🐈
» Forums » Clients » Re: My proposals are archived!
Page options
e91667f8
Community Member

My proposals are archived!

Who can explain me why the half of my new proposals are archived? Today I posted a job to find a good freelancer for my project, but an hour later I discovered that the most of the proposals are in the archive list. What's going on? I even didn't have an opportunity to review the freelancers. Upwork promotes some freelancers and hides others?

ACCEPTED SOLUTION
lenaellis
Community Member

Hi Everyone,

We apologize for the delay, but understand we may not always be able to address posts with urgency, especially over the weekend or holidays. We understand and have read your feedback and grievances. We are glad that many of you are pleased with the Talent Services decision to no longer archive proposals. At the same time, we will not be reimbursing connects. These proposals were archived, not deleted, which means clients still had full access to all submitted proposals and were able to see the total amount of proposals listed in each section.  

 

Rest assured, archiving will not be replaced by any new process. Proposals would only appear  in the Archived list if the client or freelancer took action on the proposal. Talent Specialists will only be shortlisting proposals, as they have done. The Shortlisted list highlights proposals that Talent Specialists want to share with clients, this separate list which does not affect or touch proposals in the All Proposals list.

 

ATS Navigation.png

The All Proposals tab includes all active proposals. Proposals withdrawn by freelancers or clients, and declined invites are not included in this active list, those would be found in the Archived list. The All Proposals list displays Best match as the default sorting order. However, clients can sort the proposal list as they see fit: Newest to Oldest, Highest to Lowest rate, etc. The total amount of proposals in a tab is always visible at the top alongside the navigation link.

 

 

ATS Sort.png

 

As for Talent Specialists in general, they will continue improving their services and training. We recognize the comments shared in the Community. Feedback about irrelevant invites is shared with their team and actioned when necessary. Obviously, we wouldn’t keep or push a program that wasn’t working or producing results. Currently, Talent Services assists with around 5% of all jobs on the platform and these jobs have a higher fill rate as well as end with high success rates and great feedback. And as mentioned before, both clients and freelancer are given an option to opt out of the service.

Untitled

View solution in original post

328 REPLIES 328
dzadza
Community Member

@Lena,
Thank you very much - finally some good news!


Lena E wrote:

Talent Specialists have ceased archiving proposals and will no longer archive going forward.

This is a good thing, thanks.

 

Archiving makes one fat anyways. 

-----------
"Where darkness shines like dazzling light"   â€”William Ashbless


Lena E wrote:

Hi Everyone,

 

We appreciate and value the feedback that was shared in this thread and understand your shared concerns. We are always looking to improve our processes. Our goal is to help not hinder the growth of your businesses. Given the feedback that some clients and freelancers were not aware of this part of Talent Services, Talent Specialists have ceased archiving proposals and will no longer archive going forward.

 

-Lena


Honestly, the single most stunning thing I have witnessed from UW. Dare I hope that there is some business maturity starting to peek through? A smart business move and one I hope portends to more thoughtful business practices going forward. 

What Scott said.  Well done, UW.

+  1 more for Scott's comment and a huge thank you and mahalo to U management for recognizing and correcting a serious issue.

kat303
Community Member


Scott B wrote:

Lena E wrote:

Hi Everyone,

 

We appreciate and value the feedback that was shared in this thread and understand your shared concerns. We are always looking to improve our processes. Our goal is to help not hinder the growth of your businesses. Given the feedback that some clients and freelancers were not aware of this part of Talent Services, Talent Specialists have ceased archiving proposals and will no longer archive going forward.

 

-Lena


Honestly, the single most stunning thing I have witnessed from UW. Dare I hope that there is some business maturity starting to peek through? A smart business move and one I hope portends to more thoughtful business practices going forward. 


 ---------------------

I echo Scott's reply. I am beyond happy to finally see that our concerns were noted and things have changed because of them. I just hope something like this NEVER happens again. 


