I'm sorry you feel that we've ignored this thread, Steven.
Please know that the first time this thread was posted in the Community, this was sent to rest of the Community Team so that it can be monitored, and viewed from time to time. This was also shared to the rest of the teams for consideration, and have been continuously monitored by our team.
I know this is an old thread, but I still see lots of peopel saying their "profile was set to private after x days w/o earnings" so I feel it's still relevant for weighing-in with my opinion.
1 - Is setting profiles to private after a certain number of days without earnings reasonable? (Yes or No)
Yes, but ...**
2 - If you agree that it is reasonable to set profiles to private at some point, is 30 days a reasonable time period? (Yes or No)
Yes, but ...**
3 - If you don't think 30 days is reasonable, what would be a more reasonable time period?
4 - Is the current system of re-activating profiles adequate? (Yes or No)
Yes, but ...*
(Er, I clicked the reset button by accident when I looked up the process. I don't actually need a reset, so to whomever process that request: sorry!)
5 - If you do not think the current system of re-activating profiles is adequate, what don't you like about it and how could it be improved?
*... Maybe explain the point of the "up to 3 business days" delay vs., say, automating the process. Are people's requests to set their profiles back to public being rejected? If so, what are the possible reasons for rejects and possible solutions for (proactively preferably) being able to resolve the roadblocks?
**... I personally think it would be better based on overall activity versus earnings alone, with "activity" including a combination of logging in to the site *and* open contracts *and* earnings.
SomeoneA might be on a long-term project and might not need to visit Upwork every X days. Those people should not be (and aren't) removed from client search results just because they haven't logged in. They are still actively earning and might be open to receiving new invites.
With the current criteria, these people's profiles are indeed "safe" and would still be so with the suggested criteria.
SomeoneB might logging in frequently and searching and proposing and answering invites, etc. but maybe just not earning anything for X days. Those people should not be removed from client search results just because they're not earning. Maybe they're being very selective, or maybe their potential clients are, or they *are* working for a client on a one-time payout job that hasn't finished, or or or. We just don't know.
Yes, when their profile's private they can still submit proposals but suppressing their profiles from the search results takes away fully 1/2 of their options for finding work.
With the current criteria, these people's profiles are "set to private", solely based on the lack of earnings within that time frame, but they would be "safe" with the suggested criteria.
SomeoneC isn't logging in to the site and isn't earning anything. It seems absolutely reasonable to suppress his or her or their profile from client's searches after X days.
With the current criteria, these people's profiles are indeed "set to private", solely based on the lack of earnings within that time frame, and would still be so with the suggested criteria.
I do understand that everyone has the option to upgrade to the PLUS membership and avoid ever having their profile set to private due to earnings inactivity. However, that costs money each month, and someone who's not earning isn't likely to want to shell out money.
SomeoneC obviously doesn't care for whatever reason, and that's fine.
But SomeoneB's still trying, or at least staying active on the site, so why are we making things harder for them?