Algorithms can only take you so far when you want to minimize obscene content on your social networking site. As the amount of user-uploaded content has exploded in recent times, so has the need for web content screeners, whose job it is to peruse the millions of images we throw up to online hubs like Facebook and MySpace every day, and filter out the illicit and undesirable muck. Is it censorship or just keeping the internet from being overrun with distasteful content? Probably a little bit of both, but apparently what we haven't appreciated until now is just how taxing a job this is. One outsourcing company already offers counseling as a standard part of its benefits package, and an industry group set up by Congress has advised that all should be providing therapy to their image moderators. You heard that right, people,
mods need love too! Hit the source for more.
posted July 20th 2010 7:34AM
I worked in a group that did this for email, but thankfully as a tools programmer, not as a screener.
It wasn't a tough job, but it killed you inside. You should never have to see what these guys saw on a daily basis. The Internet is a horrible place at times...
@erwos
I bet you hate the term "pics or it didn't
happen".
@erwos
Poor reporting by the New York Times: according to the article, 50 workers viewing a combined average of 20 million photos per week. Assuming 40 hour work weeks...
20 million photos / 50 workers = 400,000 photos per week per worker
/ 40 hours in a week = 10,000 photos per hour
/ 60 minutes in an hour = 166.66... photos per minute
/ 60 seconds in a minute = 2.77... photos per second per worker
Somehow 2.77 photos per second doesn't seem possible. Most people's brains can't even react and click within 1/3 of a second, never mind making an actual decision about the image content.
Even with 55 hour work weeks, workers would have to rate two images a second. For 55 hours a week, not even including lunch of coffee breaks.
half of the staff killed them selves after visiting /b/
What has been seen can't be unseen
@owned66
So true......
You spin me right round baby, right round round...
WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE OF THE CHILDREN!
The children.. oh the children. Feels good, man.
@FAP FAP FAP
How do I of the children?
@archkron Of the Children I! Children of the I! The Children of I! I of the Children! Of the iChildren! Wait... What?
@TinWard
Well, that's just sick. Sick I tell ya!!!
I wonder if any of these companies has a method for picking out people who actually like seeing gross, disturbing images? you know, the ones who are always posting misleading titles on forums in an attempt to get you to click on that "larvae titty"-ish pic, the ones who post "funny" .gifs of people being seriously injured or worse
Interesting race, these humans.
you gotta do what you gotta do
I can think of a couple of particularly grotesque videos that I wish had been screened-out before they reached my eyes.
@rollocla Two girls one Tesla?
that makes me sad. Some one has that for a job because another person can't be decent.
If i had this job the first thing i would do is invert colors on my monitor.
This is a job mike Rowe should handle. I'd love to see his facial expressions while he does this job.
As sole onsite support for the branch of the organization I work for, I periodically have to investigate reports of users accessing material from the internet inappropriate for work. Sometimes it's minor, sometimes it's major, and disgusting. And since it's a healthcare organization, there are instances when I come across material that photographically documents injuries or diseases.
I would not like to have to do that every single day for a living.
I bet I could do this job and be minimally scarred by it. What's the pay like?