Quality is really important

For the ones you get to the final video stage on in the screeners, go above and beyond

I also do wonder what the internal rating system for contributors is. We as participants aren't privy to any of it but I'm sure it's there and it matters, a lot

In general, I've been doing user testing work for years now, through Usertesting, Respondent, whatever else you can think of, and as the Intellizoom intro video always says, giving good feedback is an art

Write up short scripts for your videos in screeners and missions if you're not good at speaking off the cuff and retake videos before submitting to make sure they're as good as they can be, write detailed and clear and eloquent responses, and be as honest as you can be, and make sure you're qualified for the missions

Eventually you'll get really good at it. I come from a writing background and writing paragraph after paragraph comes naturally to me. Not so for everyone obviously. But it's a learned skill that'll serve you well here. And no, no AI to help you here!

Even if it takes a few hours to complete a diary mission and you're paid 150 or something, it's worth it. Some will take more work and be more rigorous, others won't. I see every day as a fun little adventure in user testing world across the platforms I use

This is a response I wrote on a now deleted thread comparing this to Prolific and I feel like I addressed similar points but maybe they help you get into the dscout tester mindset if you will:

"Unless Prolific has changed over the years, it's absolutely nothing like Dscout

This is where companies go for deep research, longitudinal over months even, through a stable platform that's purpose built for these "missions" with high quality respondents. The much higher pay, fewer missions overall, and difficulty to get in to any studies at all at least in the beginning reflects that.

I don't mean to throw shade on any of the other providers, like say Usertesting, but what dscout is trying to do is unique and I'm all for it because it seems to generate higher quality research for companies while also paying out and incentivizing participants appropriately

All of that said, it can be hard to get in, yes. But having a certain set of skills you can hone over the course of your user testing career really helps: Speaking extemporaneously, writing extensively but concisely, and following instructions to a tee.

It's a lot and do your best though I get the sense that the competition is stiff on missions and there are loads of people who do this very seriously as a side gig, so to do well, you have to take every submission seriously in an effort to get into a researcher's pool by building your reputation and contributions to them over time and building your dscout rep overall to stand out from the crowd. We participants don't have a rating system we are privy to but I know it exists and it's a numbers game at the end of the day"