NLP & Text Annotation

Chat Message Annotation for Toxic Content Filtering

Image

Predicting the right reply isn’t just about words — it’s about tone, context, and timing. Our annotation work made AI messaging sound more human.

Image

Client Request

Every day, thousands of buyers ask the same questions — and sellers can’t always keep up.

To automate these routine conversations without losing the human touch, a major classified platform turned to Unidata. The client aimed to develop an AI-powered system capable of predicting suggested replies in user-to-user chats. The goals were to:

  • Streamline conversations between sellers and buyers
  • Improve message relevance and clarity
  • Reduce the risk of inappropriate or offensive messages

Unidata was engaged to provide high-quality data annotation for training the model. After reviewing and refining the client’s technical documentation, we initiated the project.

Our Approach

Technical Scope and Pilot Phase

The client supplied detailed guidelines outlining annotation requirements. Our team reviewed the instructions and proposed clarifications to better align the process with linguistic and contextual nuances.

During the pilot phase, we focused on:

  • Addressing questions related to linguistic accuracy and stylistic tone
  • Ensuring text suggestions reflected correct grammar and spelling
  • Maintaining a conversational, informal style appropriate for peer-to-peer messaging
  • Aligning all outputs with the norms of Russian language usage and the expectations of the platform’s user base

Annotation and Review Process

Our annotation team evaluated and labeled each suggested reply based on the following key criteria:

  • Relevance to the user’s message
  • Absence of provocative or offensive content
  • Contextual accuracy within the flow of conversation
  • Grammatical and stylistic correctness, including informal phrasing typical for chat communication

This required attention to detail across tone, punctuation, and naturalness of expression.

Validation Workflow

To ensure the highest accuracy, each batch of annotated suggestions underwent mandatory validation. Our validation process included:

  • Selecting representative data samples for quality control
  • Actively raising clarification requests and edge cases with project leads
  • Sharing productivity and quality statistics per annotator with team managers

We placed particular emphasis on validator performance by:

  • Involving the training team to improve validator skill levels
  • Providing targeted learning resources and quality feedback loops
StageInputWorkflow ScopeMain Quality Checks
Project SetupClient guidelines & chat dataInstruction review, clarification, tone alignmentGuideline clarity / linguistic consistency
Pilot PhaseSample conversationsTesting annotation logic, resolving edge casesTone accuracy / ambiguity reduction
AnnotationChat messages & reply suggestionsLabeling relevance, safety, tone, grammarContext alignment / toxicity filtering
Linguistic ControlAnnotated responsesInformal style, natural phrasing validationFluency / conversational realism
Validation & QAAnnotated batchesSampling, validator review, escalation of edge casesAccuracy / policy compliance
Feedback LoopQA resultsPerformance tracking, annotator feedbackError reduction / consistency
Training & SupportValidatorsOngoing training, targeted improvementsValidator accuracy
Final DeliveryValidated datasetPackaging and handoffDataset readiness / deployment quality
Project Setup & Guideline Alignment
1 week
Pilot Phase & Linguistic Calibration
2 weeks
Annotation + Validation Phase
2 weeks
Final Evaluation & Delivery
1 week

The Results

  • The model trained on the annotated dataset was successfully deployed.
  • Internal client testing was conducted using real-time user dialogs to assess the accuracy and appropriateness of predicted replies. Early results showed high-quality, context-aware suggestions, no inappropriate topics or formulations, and natural tone suited for real conversations
  • In a dedicated testing session, the client team manually evaluated the model’s responses in a live test environment. The system returned neutral, context-appropriate suggestions that avoided escalation or policy violations.
In conversational AI, the hardest part isn’t detecting toxicity. It’s generating responses that are neutral, context-aware, and still sound human. That balance only comes from carefully annotated real dialogue.
Vladislav Barsukov
Vladislav Barsukov
Head of SLM&LLM Annotation

Similar Cases

Audio Data Collection for Emotion-Sensitive Voice Systems

  • Development of child response systems for laughter and crying
  • 750 unique audio files featuring children's voices
  • 1 month
Learn more

Expert Financial Data Annotation for AI

  • 7000 financial cases
  • 3 months
Learn more

Female Alopecia Image Collection and Annotation for Medical AI

  • Medical AI & Computer Vision
  • 150+ participants, Sinclair Scale (5 stages)
  • 12 weeks
Learn more

Document Annotation for Financial Services

  • Financial Industry
  • 6,000+ complex legal documents
  • 7 weeks
Learn more

Real-World Data for a Synthetic-Trained PAD Model

  • 7 weeks
Learn more

Ready to get started?

Tell us what you need — we’ll reply within 24h with a free estimate

    Andrew
    Head of Client Success

    — I'll guide you through every step, from your first
    message to full project delivery

    Thank you for your
    message

    It has been successfully sent!

    We use cookies to enhance your experience, personalize content, ads, and analyze traffic. By clicking 'Accept All', you agree to our Cookie Policy.