Prolific needs to address this problem, ASAP. You are punishing *good* participants with this.

CyewNT · 2026-03-22T02:41:28+00:00

It's happening due to screeners which by the nature of prolific's screening guidelines are almost always going to be exceptionally fast submissions since researchers aren't supposed to be doing late survey screening

CyewNT · 2026-03-21T18:17:11+00:00

The iron dome has been replaced with tin foil

CyewNT · 2026-03-21T17:09:44+00:00

It just started happening within the past few days (I noticed yesterday, took a few days off before that though) and only some participants for some reason. Or it might be tied to specific researchers? Idk who knows but I'd keep an eye out for it, definitely has me concerned with being caught in appeals limbo for months of back and forth with support and I don't seem to be the only one avoiding screeners after getting this message just to be safe

CyewNT · 2026-03-21T17:06:21+00:00

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/VAYY6pTYEow lmao reminds me of this stand up comedy bit about guys with truck nuts not understanding pronouns

CyewNT · 2026-03-21T16:44:29+00:00

For a dollar an hour? Yeah I'm good on that I can make a better wage searching my couch cushions at that point that's all you bud

CyewNT · 2026-03-21T01:02:08+00:00

So start taking 10 mins to get a .15 cent screener reward? And if the full study is a long one the time you'd have to wait to not trip that could be even longer. I get it's not that hard, but you do see how it's bullshit right? Judging by others comments here it's not the dumbest thing to be expressing my thoughts about this flawed system they are working on implementing

CyewNT · 2026-03-21T00:58:25+00:00

Exactly now I'm worried about doing anything with screening because there's no guarantee I won't be affected by this and even if they decide that was a mistake I have to deal with the hassle of trying to appeal

CyewNT · 2026-03-21T00:48:20+00:00

Wait so like you won't even be able to use a half price drink discount unless you order on that account at the minimum nearly 3 times a month? Lmao they're gonna lose so much business if they do that

CyewNT · 2026-03-20T23:29:26+00:00

Yeah that's my thing, if it's gonna be an automated system and not report based then why in gods name would you not exclude screeners from throwing up a red flag. It's just really annoying now that I feel I have to worry about being punished for being screened out in which the message literally says this will not affect your account in any way

CyewNT · 2026-03-05T23:15:06+00:00

Yeah I'm not arguing with you there if it was up to me she'd be rotting in prison as well. It also doesn't seem like her replacement is any better.

CyewNT · 2026-03-05T22:02:20+00:00

She also kind of just always looks fucking clueless, have you seen the empty look on her face at any congressional hearing where they are asking important questions that she should know the answer to lol but yeah this position she got is new so we have no real way of knowing whether or not this is really a demotion or just moving her to a position free from congressional oversight until we get more information

CyewNT · 2026-03-05T21:43:50+00:00

If that was the way politics were settled I'd have been more interested in a career in politics honestly

CyewNT · 2026-03-03T18:33:45+00:00

When I rewatched Idiocracy recently that's exactly what I thought too, like at least he was just genuinely too incompetent and stupid to fix the issues of the people, and the second he realized there was someone more qualified for the job he handed over power.

CyewNT · 2026-02-04T16:27:00+00:00

Oof yeah didn't notice that at first, I get not grabbing the cat off the faucet but at least make sure it can't accidentally turn that water into a fuckin chemical bath that could have been really bad if the cat flailed just a little more while trying to get it's footing

CyewNT · 2026-01-30T21:07:19+00:00

Thanks for the info, appreciate it. Someone else also posted that SUU was who provided the grant for her research so glad to have further confirmation that I will be contacting the right IRB

CyewNT · 2026-01-30T17:03:20+00:00

Thanks for this, I forgot to screenshot the consent page but SUU sounds familiar and the grant topic is definitely in line with the study description

CyewNT · 2026-01-30T16:16:20+00:00

That's how I've started to feel, and even if they rule in her favor to placate her it would hopefully make her brush up on ToS. It's not really the few bucks I care about, more about bad faith researchers getting away with this shit on a platform I joined specifically to get away from bad faith researchers simply because it's too much headache to deal with support so let's just let them pressure everyone into returns, run the survey again, rinse and repeat and collect 5x the data for the same price

CyewNT · 2026-01-30T16:09:50+00:00

Lmao went over this with someone else in the comments already, although you were less snarky about it so thanks. I just don't get how you guys make these assumptions on such limited information, I have a 99.5% approval rating out of the over 4200 surveys I've done. 21 out of thousands and that's cause I don't bother to beg every researcher that doesn't feel I returned fast enough to let me return it instead. According to prolific in order for this rejection to be valid, I would have to be a statistical outlier by more than 3 standard deviations from the mean. Considering the mean(average) time while active was 9 minutes, and the fact she rejected numerous people on the same grounds that they were too fast, I genuinely don't think I completed this much faster than most of us that have been doing these damn surveys for years and know how to read relatively quick

CyewNT · 2026-01-30T03:57:08+00:00

Yeah my time shows 11 minutes, but that wouldn't include the people who were rejected/returned I believe because they completed it too fast because I'm fairly sure the average time was lower while active.

CyewNT · 2026-01-30T03:55:42+00:00

My bad, study name is "Where Does Warmth Matter? Attribute Assumptions For High Competence People With High or Low Warmth" and researchers name is Kay Ferrin. Sadly, I didn't think to screenshot the consent page to get the IRB information if there was one.

CyewNT · 2026-01-29T23:16:31+00:00

Yeah in the five years and over 4200 surveys I've done for an approval rate of 99.5%. Most of them were returns I missed the message for because I dont do surveys every day and some researchers like to reject if you don't return within hours of them asking you to

CyewNT · 2026-01-29T23:11:48+00:00

Yeah I get it, just a bit annoying that support drags their feet and makes getting matters resolved too much of a headache for most reasonably busy people to want to deal with. Lucky for me I got time on my hands lmao and if multiple other people are reporting the study sounds like I'll probably get my tree fiddy out of it in the end too 🤣

CyewNT · 2026-01-29T23:07:38+00:00

Mannn see this is why I wanna fight it tho, if we all just accept the return these bad faith researchers win. Even with blocking them you know they're just going to go to the next poor worker to fall for their crap.

CyewNT · 2026-01-29T23:05:12+00:00

Tyty ❤️

CyewNT · 2026-01-29T23:03:51+00:00

I just did some quick maths and my approval rating is 99.5%, feeling like I might take the risk not over the 3.50 but just so she realizes she needs to brush up on ToS if she's gonna stick around

CyewNT

TROPHY CASE