@lenaellis wrote:

Hi Everyone,

 

We appreciate and value the feedback that was shared in this thread and understand your shared concerns. We are always looking to improve our processes. Our goal is to help not hinder the growth of your businesses. Given the feedback that some clients and freelancers were not aware of this part of Talent Services, Talent Specialists have ceased archiving proposals and will no longer archive going forward.

 

-Lena

 

That's great news. I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say that I hope that we are never again made to wait this long for answers to an issue this serious; it's been an awful few weeks.

 

A few questions:

1) Is Upwork going to address the question of paid-for connects on bids that were trashed?

2) Is Upwork planning to improve the talent specialist experience?

 

It's telling that these two questions haven't been answered. Despite the so-called conclusion to this fiasco, many of us would still like more clarity. I'm guessing the paid-for connects thing is a can of worms Upwork is afraid to open. If I were a freelancer who paid for connects, I'd be opening a ticket to get some answers.

 



Lena E wrote:  Given the feedback that some clients and freelancers were not aware of this part of Talent Services, Talent Specialists have ceased archiving proposals and will no longer archive going forward.

 Good.

 

I just hope this won't be quietly replaced by some other mechanism...

First we had the infamous "hidden" folder, then this mess.

 

Can we also get a reassurance that not only will the talent "specialists" no longer archive proposals, nor will some algorithm or automated process, and Upwork won't just rename / adapt the process of trashing peoples' proposals once the uproar has died down.

 

 

A comment that I have read about this topic, written by a client.
He says that, in a published job (in which a "complementary talent specialist" was involved), proposals were not "archived" (so far, good), but that more than 1/3 of the proposals were sent to the end of the list and, in order to see them, you have to press "load more".
In addition, the visible proposals were marked as "best match" and those hidden as "not qualified".
The commentary goes on to say that, these "hidden" and "unqualified" proposals had the same preferences / qualifications / abilities that he established in his offer and among them, some freelancers better classified and with good income.

So, have we still same problem but in a different way?
Just to know.


Maria T wrote:

A comment that I have read about this topic, written by a client.
He says that, in a published job (in which a "complementary talent specialist" was involved), proposals were not "archived" (so far, good), but that more than 1/3 of the proposals were sent to the end of the list and, in order to see them, you have to press "load more".
In addition, the visible proposals were marked as "best match" and those hidden as "not qualified".
The commentary goes on to say that, these "hidden" and "unqualified" proposals had the same preferences / qualifications / abilities that he established in his offer and among them, some freelancers better classified and with good income.

So, have we still same problem but in a different way?
Just to know.


Same same but different!

Thanks for reporting. It's unbelievable - the lengths UW goes to in order to meddle with our proposals. 

petra_r
Community Member


Petra R wrote:

Lena E wrote:  Given the feedback that some clients and freelancers were not aware of this part of Talent Services, Talent Specialists have ceased archiving proposals and will no longer archive going forward.

I just hope this won't be quietly replaced by some other mechanism...

First we had the infamous "hidden" folder, then this mess.

 

Can we also get a reassurance that not only will the talent "specialists" no longer archive proposals, nor will some algorithm or automated process, and Upwork won't just rename / adapt the process of trashing peoples' proposals once the uproar has died down.


 I was rather hoping for a response.... Obviously Upwork would rather not confirm that now the "unwanted" proposals are no longer put in the archive folder, and are instead clearly marked as "not qualified" and hidden below the good old "show more" button.

 

So much for transparency.

 

🙂

@Lena, good news!
Anyway I echo the last questions raised by some colleagues.


Lena wrote: ... Given the feedback that some clients and freelancers were not aware  of this part of Talent Services, ...


  Let's not try and spin this.  It isn't that "some" freelancers were not aware of it. 

 

Fact is that this was deliberately hidden from freelancers by design and not made properly clear to clients either.

To make it sound like "some of us" were just too dumb to "be aware" of something we clearly could not be aware of, especially considering the fact that over and over again we were assured that clients could see all proposals and nothing was hidden (Let's not even TRY to pretend that this "archiving" is any different in real terms than "hiding!") is insulting.

