luis von Ahn of Carnegie Mellon University. Google bought a licence to create its own version of the game (Google Image Labeler) in 2006 in order to return better search results for its online images. The licence of the data acquired by Ahn's ESP Game, or the Google version, is not clear.[clarification needed] Google's version was shut down on September 16, 2011 as part of the Google Labs closure in September 2011.
Qiangli802 (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks great!!!! I placed suggestions in brackets and bold --> [my suggestions] Please let me know what you think of my section above. Thank you!-blab1234 Blab1234 (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. Your suggestion is helpful to improve this article, and I have revised them.Qiangli802 (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the information in the "Examples" section is good, but it's rather repetitive since the sections above are basically all examples themselves (the same examples too). I would suggest putting all relevant sections into the "Examples" section or getting rid of the "Examples" section after making sure no information is lost. Frivolous Consultant (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion!

Hi guys!

I think overall all sections look great! I believe we met all the requirements in our efforts to improve the article and collaborate together! I believe all the constructive criticism was appreciated and accepted! All the changes have been made or are being made. I will be posting the new and improved Definition section really soon! Good luck and go team! - blab1234 Blab1234 (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I have added my section to the main page, let's take a look one last time when all of us post each section. Let me know if you see any mistakes/issues- I have checked and re-read, so hopefully it is sufficient enough :) Thank you all for all the hard work! Great job team! - blab1234 Blab1234 (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, how to complete the survey to earn that 1 point.Qiangli802 (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Human-based computation game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004231634/http://www.trainrobots.com/ to http://www.trainrobots.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004231634/http://www.trainrobots.com/ to http://www.trainrobots.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100610135047/http://music.cs.northwestern.edu/lab/research.php?project=callout to http://music.cs.northwestern.edu/lab/research.php?project=callout

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)