NLP & Text Annotation

Chat Message Annotation for Toxic Content Filtering

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
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

Image Annotation for Construction and Heavy Machinery

  • Construction & Infrastructure
  • 5,000 images annotated (20,000 bounding boxes)
  • 1,5 week
Learn more

Product Grouping for E-commerce

  • Major online classifieds platform
  • 20,000 listings annotated for product model identification
  • 8 weeks
Learn more

Arabic Language Data Annotation for LLM Evaluation

  • Telecom, AI
  • 7 weeks
Learn more

AI stress-testing for a Biometric Liveness Detection Model

  • Biometrics
  • 1 week
Learn more

Image Data Collection for Hair Loss Classification Task

  • Medicine
  • 200 annotated sets
  • 1.5 months
Learn more

Ready to get started?

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

    We partnered with Unidata for a vast collection of webcam and smartphone assets and were very satisfied. The data quality was excellent, maintaining high resolution and clarity across all formats to meet our specific technical needs. The procurement process was seamless thanks to their customer service. The team was proactive and transparent, ensuring smooth communication from start to finish. Although the investment was significant, the professional caliber of the data and the reliability of the service made it a worthwhile value.

    D. B. IdentifAI Labs

    Trusted by the market's leading brands

    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.