 

So, just for the record, especially given the obvious early attempts to sweep this under the rug,  "some freelancers were not aware" is an insulting way to put what transpired.

 

I am not blaming Lena, who was likely fed that line by the same people who think declaring  "Some of you may experience intermittent issues with some parts of the site" on the status page when the whole thing is down is some kind of "damage limitation!" (It is not.)

 

This was not something that we carelessly missed, because we're a bit dim and a bit naive.

 

This was done deliberately in a way that we could not know (by design.)

 

Let's all of us not ever forget that.

 

I really appreciate the outcome (although realistically once the cat was out of the bag that was the only possible outcome eventually) but trust has been lost. For Upwork to actually have done this in the first place, and for Upwork actually not seeing anything wrong with it (!!!!!) means that Upwork has lost a lot of trust points, at least for me. 

 

I am, to be honest, deeply disappointed.  Not with the outcome of this thread, but with the fact that it happened in the first place.

 

It also makes me nervous to think what else "some" freelancers are not aware of ...

 

 

 

 

 

On a break....from work, of course...eating a slice of leftover pizza...uses pinkie nail to get a piece of crust from next to the one slightly crooked tooth...sits back...and thinks..."How now brown cow"...

@Petra R +1000

How good that I have Petra to explain what I would not achieve even in a million years! Robot wink

 


Petra R wrote:

Lena wrote: ... Given the feedback that some clients and freelancers were not aware  of this part of Talent Services, ...


  Let's not try and spin this.  It isn't that "some" freelancers were not aware of it. 

 

And, of course, the reason we were not aware of it is that Upwork staff repeatedly (and, they now tell us, falsely) assured us that clients saw every proposal. 


Petra R wrote:

 

 

 

 

I really appreciate the outcome (although realistically once the cat was out of the bag that was the only possible outcome eventually) but trust has been lost.

 

Potentially, more than trust has been lost. Freelancers who purchase connects have likely suffered financial losses as well. It's great that the practice has been suspended (we're told), but that doesn't really clean up the potential liability for the initial misrepresentations and the harm already done.

iaabraham
Community Member

Petra R wrote:

I really appreciate the outcome (although realistically once the cat was out of the bag that was the only possible outcome eventually) but trust has been lost. For Upwork to actually have done this in the first place, and for Upwork actually not seeing anything wrong with it (!!!!!) means that Upwork has lost a lot of trust points, at least for me. 

 

I am, to be honest, deeply disappointed.  Not with the outcome of this thread, but with the fact that it happened in the first place.

 

It also makes me nervous to think what else "some" freelancers are not aware of ... 

I'm pleased (and surprised) with the outcome as well, but for me it's too little too late. Upwork had the perfect opportunity to address our concerns and respond appropriately, but they gave us Steve's reply instead. And what about all the follow-up issues that others have raised in this thread, not to mention all the continuing site problems that have been brought up in the forums?

 

The trust is gone, and it's only a matter of time before some other "little" secret is revealed or before Upwork announces another awful "feature." The site is no longer what it was, and it would be extremely foolish -- like I've been -- to focus on it exclusively.

 

I'm not pretending it's easy to find work off the site, but it will be worth not having to deal with messes and disappointments like this!


Isabelle Anne A wrote:

I'm pleased (and surprised) with the outcome as well, but for me it's too little too late. Upwork had the perfect opportunity to address our concerns and respond appropriately, but they gave us Steve's reply instead. And what about all the follow-up issues that others have raised in this thread, not to mention all the continuing site problems that have been brought up in the forums?

 

The trust is gone, and it's only a matter of time before some other "little" secret is revealed or before Upwork announces another awful "feature." The site is no longer what it was, and it would be extremely foolish -- like I've been -- to focus on it exclusively.

 

I'm not pretending it's easy to find work off the site, but it will be worth not having to deal with messes and disappointments like this!


 I'm still waiting for someone to explain why a list of skills so strange appears when I searched for my profile (and someone else's ...)

