๐Ÿˆ Community
ยป Forums ยป Freelancers ยป Re: Change Current Upwork Connects policy
Page options
openstack
Member

Change Current Upwork Connects policy

Connects are used to submit proposals for jobs at Upwork. When a job is done Upwork generate revenue as service fee from client and from Freelancer as service fees.

 

But when a Freelancer does not have connects and he/she is not able to buy connects, Freelancer basically not able to apply job and the possibility of get hire and job done is reduce to 0%. This also impact directly to Upwork internal revenue.

 

I am the perfect example. When new connects policy implemented and my connects are finish i have lost my intention to use Upwork because when i will buy connects their is no guarantee that my all buy connects help me to get job. so i may lost money after buy connects.

 

Previously upwork give 60 connects to Freelancer as free. I hope upwork will roll back to previous system and help freelancer to get more jobs again and upwork also improve their internal revenue as before generated as service fee.

 

Thanks
Karim

21 REPLIES 21
petra_r
Member


Karim C wrote:

 

But when a Freelancer does not have connects and he/she is not able to buy connects, Freelancer basically not able to apply job and the possibility of get hire and job done is reduce to 0%. This also impact directly to Upwork internal revenue.


No, it doesn't. The job will be done by someone. Just not by you.

 


Karim C wrote:

I am the perfect example. When new connects policy implemented and my connects are finish i have lost my intention to use Upwork because when i will buy connects their is no guarantee that my all buy connects help me to get job. so i may lost money after buy connects.


Considering that Upwork has far too many freelancers, "losing" a bunch is, if not actually the intention, an accepted and even desirable side-effect. If Upwork loses a third of its freelancers, there will still be too many.

 


Karim C wrote:
..... and upwork also improve their internal revenue as before generated as service fee.

I have no idea how you think giving people free connects would in any way improve revenue.

It doesn't.

It would only do that if there weren't enough freelancers to do the jobs that are available. That is, of course, not the case.

 

moonraker
Member


Karim C wrote:

 

I am the perfect example. When new connects policy implemented and my connects are finish i have lost my intention to use Upwork because when i will buy connects their is no guarantee that my all buy connects help me to get job. 

Which is the point behind them doing it, they have said so themselves. Your post only suggests that their policy is working as intended. 

What powers that be ever said they're way to many freelancers?.......ahh I know, the Freelancers that find it hard competing with others.....said the keen observer. 


Losing Freelancers that have a proven track record of success is not in anyone's best intrest. Including other freelancers and Upwork. Period.


Russell T wrote:


Losing Freelancers that have a proven track record of success is not in anyone's best intrest. Including other freelancers and Upwork. Period.


Upwork will not lose freelancers with a proven track of record. These can pay for connects and don't care about the $0.90 that it costs to bid on a job if they are winning jobs on a regular basis.

 

If you go to the freelancers search engine on Upwork and you filter by earnings, you'll see what Petra is talking about...

 

 

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


Russell T wrote:

What powers that be ever said they're way to many freelancers?.......


**edited for Community Guidelines**

It was also (nicely wrapped in corporate speak) in the report, along the lines of "significant surplus of freelancers," and "no effort to be made winning and retaining freelancers." (I paraphrase as can't remember the exact wording)

 

It has been clear for years. In 2014 or thereabouts they kicked out tens of thousands and it's probably time for another massive purge.

 


Russell T wrote:

.......ahh I know, the Freelancers that find it hard competing with others.....


LOL.Me? Hilarious.

 


Russell T wrote:

said the keen observer.


Obviously not observant enough.

 


Russell T wrote:

Losing Freelancers that have a proven track record of success is not in anyone's best intrest.


People who are successful on the site are (obviously) less likely to leave.

Losing unsuccessful ones is no loss.

 

Losing the odd successful one is natural turnover and collateral damage.

