6 connects for Entry level job?

[#1]

I just came across a job where client is looking for entry level freelancers but cost of posting proposal is 6 connects??

what exactly is going on? why 6 connects for entry level job?

[#2]

---

ziad a wrote:
Life of freelancers would be much easier if the managers would not think about just filling up their wallets

---

You know that Upwork is a business, right?

[#3]

---

---

You know that Upwork is a business, right?

---

Dimitri, it's a business, that's why they cut 20 percent of our income, right? To apply and not get the job means 1 dollar lost. Imagine how many people are applying, at times even more than 50. And only 1 is being hired. Get my point?

[#4]

---

ziad a wrote:
Life of freelancers would be much easier if the managers would not think about just filling up their wallets and value other's opinion in their decision-making.

---

So, you think that Upwork should continue to lose millions of dollars every month to appease people who are not making it any money and are customers it does not want? Can you explain why?

[#5]

---

---

So, you think that Upwork should continue to lose millions of dollars every month to appease people who are not making it any money and are customers it does not want? Can you explain why?

---

You are very naive. Upwork was making millions of dollars before and they have doubled that now. What have we gained? They are not appeasing anyone by cutting 20 percent of our income. Now they are hungry for more. Got your explanation?

[#6]

Where can I see that Upwork is losing millions?

[#7]

"The algorithm that determines the connects is flawed"

Yes it is - VERY FLAWED. When do you folks plan to fix it so it goes back to the 2 Tokens per proposal? It seems at just about every turn upwork makes it very difficult to succed within this marketplace. 

[#8]

---

Petra R wrote:

---

Rahul V wrote:

I just came across a job where client is looking for entry level freelancers but cost of posting proposal is 6 connects??

---

An entry-level job can last for months or years and be worth hundreds or thousands.

What's your point? The algorithm that determines the connects is flawed, but nobody ever suggested it had anything to do with whether the job was entry-level or expert.

Petra, what's the point of your argument? There must be reasons behind the current connects application policy, it must have something to do with something (?) and if that something is not do with the level of freelancer required, then it seems very, very odd.

Surely there is some reasoned logic behind it rather than being (as currently appears to be the case), completely arbitrary.

Just set a flat rate cost for every job and all of this becomes completely superfluous.

---

[#9]

---

Richard S wrote:

---

Petra R wrote:

---

Rahul V wrote:

I just came across a job where client is looking for entry level freelancers but cost of posting proposal is 6 connects??

---

An entry-level job can last for months or years and be worth hundreds or thousands.

What's your point? The algorithm that determines the connects is flawed, but nobody ever suggested it had anything to do with whether the job was entry-level or expert.

Petra, what's the point of your argument? There must be reasons behind the current connects application policy, it must have something to do with something (?) and if that something is not do with the level of freelancer required, then it seems very, very odd.

Surely there is some reasoned logic behind it rather than being (as currently appears to be the case), completely arbitrary.

Just set a flat rate cost for every job and all of this becomes completely superfluous.

---

---

In fairness to you, the original announcement thread about the cost of connects is now several tetrazillion pages long, so it's reasonable you might have missed UW's purported logic for pricing proposals. We're told the number of connects required depends on the value of the project as evidenced by the budget and expected duration indicated in the job post. That's why it's such a hot mess--many (in some categories, most or even virtually all) clients don't know what the project is going to cost or how long it's going to take. They may try to estimate those variables in their job post, or may just throw in placeholders and/or whatever default answer comes to hand. Further confounding the whole thing, if a job post does not attract enough interest from FLs, UW will discount it. So, theoretically, different FLs could be required to spend different amounts of connects to apply to the same job.

I agree a flat rate would be better. Meanwhile, if everyone will just budget for six connects/proposal, they can redirect the complaining to other issues.

[#10]

If the amount of connects per job is based on the worth and length of the whole project, and clients don't know what it will be - then the project should be closed after running its course by reaching the value indicated in the initial proposal.

