My proposals are archived!

[#1]

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?

[#2]

---

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.

[#3]

🙂

[#4]

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

[#5]

---

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 ...

[#6]

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"...

[#7]

@Petra R +1000

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

[#8]

---

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. 

[#9]

---

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.

[#10]

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!

[#11]

---

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 ...)

[#12]

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.

[#13]

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.

[#14]

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?

[#15]

---

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.

---

[#16]

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

[#17]

---

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.

[#18]

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."

[#19]

---

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.

[#20]

@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.

[#21]

---

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.

[#22]

---

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.

[#23]

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

[#24]

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...

[#25]

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!

[#26]

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.