I believe Petra's words reflect what we all think - 

"I really appreciate the outcome (although realistically once the cat was out of the bag that was the only possible outcome eventually) but trust has been lost. For Upwork to actually have done this in the first place, and for Upwork actually not seeing anything wrong with it (!!!!!) means that Upwork has lost a lot of trust points, at least for me. 

 

I am, to be honest, deeply disappointed.  Not with the outcome of this thread, but with the fact that it happened in the first place."

 

What it comes down to is we have all lost any semblance of trust and trust is any site's most valuable commodity.

So true. I have lost trust for upwork. I was a big advocate in telling
persons about another way to make a living, however with what was happening
I stopped. I fell out of love with upwork. The whole process took away
more than time just time,money,creative juices and effort.
It took away for me Hope. Not all of us live in countries where the job
market is exceptional, so upwork was a great marketplace to search for and
establish a career.

And when I looked on how far I've come with upwork and for hundreds of my
proposals to be archived, or for my profile to be hidden from clients, its
its just down right hurtful.

I am happy they say that the issue is fixed but how can I forget this?

Regards
Ex lover of upwork.

Soooooo...

 

In situations where a client has not archived a proposal, and with the TSs are no longer archiving proposals, can Upwork please  confirm that there is NO WAY for proposals to end up in the archived folder?

 


Wendy C wrote:

I believe Petra's words reflect what we all think - 

"I really appreciate the outcome (although realistically once the cat was out of the bag that was the only possible outcome eventually) but trust has been lost. For Upwork to actually have done this in the first place, and for Upwork actually not seeing anything wrong with it (!!!!!) means that Upwork has lost a lot of trust points, at least for me. 

 

I am, to be honest, deeply disappointed.  Not with the outcome of this thread, but with the fact that it happened in the first place."

 

"What it comes down to is we have all lost any semblance of trust and trust is any site's most valuable commodity"

 

Yes, and on top of that going forward, it's going to be very hard to believe what is told to us in the forums, by people (not naming titles) who are asked by Upwork higher-ups to offer lies and/or half-truths in answer to our questions. Of course, considering this fiasco ... perhaps they were lied to as well.


 

The operative phrase at the moment seems to be...silence is golden

 


Irene B wrote:

The operative phrase at the moment seems to be...silence is golden

 


Which is precisely why we need to keep making noise about this egregious practice, done by Upwork behind our backs. So I'll post these two questions again and again until we get an answer:

 

A few questions:

1) Is Upwork going to address the question of paid-for connects on bids that were trashed?

2) Is Upwork planning to improve the talent specialist experience?

 

It's telling that these two questions haven't been answered. Despite the so-called conclusion to this fiasco, many of us would still like more clarity. I'm guessing the paid-for connects thing is a can of worms Upwork is afraid (or doesn't want) to open.

I had a fascinating (lengthy) conversation last night (note: just a conversation, not an official consultation) with a practicing attorney. (Ivy-League-educated; top-ten law school honors graduate; practices in a serious NYC firm.)

 

When I showed this attorney UW's ToS and then had him read through this thread, his response (aside from some excellent questions and general bemusement) was this:

 

"I can pretty much guarantee you that behind closed doors, their attorneys' heads are exploding and they are screaming: 'NO! You CANNOT DO THIS! Like, What the (F)?!??!?'  But that's not how attorneys really speak to clients. We don't like to tell clients what they CAN'T do. We like to say: 'Weeelllll, ummm, you can't really do this... But here is what you can do...' "

 

(Makes me wish for a response to the question of whether or not a new practice has replaced the now-discontinued practice of employees designated as Talent Specialists doing what they have termed archiving. That is: Is there a new practice that has replaced the now-discontinued practice of "archiving"?)

 

Meanwhile, the attorney's opinion was also as follows: "This isn't even a close call. They [UW] simply CANNOT be doing this. The question of damages is separate, of course. But this is just not even close. I'm telling you, their attorneys are having fits over this."


