Has anyone noticed that the entire OP... all that it had in there to every question was an answer that was like "No we don't think that's a bad thing, it's a good thing"
What is this? Why are we having this shoved down our throat? Cmon guys you can clearly see there are so many people here who waren't happy? Why not at least use a voting system and see whether we want these changes or not?
Instead of all these things I'd rather we have an oDesk Messenger app for iPad. Show iPad some love!
I totally approve Vigen's suggestion. We need to conduct a vote to determine whether the majority of oDesk members want those changes (connects and paid memberships).
I'm disabled which forces me to forgo long term jobs and only concentrate on short term ones. I do press releases and resumes. That means 6-10 jobs a month.
You estimate 10-20 connects to get a job.
This will mean that in the first week or so of the month I'm going to run out of connects even with the plus membership.
How will you address this situation.
Ok everyone, here's a new update:
According to this, you only get 10 additional connects for 10usd per month... and you get a CHANCE to buy more connects? Really? So you pay money to be able to pay money to buy connects?
Also one additional connect is 1 dollar?! Really?
Boy at least if for 10 you were getting some doubled amount of connects that'd make sense, a lot of people would then want to get the premium... But this way... You could well be paying 5usd for an application to a job... where the client will not return any messages for the next 1 months and won't hire anyone at all... You have to be kidding me.
Would oDesk allow us have clients pay us to be able to pay for the job? (I know it sounds ridiculous!)
If not then how can oDesk make us want to do that?
PS. I am also an employer and to be honest, while I've had some flooding applications those weren't that bad, just from the first glance you know it's something you are not intereted in. Easy. So never have I wished that some people had less bidding abilities. Never have I even wanted to have this 'connects' thing implemented. In fact I was happy that it wasn't like in Elance.
So yeah, I'd much rather (like everyone else) you guys focus on other issues.
Hi Andrei, and thank you for your question.
With the Connects allotment they are provided freelancers will be more selective about the jobs they are applying to and will apply to better fit jobs with more attractive terms.
I don't know, Garnor states that extensive research was done in order to do this... while I assume financials reasearch was made, I highly doubt any research un usability, marketing and impact was ever done. If oDesk EVER hired their own top prospects they would know better. I'm an UX professional and researcher (and happily the biggest part of my UX work is done outside oDesk) and can't even imagine a possible scenario where this so called "research" is possible.
Also, now agencies are FORCED to pay $20 per month or they can't apply to jobs. And it's not 60 tokens=60 jobs, it's clearly stated that tokens vary, with at least 2 tokens per job (hence, you can apply only once per day).
Now, bear with me and indulge me since... you know... I actually know something about UX Research. Let's assume you ACTUALLY MEAN IT when you say you want to improve quality. So let's see objective data freely available without any deep research:
1- There's a ranking system in place for freelancers and agencies
2- Freelancers can apply to a 25 jobs per week quota
2.1- From a freelancer point of view, he/she can weed out job applications in order to cover that quota
2.2- From a contractor point of view, he/she will get a lot of applications with clearly stated ranking and feedback
2.3- While capable of abuse, the system provides equal opportunities to high quality and low quality bidders
1- Applications will be capped to a max of 30 jobs per month (probably much less)
2- Contractors will get flooded by agencies and freelancers that PAY, despite the quality
3- Since applications will be capped, contractors won't get most of the highest quality applications (simple math)
1- System will be abused and leaps will be taken, making it even lower quality (I already thought of 2 alternatives and it took me less than 1 minute since they're so obvious)
2- Quality will be so low many contractors will move out or offer even lower payment rates, making it a lower income for both freelancers and oDesk (already charging the highest fee in industry). While more research is needed for these financials, this scenario not only is possible, but extremely likely.
The obvious solution (again, assuming quality is a REAL concern) is to base the applications on quality rather than payments, independent of the fact that oDesk decides to charge a fee for whatever, that is not the issue. The issue is the fact that everybody can see regarding these news.
As for more IN DEPTH solutions, I charge for that, maybe it's time oDesk starts using their own highest hired and most experienced freelancers. The fact oDesk choses not to do it speaks volumes
This question was not clearly answered.
So you are taking away the avg bid we see now currently on oDesk under the new basic plan?
In the webinar it was said that under the plus plan you would see the min, Avg, and max bid. And that when you apply on the basic plan NOTHING would look different then it does now. Then it was stated that on the basic plan you would not see the avg price when bidding only on the plus plan!
Please clearify what I will see on the basic plan.