That is: if a project value has a placeholder worth of $5 written in it, then applying for it should cost 1 connect. And milestones no bigger than 5$ in total (whether 5x 1$ or 1x 5$) should be allowed in it. After reaching $5 the client can choose to resubmit the job proposal for others to apply again.

[#11]

---

Pavlo L wrote:

If the amount of connects per job is based on the worth and length of the whole project, and clients don't know what it will be - then the project should be closed after running its course by reaching the value indicated in the initial proposal.

That is: if a project value has a placeholder worth of $5 written in it, then applying for it should cost 1 connect. And milestones no bigger than 5$ in total (whether 5x 1$ or 1x 5$) should be allowed in it. After reaching $5 the client can choose to resubmit the job proposal for others to apply again.

---

You think it's a bright idea to penalise people who post projects for several thousand dollars with a placeholder of $5? You want people's earnings restricted to the lowest amount possible? So if this was a book (for example) you think it would be a bright idea to change writers after every few words?

If such a system were in operation, what sane person would bid?

[#12]

---

Kim F wrote:

---

Pavlo L wrote:

If the amount of connects per job is based on the worth and length of the whole project, and clients don't know what it will be - then the project should be closed after running its course by reaching the value indicated in the initial proposal.

That is: if a project value has a placeholder worth of $5 written in it, then applying for it should cost 1 connect. And milestones no bigger than 5$ in total (whether 5x 1$ or 1x 5$) should be allowed in it. After reaching $5 the client can choose to resubmit the job proposal for others to apply again.

---

You think it's a bright idea to penalise people who post projects for several thousand dollars with a placeholder of $5? You want people's earnings restricted to the lowest amount possible? So if this was a book (for example) you think it would be a bright idea to change writers after every few words?

If such a system were in operation, what sane person would bid?

---

I do hope you have read what Phyllis wrote about Upworks position (taken from the "tetrazillion pages long" thread about the cost of connects): the amount of connects is in a strict connection to the project length and worth.

To address your concerns: it is my belief, that after running a 5$ job (while not knowing the length of the project), and stumbling upon a freelancer who shows promise (which can be proved by him completing the 5$ task); the same job can then be again published, with a reasonable worth and length, while being worth 5 or even 6 connects.

And naturally, the person with whom the client was impressed will have a great chance to get the job immediately, without his income being restricted, or "the author of the book" being changed.

Being that many jobs require a test assignment or even testing period - this could be a way of making sure that it is a paid test, just as the Upwork rules demand. And being forced to place jobs over and over again may get the clients to put more thought into the project length before posting it.

I am getting ahead of myself, but this may produce a whole new category of job "castings" to replace the old testing system. Those "castings" could then go into the portfolio as the test assignment with the freelancers answers, which other clients can see. Those could be written texts or graphics, as well as audio files or even video material, captured by the Upwork desktop app.

[#13]

---

Pavlo L wrote:

---

---

I do hope you have read what Phyllis wrote about Upworks position (taken from the "tetrazillion pages long" thread about the cost of connects): the amount of connects is in a strict connection to the project length and worth.

To address your concerns: it is my belief, that after running a 5$ job (while not knowing the length of the project), and stumbling upon a freelancer who shows promise (which can be proved by him completing the 5$ task); the same job can then be again published, with a reasonable worth and length, while being worth 5 or even 6 connects.

And naturally, the person with whom the client was impressed will have a great chance to get the job immediately, without his income being restricted, or "the author of the book" being changed.

Being that many jobs require a test assignment or even testing period - this could be a way of making sure that it is a paid test, just as the Upwork rules demand. And being forced to place jobs over and over again may get the clients to put more thought into the project length before posting it.

I am getting ahead of myself, but this may produce a whole new category of job "castings" to replace the old testing system. Those "castings" could then go into the portfolio as the test assignment with the freelancers answers, which other clients can see. Those could be written texts or graphics, as well as audio files or even video material, captured by the Upwork desktop app.