 

It's so cute how people here think they're such special little snowflakes and how it would really hurt the platform if they melted away.

browersr
Member

Clients becoming overwhelmed by a massive number of proposals from people who have no business proposing is a far greater concern. Post a job and get 100 spam like replies and see how you may feel about continuing to use this platform. Paying for connects doesn't solve this but it does begin to create a system where there is some skin in the game when it comes to proposing. I would go further to suggest that the cost to newer freelancer's (or those who have not yet shown success) be higher. One should need to show their value before getting perks like reduced costs, etc. Would I have been happy about it as a new freelancer? No. Would I have understood it, yes. It should be a meritocracy here but instead the person with a history of issues is subject to the exact same fees and rate schedules as the people who deliver the greatest value to the platform. So feel good that you pay for connects and are subject to the same service fees as everyone else, value provided or not.


Scott B wrote:

Clients becoming overwhelmed by a massive number of proposals from people who have no business proposing is a far greater concern. Post a job and get 100 spam like replies and see how you may feel about continuing to use this platform. Paying for connects doesn't solve this but it does begin to create a system where there is some skin in the game when it comes to proposing. I would go further to suggest that the cost to newer freelancer's (or those who have not yet shown success) be higher. One should need to show their value before getting perks like reduced costs, etc. Would I have been happy about it as a new freelancer? No. Would I have understood it, yes. It should be a meritocracy here but instead the person with a history of issues is subject to the exact same fees and rate schedules as the people who deliver the greatest value to the platform. So feel good that you pay for connects and are subject to the same service fees as everyone else, value provided or not.


Sorry Scott B, 

I am not buying the whole "Way to many proposals" chant, sorry I am not. This is speaking from someone that has done hiring for a solid 16 years before becoming a freelancer. I would regularly filter hundreds of applicants to find the gems. I was always greatfull to have more then less candidates. So it's lazyness sure, but a a problem for the platform,  no way.

Think about how quickly you tune out fake, spam and junk jobs when looking for right opportunity. It takes seconds to filter. We may complain about junk jobs as many do here, but the fact is no one wants to diminish their ability to post them and rightflully so.

Upwork is in essence just reducing their options to find the gems. Paying for a connect is not going to give you a short list of ideal candidates, its just not. Less for sure, but try and find a gem in 5-10 proposals the laws of probability are just not on your side. 



Russell T wrote:

Scott B wrote:

Clients becoming overwhelmed by a massive number of proposals from people who have no business proposing is a far greater concern. Post a job and get 100 spam like replies and see how you may feel about continuing to use this platform. Paying for connects doesn't solve this but it does begin to create a system where there is some skin in the game when it comes to proposing. I would go further to suggest that the cost to newer freelancer's (or those who have not yet shown success) be higher. One should need to show their value before getting perks like reduced costs, etc. Would I have been happy about it as a new freelancer? No. Would I have understood it, yes. It should be a meritocracy here but instead the person with a history of issues is subject to the exact same fees and rate schedules as the people who deliver the greatest value to the platform. So feel good that you pay for connects and are subject to the same service fees as everyone else, value provided or not.


Sorry Scott B, 

I am not buying the whole "Way to many proposals" chant, sorry I am not. This is speaking from someone that has done hiring for a solid 16 years before becoming a freelancer. I would regularly filter hundreds of applicants to find the gems. I was always greatfull to have more then less candidates. So it's lazyness sure, but a a problem for the platform,  no way.

Think about how quickly you tune out fake, spam and junk jobs when looking for right opportunity. It takes seconds to filter. We may complain about junk jobs as many do here, but the fact is no one wants to diminish their ability to post them and rightflully so.

Upwork is in essence just reducing their options to find the gems. Paying for a connect is not going to give you a short list of ideal candidates, its just not. Less for sure, but try and find a gem in 5-10 proposals the laws of probability are just not on your side. 



You are ignoring one important fact: for the most part (perhaps even entirely), it's the lower quality FLs who are dropping away. That means that even if the number of proposals submitted to a given job post is lower, the quality is higher. If that turns out not to be the case, the the joke's on the rest of us. But I' betting it is.

 


Russell T wrote:


Sorry Scott B, 

I am not buying the whole "Way to many proposals" chant, sorry I am not. This is speaking from someone that has done hiring for a solid 16 years before becoming a freelancer. I would regularly filter hundreds of applicants to find the gems. I was always greatfull to have more then less candidates. So it's lazyness sure, but a a problem for the platform,  no way.

