In response to Webb and Tangney (2022) we call into question the conclusion that data collected on Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) was "at best-only 2.6% valid" (p. 1). We suggest that Webb and Tangney made certain choices during the study-design and data-collection process that adversely affected the quality of the data collected. As a result, the anecdotal experience of these authors provides weak evidence that MTurk provides low-quality data as implied. In our commentary we highlight best practice recommendations and make suggestions for more effectively collecting and screening online panel data.
Keywords: Mechanical Turk; crowdsourcing; data screening and quality; research data.