---

Here's a better idea: Why not just accept the fact that most good jobs will cost 6 connects, and increase your hourly rate slightly, in order to cover your costs? 

[#14]

---

Christine A wrote:

---

---

Here's a better idea: Why not just accept the fact that most good jobs will cost 6 connects, and increase your hourly rate slightly, in order to cover your costs? 

---

I do hope you have read the quite short text of the initial thread, in which the author demands to know - why the bidding fee for an entry level job is 6 connects. Taking this and all the following answers into account renders your idea from its "betterness".

[#15]

I understand how the connects calculation works. What you describe would make bidding much more expensive.

Applying for the $5 project would cost 1 connect. Completing a $5 project would often be worth more than $5 and so cause the freelancer to lose money. Then they’d have to spend 5-6 connects to apply to the same project again.

> Being that many jobs require a test assignment or even testing period

And many don’t. Even if they do, the test is often worth far more than $5.

> And being forced to place jobs over and over again may get the clients to put more thought into the project length before posting it.

However hard a client thinks, they can’t know what they don’t know. Hence a placeholder bid for freelancers to suggest a rate. You can’t force clients to place jobs over and over again. They’ll simply go elsewhere.

> I am getting ahead of myself, but this may produce a whole new category of job "castings" to replace the old testing system. Those "castings" could then go into the portfolio as the test assignment with the freelancers answers, which other clients can see.

Apart from the fact that this removes the freelancer’s power to decide what goes into their portfolio, how can terms of NDAs then be met?

The only sensible answer to the situation when someone doesn’t know how much a project is likely to cost is to allow a ‘don’t know’ or ‘open to negotiation’ option. As that isn’t currently possible, a placeholder has to be used.

[Luis B]

---

Kim F wrote:

I understand how the connects calculation works. What you describe would make bidding much more expensive.

Well, why not describe it to us in your own words? This would clear the question asked in this thread much-much sooner.

Applying for the $5 project would cost 1 connect. Completing a $5 project would often be worth more than $5 and so cause the freelancer to lose money. Then they’d have to spend 5-6 connects to apply to the same project again. 

If the suggested system would be in place - no freelancer would be willing to complete more than $5 worth work for a project which is worth $5, provided correct Indication in the User Interface is in place when a job is accepted or a milestones is negotiated.

Right now all entry level jobs are worth 6 connects. And there is no solution offered for the issue of "placeholder job worth". What would your solution be, if you don't like what I have suggested?

---

> Being that many jobs require a test assignment or even testing period

And many don’t. Even if they do, the test is often worth far more than $5.

I don't know what you are trying to prove by taking a phrase out of context and stating the obvious. Maybe you have a solution to replace the discarded test system? If a test is worth more - it will be valued as being worth more.

But, in my point of view, taking part in a "casting" or "test" could be done apart from the jobs; to which, I might add, the casting and test-assignment system seem to be glued at the moment. Furthermore - it could be done outside of the connects system or the tests would be worth something like 1 connect, if anything.

However hard a client thinks, they can’t know what they don’t know. Hence a placeholder bid for freelancers to suggest a rate. You can’t force clients to place jobs over and over again. They’ll simply go elsewhere.

---

Right now freelancers like Active Member Luis B below says he won't accept jobs on Upwork unless they "fix the system". What good is that to the client? Or to Upwork? My suggestion is to address the matter of clients not knowing and freelancers paying 6 connects for a 5$ or a $500 job. Maybe you have another solution in mind, or you don't see that as a problem?

Apart from the fact that this removes the freelancer’s power to decide what goes into their portfolio, how can terms of NDAs then be met?

---

Now this is quite silly. When the test have been in place you could hide the results you didn't want showing up. I hope you didn't write this just to create a stack of arguments, however viable, to put against me. Or that it isn't because you haven't been here long enough to know, because arguing about new implementations with a new person doesn't seem worthwhile to me.

If such a task would be set - there would be ways to meet NDA's requirement. But if you can't see further than the fuctionality that was already present when I joined Upwork - then I don't see the point of dwelling into it.