Janean L wrote:

I had a fascinating (lengthy) conversation last night (note: just a conversation, not an official consultation) with a practicing attorney. (Ivy-League-educated; top-ten law school honors graduate; practices in a serious NYC firm.)

 

When I showed this attorney UW's ToS and then had him read through this thread, his response (aside from some excellent questions and general bemusement) was this:

 

"I can pretty much guarantee you that behind closed doors, their attorneys' heads are exploding and they are screaming: 'NO! You CANNOT DO THIS! Like, What the (F)?!??!?'  But that's not how attorneys really speak to clients. We don't like to tell clients what they CAN'T do. We like to say: 'Weeelllll, ummm, you can't really do this... But here is what you can do...' "

 

(Makes me wish for a response to the question of whether or not a new practice has replaced the now-discontinued practice of employees designated as Talent Specialists doing what they have termed archiving. That is: Is there a new practice that has replaced the now-discontinued practice of "archiving"?)

 

Meanwhile, the attorney's opinion was also as follows: "This isn't even a close call. They [UW] simply CANNOT be doing this. The question of damages is separate, of course. But this is just not even close. I'm telling you, their attorneys are having fits over this."


 It's been many years since I practiced law, but since shifting fields I've worked with several leading consumer protection attorneys in the creation of educational materials, both for consumers and other attorneys.  What Janean has posted exactly matches my assessment. The only difference is that I believe that there may be quantifiable damages due to freelancers having purchased connects and then had proposals secretly archived. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that there is a class investigation quietly underway as we speak, working to determine whether there are viable damage claims.

@Tiffany:

re: "The only difference is that I believe that there may be quantifiable damages"

 

There is actually no difference of opinion, here. My interlocutor's point re: damages was that damages might be difficult to prove, in some cases (e.g., he noted that courts dislike getting into "lost opportunity" costs/damages), and that damages could be small for any given individual.


Janean L wrote:

@Tiffany:

re: "The only difference is that I believe that there may be quantifiable damages"

 

There is actually no difference of opinion, here. My interlocutor's point re: damages was that damages might be difficult to prove, in some cases (e.g., he noted that courts dislike getting into "lost opportunity" costs/damages), and that damages could be small for any given individual.


 You're right, we're entirely in agreement, then. That's why I thought it would likely emerge as a class claim--one of the core purposes of class action litigation is to allow consumers whose damages are too small to warrant individual litigation to pursue relief.


Janean L wrote:

I had a fascinating (lengthy) conversation last night (note: just a conversation, not an official consultation) with a practicing attorney. (Ivy-League-educated; top-ten law school honors graduate; practices in a serious NYC firm.)

 

"I can pretty much guarantee you that behind closed doors, their attorneys' heads are exploding and they are screaming: 'NO! You CANNOT DO THIS! Like, What the (F)?!??!?'


 Funnily enough I was chatting (not consulting) with an old friend who is a lawyer (well, actually she is an ADA) in the USA about this nonsense last week and she said the same. 

 


Janean L wrote:

(Makes me wish for a response to the question of whether or not a new practice has replaced the now-discontinued practice of employees designated as Talent Specialists doing what they have termed archiving. That is: Is there a new practice that has replaced the now-discontinued practice of "archiving"?)


 Well, the lack of any answer to the direct and very easily answered question is an answer in itself.

Maybe the so-called TS don't archive anymore, and that job is given to an algorithm instead.

 

 

+ 1 to Petra's comment "the lack of any answer to the direct and very easily answered question is an answer in itself."

I wonder if UW would like to comment on the 'hidden' folder...you know, the one where applications are deemed 'not qualified'...and how your algorithm actually goes about determining who is qualified or not...I do know machine learning is quite far advanced in many cases...but let us be quite frank...an algorithm is only as good as the people who write it...and UW constantly has bugs - you get my point? And, so btw...that little, hidden folder - where you have to press 'more' and that is filled with your 'unqualifieds'...is basically doing the same as your much (un)lauded 'specialists' that have been a pain in so many freelancers' side...in effect...it is using an algorithm to do the 'specialists' so-called 'job', with these proposals STILL in effect being archived (a rose by any other name and all that....), and UW StILL thus interfering in the hiring process...