Think about how quickly you tune out fake, spam and junk jobs when looking for right opportunity. It takes seconds to filter. We may complain about junk jobs as many do here, but the fact is no one wants to diminish their ability to post them and rightflully so.

Upwork is in essence just reducing their options to find the gems. Paying for a connect is not going to give you a short list of ideal candidates, its just not. Less for sure, but try and find a gem in 5-10 proposals the laws of probability are just not on your side. 




Yours is a pretty ideological battle, you're questioning the very philosophy underpinning the strategic direction of Upwork.

You might be right.

But you are not likely to win this battle at all.

 

 

Upwork has decided that quality and quantity don't usually happen at the same time, and that one has to be chosen. They have made their choice.

If, at your very core, you can't tune in to that philosophy, you'd need to set up shop (if you haven't already) in some other freelance sites where you can regularly get 50+, 100+ proposals for a job posting.

There is a market, and there are platforms for clients that want to get 50+ proposals for every job posting.


Abinadab A wrote:

 

 

Upwork has decided that quality and quantity don't usually happen at the same time, and that one has to be chosen.


It's worth noting that they've made this decision as the only entity involved that has access to every single proposal submitted by every single freelancer....in other words, they are the only ones who can possibly know what percentage of bids on the average job are complete garbage.


Russell T wrote:


Sorry Scott B, 

I am not buying the whole "Way to many proposals" chant, sorry I am not. This is speaking from someone that has done hiring for a solid 16 years before becoming a freelancer. I would regularly filter hundreds of applicants to find the gems. I was always greatfull to have more then less candidates. So it's lazyness sure, but a a problem for the platform,  no way.

Think about how quickly you tune out fake, spam and junk jobs when looking for right opportunity. It takes seconds to filter. We may complain about junk jobs as many do here, but the fact is no one wants to diminish their ability to post them and rightflully so.

Upwork is in essence just reducing their options to find the gems. Paying for a connect is not going to give you a short list of ideal candidates, its just not. Less for sure, but try and find a gem in 5-10 proposals the laws of probability are just not on your side. 


No need to apologize. You are free to disagree and make your points. The site works better that way.

 

If you wish to talk about hiring practices before freelancing I am happy to. The reality is that in corporations they have something called an ATS (Applicant Tracking Systems) that go a long way to help organize applications and filter out the trash. Additionally, they are run by people (typically recruiters) whose job it is to be front line screeners of potential talent. Now consider a platform like UW. The majority of clients are playing the entire role of recruiter, HR generalist, interviewer, decision maker, PM and investment banker. That's a lot of hats particularly for people whom have never taken on many of these responsibilities before.  Very easy to get overwhelmed and very easy to get spooked with the UW equivalent of the **Edited for Community Guidelines**. I would submit that this experience is not equivalent to filtering through SPAM emails. 

 

I would also suggest that your probability of finding  a gem amongst 10 candidates who felt confident enough about their skills and experience to pay to bid is better than 50 candidates who could apply without cost or care. 

 

 

 

Would love for a mod to explain why referring to one the most, or perpaps the most, common internet scam is reason for editing my post. 


Scott B wrote:

Would love for a mod to explain why referring to one the most, or perpaps the most, common internet scam is reason for editing my post. 


Hi! Scott.

As a long time member of this community, you ought to know that the Community Guidelines do not allow posters to make derogatory references to another country (what you did).

 

Very likely even with an explanation from a mod, you may struggle to see from that "other" prism and realise that the section of your post that was censored was indeed a derogation, a slur, a WRONG generalisation in your reference to another's country. But you should try.

 

Cheers ๐Ÿ˜‰


Abinadab A wrote:

Scott B wrote:

Would love for a mod to explain why referring to one the most, or perpaps the most, common internet scam is reason for editing my post. 


Hi! Scott.

As a long time member of this community, you ought to know that the Community Guidelines do not allow posters to make derogatory references to another country (what you did).

