We’re recruiting Travel professionals and experienced trip planners to review and improve realistic travel scenarios used to train AI travel assistants.
Your job isn’t to “write itineraries.” It’s to think like a real trip planner and spot what makes a travel situation real, feasible, and decision-changing — then upgrade weak scenarios so they actually test the model.
‼️ AI is not allowed. If we spot AI use, we’ll block the application.
⚠️ This application form must be completed entirely in English.
🚨 READ ALL THE DESCRIPTION BELOW TO UNDERSTAND THE APPLICATION FORM.
WHO CAN APPLY
-
Travel professionals and experienced trip planners
-
3+ years of relevant travel planning experience (professional or high-volume personal)
-
English level: Advanced / Fluent (required)
WHAT YOU’LL DO IN THE APPLICATION (QUICK SCREENING TEST)
You will review two pre-generated travel tasks. For each task, you’ll answer simple 1–5 ratings and give a short justification.
Then, for the 2nd task, you’ll rewrite it to make it stronger.
WHAT “STRONG” MEANS (SIMPLE DEFINITION)
A strong task includes one decisive feasibility constraint that can flip the plan if ignored (missed train, missed check-in, closed attraction, wrong station, etc.).
We call this a Knife:
-
A Knife is a constraint that changes what itinerary is actually viable.
-
Quick test: if you remove it, the “best plan” would meaningfully change.
Examples of Knives in Travel
-
Last train / last entry / check-in cutoff times
-
Closures and holidays that change what’s possible
-
Ambiguous locations (airport/station names that can be confused)
-
Sequential dependencies (if A slips, B becomes impossible)
-
Mobility constraints that change routing feasibility
WHAT YOU WILL RATE (1–5) IN THE FORM
You’ll give 3 ratings per task:
-
Overall Quality (1–5)
How clear and testable the task is (can you judge PASS/FAIL)? -
Knife / Hidden Context Strength (1–5)
Is there a decisive feasibility constraint — or is the “hidden context” just extra color that doesn’t change the plan? -
Checklist Quality (1–5)
Does the checklist truly test feasibility + the Knife with clear criteria?
(Strong checklists include verification steps and forbid inventing logistics, written as PASS/FAIL — not “be helpful.”)
You’ll also write a short justification (2–4 bullets) explaining your ratings.
WHAT YOU WILL REWRITE (FOR THE 2ND TASK ONLY)
You will rewrite these parts to make the task stronger:
-
Scenario (3rd person) — more realistic + naturally sets up the feasibility risk
-
Prompt (user message) — natural, human, does not reveal the Knife
-
Hidden Context (1–3 bullets) — must include exactly 1 decisive Knife
-
Checklist (4–6 items) — each item must be PASS/FAIL, covering:
-
feasibility/verification (minimum unknowns to check)
-
the Knife (the decision-flipping constraint)
-
no invented logistics (no made-up schedules/hours/availability)
-
branching plan (Plan A / Plan B) when feasibility depends on one missing answer
-
safety only when there is real risk
-
Checklist item example:
PASS if it flags what must be verified (tickets/hours/cutoffs) before committing; FAIL if it confidently invents times or availability.
Important: Don’t “leak” the Knife in the prompt (no “IMPORTANT”, no all-caps, no “the key detail is…”).
IF SELECTED (PROJECT WORK)
You’ll review batches of pre-generated travel scenarios:
-
Rating realism and feasibility risk
-
Identifying weak or missing constraints (Knives)
-
Improving tasks so they better represent real travel moments where wrong advice causes missed connections, wasted money, or ruined plans
COMPENSATION
Payment will be US$ 30 per approved task, converted and paid in your local currency.
Each task takes approximately 40 minutes, which corresponds to an effective rate of about US$ 45 per hour.
WHAT WE’RE LOOKING FOR
-
You can recognize what’s realistic vs. generic in travel planning
-
You understand what truly flips feasibility (cutoffs, closures, dependencies, ambiguous locations)
-
You can upgrade a “fine” scenario into a strong feasibility test without making it artificial