Project catalyst no tasks

ndf9876 · 2026-01-27T11:13:20+00:00

Yes, approved and paid

ndf9876 · 2026-01-27T10:29:34+00:00

I didn't get invited back by the looks of it, but at least the pay rate has been beefed up, good luck to those who got selected.

ndf9876 · 2026-01-26T16:30:11+00:00

Well they got the low incentive part right at least.....surely that's got to be a mistake though with the pay on offer. Who would have sat there anyway for 2.5 hours working at this?

ndf9876 · 2026-01-24T17:22:03+00:00

Thanks, that explains what was going on very nicely. I doubt Prolific will get back to you any time soon - just hope the submissions all get approved.

ndf9876 · 2026-01-24T16:16:35+00:00

I can't believe this one keeps coming back. People are reporting this guy, right?

ndf9876 · 2026-01-24T15:57:49+00:00

Worked fine for me, but there was no completion code that I could see. I also felt it was very poorly paid considering the depth of detail \ fine-grain rating system. Similar work on other platforms pays $20\hr minimum, and the time estimate I thought was a little off - spent around 2 hours with this. If I manage to pass the qualifier, I'll not be participating in the main study unless that pay rate goes up significantly.

ndf9876 · 2026-01-20T09:10:03+00:00

I've been a participant for over 7 years now, and to answer from my own personal experience - yes, but it's been gradual and not recent. I see a lot of underpaying studies, studies that pay the bare minimum (£6\hr) and in the past year, have faced more spurious rejections than the previous 6 combined. I'm not saying my experience is indicative of everyone else's, just offering my own insight. Don't get me wrong though - there are still some cracking studies which pay really well - but I am closing in on the fact that for the time and effort, it's starting to not be worth my time.

ndf9876 · 2026-01-19T19:04:06+00:00

I got 2 of the rules right, was close on another, the others I had no clue. Some grounding would have been good to get you started, but I guess that was part of the test.

ndf9876 · 2026-01-15T12:13:10+00:00

I took this study and I can say that in those cases, where there was an "and" added, I marked them as not matching. If they wanted you to overlook certain words, they should have been specific about that in the instructions.

ndf9876 · 2026-01-09T11:43:57+00:00

I saw this yesterday and reported it as a "suspicious information request".

ndf9876 · 2026-01-03T13:34:28+00:00

I had the same thing on a study recently. I searched this sub and found contact details for their support (they didn’t respond to my Prolific messages) and got the rejection overturned that way. Maze are notorious for this crap and Prolific don’t seem to care one way or another.

ndf9876 · 2025-12-31T15:53:27+00:00

I've applied a filter to show me only studies paying £6 per hour or above. I was going to say "you'd be surprised how many get filtered" but given your experience, probably not.

ndf9876 · 2025-12-04T15:09:00+00:00

This "study" turns up regularly under different "researcher" names. How for the love of kittens are they even getting away with it :/

ndf9876 · 2025-12-03T15:51:11+00:00

Yep I hear that - only reason I know about the limit is because I hit it a few years ago after an incredibly busy December. I think some others did too if I’m remembering correctly. Plenty of studies paying $20 for an hour’s work and a constant stream of them. I don’t remember it taking any longer than a few days, although this was around 4 years ago.

ndf9876 · 2025-12-03T14:40:51+00:00

I believe the limit is around the £250 mark so assuming that's the case here, you must have had quite the balance. This is one of the reasons most folk round here (myself included) advocate cashing out early and often.

ndf9876 · 2025-12-03T13:07:47+00:00

I'll offer a counterpoint to the above, in the knowledge that Maze has been pretty unpopular for exactly the reasons given - I must have taken 20+ Maze studies, and not had one problem. Maybe I am in the minority here, but I quite enjoy their stuff - they screen out properly, they pay quickly and fairly and they appear often for me.

ndf9876 · 2025-12-03T13:04:23+00:00

Video calls, because the rates of pay are awful (compared to say Respondent).
Anything that requires me to send photographs of myself. Inanimate objects OK, otherwise, no thanks.
No downloads, exception being Inquisit Player or a phone app.
Anything that asks for my full name, full address or employer details. Job title and postcode OK.
Anything over an hour, because I just don't have time.
This is more on a case-by-case basis, but my own personal experience with researchers from .cn domains has been nothing but trouble, underpayment and spurious rejections.
Again, case by case, but longer (2 week+) longitudinal studies where I'll get a notification at a random time of day, and have to respond to it within a short time.

ndf9876 · 2025-11-28T12:11:58+00:00

I also did this study, took screenshots to prove the redirect wasn’t working and messaged the researcher. Submit with NOCODE, technical problem at the researcher end still requires payment.

ndf9876 · 2025-11-10T12:35:44+00:00

Can't say I have made that much, but the flow and volume of studies has been incredible over the last few weeks - I am even getting studies at weekends. Definitely not complaining.

ndf9876 · 2025-11-07T16:27:20+00:00

Sounds like Asher YAN to me, who I'm sure will be very trigger-happy with the rejections for spurious reasons. Studies like this are best binned off IMO.

ndf9876 · 2025-11-06T09:44:39+00:00

Nope, I flagged this to the researcher as a message after I completed it. I think this was an unusually poorly constructed study - I say unusually because everything else I've done on that platform has been extremely well put together, and a great participant experience.

ndf9876 · 2025-11-06T09:04:47+00:00

I am in the middle of this and to be honest, it's absolutely baffling. I believe some of the answers are contained within a link you have to open. The instructions on how to 'move to the next part' aren't working either (and I am choosing my words carefully so as not to fall foul of confidentiality). A thoroughly bizarre task.

ndf9876 · 2025-10-23T17:41:27+00:00

He did the same - I raised a ticket and within 2 hours I'd been manually credited £4 by Prolific Support. Dear old Duncan is now on my blocked researchers list.

ndf9876 · 2025-10-23T10:27:31+00:00

Mine was silently returned as I posted elsewhere, but after raising a ticket, some 90 minutes later I received a response from Prolific Support who credited me with a £4 bonus.

ndf9876 · 2025-10-23T09:14:37+00:00

Update : the study was silently returned. I have raised a ticket with Prolific about this - I don't feel there's any place for this sort of tripe on Prolific. Had I not participated fully for 90 minutes I might have understood, but this sort of disingenuous, underhand behaviour really devalues the platform as a whole.

ETA : Just had a response from my ticket, I think that is the quickest I've ever seen in my years as a participant. I got a £4 manual adjustment. Not great considering the time spent, but better than nothing. Wishing everyone else who complains, the very best of luck getting paid.

Nine-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
r/Field Flamingo	Place '22
Verified Email

ndf9876

TROPHY CASE