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]

---

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

[#3]

---

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.

[#4]

---

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:

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.

[#5]

---

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:

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.

[#6]

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.

[#7]

---

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:

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.

---

If you are a member of one of the Premium Programs, your designated Talent Agent (not specialist!) can/will shortlist your proposal if you inform them that you have applied for a certain job & send them the link to the posting. It's been like that for a while.

Being shortlisted has NEVER, not once, helped me in any way. Just saying.

[#8]

---

Ela K wrote:

---

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:

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.

---

If you are a member of one of the Premium Programs, your designated Talent Agent (not specialist!) can/will shortlist your proposal if you inform them that you have applied for a certain job & send them the link to the posting. It's been like that for a while.

Being shortlisted has NEVER, not once, helped me in any way. Just saying.

---

 Good to know!

[#9]

---

Petra R wrote:

---

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.

---

Well, if you go back to page 26 of this thread and read Maria T's last comment you'll have your answer right there. Yes, they are still making proposals less visible and labelling/marking them (wrongly) as 'unqualified".

[#10]

Can someone from UW please answer:
Are those "Talent Specialists" involved in any way, shape or form without client specifically asking for their "help"?
if the answer is "yes" - then please explain how and to what extent. What exactly are they doing (archiving, re-arranging, suggesting) and what exactly are their qualifications - do they cover only one category, or  several categories?
Judging by invites I got from talent specialists - I don't think they're detail oriented - and sometimes it looked like they didn't even read my profile or job description....

[#11]

Rene, thanks for the visual of the available folders for a job posting on the client dashboard.

I have to  wonder why U. mods failed to share something this basic nearly 30 pages ago ...

[#12]

---

Wendy C wrote:

Rene, thanks for the visual of the available folders for a job posting on the client dashboard.

I have to  wonder why U. mods failed to share something this basic nearly 30 pages ago ...

---

Because they like keeping us in the darK? Because they don't care about our stress level? What I wonder about is the "All Proposals" folder. Doesn't all mean all?

[#13]

---

Virginia F wrote:

---

 What I wonder about is the "All Proposals" folder. Doesn't all mean all?

---

 .

[#14]

Actually, proposals that are sent to the end of the list (almost hidden) and labeled as "this freelancer doesn't meet the requirements" are included in the first column, and from what I've heard, I seems that an algorithm does the dirty work.

The day that Upworks understand the importance of having good staff to take charge of the important tasks, many things will improve. 

The irony is that they sell staff to other companies. 

[#15]

That's really encouraging...
ok - at this point, I really see no reason to apply for jobs on Upwork - nor to pay for the membership. I have 200 connects as it is -  that itself explains a lot regarding the quality of jobs posted here. And for those few jobs I find interesting - my experience in the last 6 months is telling me that most (if not all)  of my proposals ended up in  "no-no" folder...

[#16 · Accepted solution]

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.

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.

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.

[#17]

---

Lena E wrote:

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.  

Except, of course, that we've learned in the course of this thread that at least some clients had no idea it was happening. It's a bit disingenuous to claim that no real harm was done since clients could just pop over to the archive tab when clients were given no reason to realize they had to look somewhere other than in the misleadingly-titled "all proposals."

[#18]

Lena wrote:

"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."

___________________________________

 How do these Talent Specialists actually become "specialists"? What exactly is their training? There seem to be so many of them that it is unlikely they are receiving hands-on training or experience at Upwork's head office and their training can't be very lengthy either. What does it consist of - a few generic phrases and basic guidelines?

Now that they will no longer be archiving proposals they consider unsuitable, what will they be doing? 

[#19]

---

Nichola L wrote:

 How do these Talent Specialists actually become "specialists"? What exactly is their training? There seem to be so many of them that it is unlikely they are receiving hands-on training or experience at Upwork's head office and their training can't be very lengthy either. What does it consist of - a few generic phrases and basic guidelines?

Well, we know for sure that it doesn't consist of "send web design jobs to web designers, not writers."

[#20]

---

Tiffany S wrote:

---

Lena E wrote:

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.  

Except, of course, that we've learned in the course of this thread that at least some clients had no idea it was happening. It's a bit disingenuous to claim that no real harm was done since clients could just pop over to the archive tab when clients were given no reason to realize they had to look somewhere other than in the misleadingly-titled "all proposals."

---

What Tiffany said, times 1,000. The only possible clue that the 'Archived' folder contains proposals that are not also present in the 'All' folder is if the number in the Archived folder is higher than the number in the 'All' folder. That might give a client pause IF they notice it, because it's counter-intuitive. But they have to notice it, first.