I have no reason to think that those threads are being read or taken seriously. Or that they will be taken into account when developing Upwork in order to grow further. But if so - I am ready for a test assignment 😉

[#17]

I’m not here to do tests, even if they’re called something else. (Though I’m starting to wonder if people should pass a test before posting on the forum.) And I’m certainly not here to waste time ‘earning’ $5. It would make it MORE EXPENSIVE to bid on projects.

Clients want their projects done and freelancers want to get on with working. It’s hardly a perfect system, but it won’t be improved by forcing people to jump through hoops and do tests and by delaying the completion of projects.

I don't know how long you think people have to be here before having an opinion, but my account was transferred from Elance in 2015. I'd been there since 2005. It’s going to be really quiet here if you only want people who’ve been around for longer posting.

But you’re obviously trolling because no-one could be that obtuse. So that’s me done.

[#18]

---

Pavlo L wrote:

If the amount of connects per job is based on the worth and length of the whole project, and clients don't know what it will be - then the project should be closed after running its course by reaching the value indicated in the initial proposal.

That is: if a project value has a placeholder worth of $5 written in it, then applying for it should cost 1 connect. And milestones no bigger than 5$ in total (whether 5x 1$ or 1x 5$) should be allowed in it. After reaching $5 the client can choose to resubmit the job proposal for others to apply again.

---

As a freelancer and a client - I give this suggestion every single nope of every colour that has ever existed and ever will exist. 

Just - nope. Lots and lots of nopes. All of them

Noooooo. 

We need to make everything as easy as possible for clients. They are the ones creating jobs and we want them to create MORE jobs. We do not want to be scaring them away. Upwork should not implement unnecessary procedures that only serve to make things unnecessarily awkward for clients that may well end up just going elsewhere.

I think the connects system probably does need revisiting, but this is not the solution. Paying clients should not be penalised, even if the penalty is no more than an inconvenience. 

[#19]

It could well massively backfire anyway - clients would likely start putting high place-holders to avoid the hassle of having to close contracts and start again. 

[#20]

---

Jamie F wrote:

It could well massively backfire anyway

---

And the system in place is working just dandy, didn't backfire at all?

As a freelancer you should be able to judge this accordingly and may even look elswhere, especially for entry level jobs.

As a client who is looking for entry level freelancers you are given less by paying the same, since freelancers are feeling left out and go elswhere.

How do you reckon is this fair to any of the parties, both of which you presume to be able to represent? And the question I ask everyone: what would you suggest in order to tackle the issue from the initial message of this thread, and maybe those I have touched upon?

[#21]

---

Pavlo L wrote:

---

Jamie F wrote:

It could well massively backfire anyway

---

And the system in place is working just dandy, didn't backfire at all?

---

In which way did it misfire?

---

Pavlo L wrote:
Petra, as a top rated "solution finder" here on the Upwork forum - what would you suggest to address the issue in the topic, or the ones I propose to tackle by implementing a realistic project length and worth? I would love to hear your input.

---

---

Assume that a proposal costs 6 connects and build into in your rates. If you are in the market sector Upwork would rather get rid of (cheap freelancers and the clients that hire them for small / cheap contracts) - look elswhere.

As usual in business: Adapt or Abandon.

[#22]

---

Petra R wrote:

---

---

In which way did it misfire?

Assume that a proposal costs 6 connects and build into in your rates. If you are in the market sector Upwork would rather get rid of (cheap freelancers and the clients that hire them for small / cheap contracts) - look elswhere.

As usual in business: Adapt or Abandon.

---

Ah, so it isn't Upworks position, that connects should represent the length and value of a project. Phyllis has misinterpreted their reply on the lengthy thread about connects, or is simply lying to us then, right?

So, if this is just an elaborate way of Upwork saying "sod off", then of course, I choose Adapt.

But can I get a quote on this agenda you assume Upwork is taking?