It just came to my knowledge that other than the "Archived" folder there is a folder called "Shortlisted" which Talent Specialists use to shortlist and recommend certain freelancers to the client!

⋰⋱⋰⋱⋰⋱⋰⋱⋰⋱⋰⋱⋰⋱

Not only Talent Specilist send proposals to the hidden folder. It's some kind of automatized mechanism. And it's really terrible. I saw a client complining because the freelancers that Upwork marked as "best matches" were obvious fakers on a forum. 

 

And Upworks still fails to understand that the problem is the lack of control over the immense amount of new freelancers that sign in every day. There is no control there. Instead, they are chasing top rated freelancers with more and more verifications. Those who have proven their quality with their work.

 

This is very discouraging. 


Ahmed F wrote:

It just came to my knowledge that other than the "Archived" folder there is a folder called "Shortlisted" which Talent Specialists use to shortlist and recommend certain freelancers to the client!


 Ahmed, in the interest of documentation, would you please share how this came to your attention and other relevant specifics? E.g. does this happen only when the client requests TS assistance, or does it happen regardless of the client's wishes and/or knowledge?

thx


Phyllis G wrote:

Ahmed F wrote:

It just came to my knowledge that other than the "Archived" folder there is a folder called "Shortlisted" which Talent Specialists use to shortlist and recommend certain freelancers to the client!


 Ahmed, in the interest of documentation, would you please share how this came to your attention and other relevant specifics? E.g. does this happen only when the client requests TS assistance, or does it happen regardless of the client's wishes and/or knowledge?

thx


Hi Phyllis—I cannot provide further information on this matter since I am in the process of taking this to court. It is up to Upwork representatives to answer your questions. Thank you for understanding.

⋰⋱⋰⋱⋰⋱⋰⋱⋰⋱⋰⋱⋰⋱


Ahmed F wrote:

It just came to my knowledge that other than the "Archived" folder there is a folder called "Shortlisted" which Talent Specialists use to shortlist and recommend certain freelancers to the client!


There is, indeed, a Shortlisted folder along with the Archived folder. They have been here all the time. Clients can browse the applicants and shortlist or archive them. It's actually a very useful feature meant to help clients sort proposals.

 

Here are the available folders for a job posting on the client dashboard:

 

Folders.png

 

I know nothing about Talent Specialists activities other than what Upwork confessed, but it is possible, and actually very probable, that since they were archiving the proposals they thought were irrelevant, they were also shortlisting the ones they saw as good fits.

-----------
"Where darkness shines like dazzling light"   â€”William Ashbless


Rene K wrote:

Ahmed F wrote:

It just came to my knowledge that other than the "Archived" folder there is a folder called "Shortlisted" which Talent Specialists use to shortlist and recommend certain freelancers to the client!


There is, indeed, a Shortlisted folder along with the Archived folder. They have been here all the time. Clients can browse the applicants and shortlist or archive them. It's actually a very useful feature meant to help clients sort proposals.

 

Here are the available folders for a job posting on the client dashboard:

 

Folders.png

 

I know nothing about Talent Specialists activities other than what Upwork confessed, but it is possible, and actually very probable, that since they were archiving the proposals they thought were irrelevant, they were also shortlisting the ones they saw as good fits.


Thank you for sharing, Rene ... it's an eye opener for those of us who don't have client accounts. It's nice to think the "talent specialists" (who shall remain in quotes until our questions about them are answered) are choosing good fits ... but are they always? Not knowing how these decisions are made s___s.

Wall, Upwork said that Talent Specialists are not archiving proposals anymore, so I guess that's a good thing. I know squat about lawsuits in the U.S., but if the TS interference is over, I'm fine.

-----------
"Where darkness shines like dazzling light"   â€”William Ashbless
Latest Articles
Featured Topics
Learning Paths