I wish UW would develop a different ethic about how to cope with unintended consequences (whether the consequence in question is that they fumbled something or that we found out about it). 

[#21]

Lena writes: "These proposals were archived, not deleted, which means clients still had full access to all submitted proposals..."

It seems to me that Upwork may be conflating the idea of "full access" with the concept of "direct access."

Once again, I call attention to UpWork's Terms of Service Section 2.1, in which UpWork clearly states that "Upwork... makes the Site and Site Services available to enable Freelancers and Clients to find and transact directly with each other [and that] Upwork does not... find Freelancers for Clients" and that "at all times... [u]sers are responsible for evaluating and determining the suitability of any... Freelancer on their own." 

Section 2.1 uses the term "directly" three separate times in describing the Freelancer-Client relationship as facilitated by Upwork.

True story:  When I was a teenager and a college student, I worked in my hometown library after school and during school vacations. We had variously designated sub-collections that were sometimes difficult for our patrons to locate: the "LP" (large-print) books were kept on shelves behind the mysteries; the "FOLIO" books were oversized and thus located in a special set of shelving. The "X" Collection was a set of books that contained somewhat "naughty" or sexually explicit content and that tended to "wander off" if we left them out with the general non-fiction books. We kept the "X" Collection behind the circulation desk, and anyone who held an adult library card (over the age of 13) was free to check out any book from this collection -- he or she had only to ask. Of course, some patrons didn't know that they had to ask. Some patrons didn't WANT to ask. And some patrons didn't mind asking me (a then-teenaged girl), but didn't want to ask the intimidating older ladies who worked at the circulation desk.

So: It could accurately be said that our library patrons had "full access" to the "X" Collection, but not "direct access" to those books.

[#22]

---

Lena E wrote: 

 

The All Proposals list displays Best match as the default sorting order.

Great. So the default sort mode for proposals is based on an Upwork matching algorithm, which is the only way they could possibly be ranked worse than by a "talent specialist." Nothing about an Upwork matching algorithm can be described as "best."

[#23]

I can't believe this! So there is indeed an algorithm saying who the best match is!

Just like Michael said, that is indeed worse than a TS. How the algorithm determines who the best is? Just because some freelancers have certain keywords in their profiles and others don't? Just because someone has 600 jobs done and another has 6? Can the algorithm reads proposals?  This is beyond words.

[#24]

Here's another point about the algorithms: Presumably, the algorithms take the profiles at face value. If (just for instance) a freelancer lists his or her English skills as "Native/Bilingual," then the algorithm would (presumably) make a "best match" assumption based on that assertion of English skill level as a fact. However, many of us have gritted our teeth and torn out clumps of hair as we read posts in these very forums, written by freelancers who claim to be "Native/Bilingual" speakers of English who (in point of fact) actually produce barely-intelligible Google-translated near-gibberish.

[#25]

---

Sergio S wrote:

I can't believe this! So there is indeed an algorithm saying who the best match is!

---

It's been there from the beginning. In my limited experience in hiring on UW, I don't remember having had much to complain about the sorting algorithm. I don't know how it works, but it is possible that it uses the JSS and the Clients who would recommend you metrics.  

What I don't understand is why some are presented with a different background:

What are the exact criteria the algorithm uses to put the Best Match badge on the top left and what do colored backgrounds mean are unknowns.

Edit: this is an old job posting, the JSS levels that one can guess on this picture are as of today, not as of the date of posting. Since the job is closed, the list ordering is kinda frozen, but people's JSSes aren't

[#26]

---

Rene K wrote:

---

Sergio S wrote:

I can't believe this! So there is indeed an algorithm saying who the best match is!

---

It's been there from the beginning. In my limited experience in hiring on UW, I don't remember having had much to complain about the sorting algorithm. I don't know how it works, but it is possible that it uses the JSS and the Clients who would recommend you metrics.  

What I don't understand is why some are presented with a different background:

What are the exact criteria the algorithm uses to put the Best Match badge on the top left and what do colored backgrounds mean are unknowns.

Edit: this is an old job posting, the JSS levels that one can guess on this picture are as of today, not as of the date of posting. Since the job is closed, the list ordering is kinda frozen, but people's JSSes aren't

---

Just like all the other questions posted to this thread, yet another one remains unanswered. Is this the end of this discussion?

Why the different background color? What is the criteria the algorithm uses for "best match". Rene is not the only one who wants to know.