Here's a post from up above in this very thread, about the backfire:

https://community.upwork.com/t5/Freelancers/6-connects-for-Entry-level-job/m-p/660636/highlight/true...

But if people are just being told to go elswhere with their cheapo jobs and bids (and you can provide a link on that being the position of Upwork) - then you're absolutely right, no backfire occured.

If not - you didn't offer a solution to any of the problems raised, Solution Finder.

[#23]

---

---

Pavlo L wrote:

---

Jamie F wrote:

It could well massively backfire anyway

---

And the system in place is working just dandy, didn't backfire at all?

I didn't say it is dandy, did I? I acknowledged it has its problems, but your recommendation is not the solution. 

As a freelancer you should be able to judge this accordingly and may even look elswhere, especially for entry level jobs.

Fine. Upwork has too many freelancers. As it happens, connects are intended to limit applications. If freelancers leave then that's less competition for me. 

As a client who is looking for entry level freelancers you are given less by paying the same, since freelancers are feeling left out and go elswhere.

Again, connect were introduced with the deliberate intention of limiting applications. Clients were being swamped with spam and poor quality applicants.

How do you reckon is this fair to any of the parties, both of which you presume to be able to represent?
Who said it has to be  fair? Although if the system eliminates much of the competition than that's all good for me as a freelancer. 

And the question I ask everyone: what would you suggest in order to tackle the issue from the initial message of this thread, and maybe those I have touched upon?
I don't have a suggestion - other than not implementing your suggestions. 

---

---

[#24]

---

Jamie F wrote:

---

---

And the question I ask everyone: what would you suggest in order to tackle the issue from the initial message of this thread, and maybe those I have touched upon?

---

---

---

I suggest that Upwork should just charge a flat 90 cents per proposal instead of relying on clients to determine the project's worth. That would simplify things, don't you think?

[#25]

---

Jamie F wrote:

---

---

I didn't say it is dandy, did I? I acknowledged it has its problems, but your recommendation is not the solution. 

Ah, so the "I have no idea how, but not like you say" approach, I see. Not one that I take particular fancy in, to be completely honest with you - whatever you say after this loses its value to me. For what can a person implement, if he can only naysay without the ability to create his own? Not much, really. But nevertheless, let's finish this one at least:

Fine. Upwork has too many freelancers. As it happens, connects are intended to limit applications. If freelancers leave then that's less competition for me. 

Again, connect were introduced with the deliberate intention of limiting applications. Clients were being swamped with spam and poor quality applicants.

Who said it has to be  fair? Although if the system eliminates much of the competition than that's all good for me as a freelancer. 

I don't have a suggestion - other than not implementing your suggestions. 

---

 

---

---

My suggestion was built on what Phyllis fished out from the initial discussion on raising the connect cost of a bid. The official position of Upwork is, that the algorythm is built on the project length and worth, to which many clients reply - we don't know the length and worth.

Therefore I say - build the algorythm on what is declared by the client. If $5 then let the bidding be worth 1 connect and the project be ended at $5. This may also be a way of attracting bids, or people completing $5 test assignments. And if $500 is declared - then 6 connects are required and a $500 "long" project takes place.

Your only argument, apart from "do whatever just not what he says" is that it is an inconvenience for clients. Well I tell you: losing freelancers, who grow from $5 projects into $5000 projects, but start low, from those cheapo jobs - is not good for the client, nor for Upwork.

By the way, this is me taking it as true, that Upwork has an agenda of getting rid of cheap bids and not hearsay. And I would like you to provide me with a link on that matter. Unless it's all made up, in that case you may leave me with no link provided.

[#26]

---

Jamie F wrote:

---

Pavlo L wrote:

(really bad ideas)

---

As a freelancer and a client - I give this suggestion every single nope of every colour that has ever existed and ever will exist. 

Just - nope. Lots and lots of nopes. All of them

Noooooo. 

---

Maybe when Pavlo gets a little experience on the platform and thinks it through properly he'll see why it is a very silly set of ideas which would be bad for clients and freelancers in equal measures.