 

Very likely even with an explanation from a mod, you may struggle to see from that "other" prism and realise that the section of your post that was censored was indeed a derogation, a slur, a WRONG generalisation in your reference to another's country. But you should try.

 

Cheers ๐Ÿ˜‰


I was under the impression that it was the proper name of the scam such as the Ponzi Scheme is the proper name after Charles Ponzi. This specific scam is referred by this name in government publications, main stream media outlets, and support organizations. That said and history teaches us that this doesn't make something appropriate. So I thank you for the education on this topic and the chance to see from a different prism.

 

Russell, you've mentioned your past hiring experience before, and it seems that you're missing some major distinctions.

 

First, a great many Upwork jobs can be completed in a couple of hours and the client rarely or never uses that freelancer again. I'm guessing that in your prior job, you did not spend several hours filtering hundreds of candidates in order to select someone to complete a $100 one-off job. If I'm guessing wrong, then your employer made a very poor investment in leaving you in that capacity for so long.

 

You've also mentioned that you had "primary hiring responsibility." That suggests that filtering those candidates was a significant part of your job. My Upwork clients are attorneys and CEOs who are already doing more than one full-time job (for example, the managing partner of a small law firm who practices law full time and is also responsible for marketing, working with the accountant, choosing technology providers (and so on, and so on, and so on). I'm most often hired on weekends and often hear from my clients at midnight or later (they are all in the U.S.) because that's when they get time to contact me after putting in a 10-14 hour day doing the primary, secondary, tertiary (and several steps thereafter) aspects of their jobs--selecting and managing freelancers, though sometimes important, is usually about their 763rd priority. And, they're often hiring a freelancer specifically because they don't have time to do something themselves. 

 

 

wlyonsatl
Member

Karim,

 

As recently as November of last year Upwork's CEO was talking about Upwork's "...mission to create economic opportunities so people have better lives. It aims to build a future of inclusive learning and opportunity by serving those at risk of being left behind..."

 

But the realities of being a publicly-traded company whose new shareholders require the company to start making profits appear to be forcing Upwork to become an unattractive place for low-priced projects, so that segment of both clients and freelancers will likely soon be only a memory here on Upwork.

 

Upwork is no longer a platform that allows freelancers who depend on projects valued below $25 or so apiece to make a living. If you have to submit 10 bids costing six connects each on every project you win at that price, you will be spending $9 for income of $20 (after Upwork's 20% fee), or net income to you of $11. Before all connects cost $0.15, your income would have been the full $20 - not an insignificant difference.

 

Good luck finding the right forum for your skills. There is no reason to expect connects will ever be free again.

This thread was actually developing into a rather interesting conversation between Russell and Scott - until that customary by now intervention amounting to a thinly-veiled ad hominem attack on Russell, apparently based on nothing more than a 'guess'.

Why, we might ask, are certain comments here continuously allowed to do pass, while lesser digressions are regularly censored out?


Chris P wrote:

while lesser digressions are regularly censored out?


Slurs must be "lesser" digressions indeed.

Hint: They are not. Irrespective of the country, racial group, or peoples it targets.

Almost every other day, you'll see one or two disparaging mention (usually subtle and implied) of a South-East Asian country or other group. It isn't right.

Sometimes it gets censored.

Other times not.

 

But know that it depends on the personal judgement of the mods.

 

In all cases, we should keep in mind that we (including the one writing this) are all capable of being culturally insensitive at times. Once you realise this you're all good.

 

Actually, I'm all good as it is, thanks very much.

Because the comment you refer to was already edited out before I even had a chance to read it. 

My reference was to other threads entirely and not to this one at all.


Chris P wrote:

This thread was actually developing into a rather interesting conversation between Russell and Scott - until that customary by now intervention amounting to a thinly-veiled ad hominem attack on Russell, apparently based on nothing more than a 'guess'.

Why, we might ask, are certain comments here continuously allowed to do pass, while lesser digressions are regularly censored out?


Because characterizing a comment that challenges another poster's logic as "a thinly veiled ad hominem attack" does not make it so. IMO what most frequently undermines interesting discussion and debate in this forum is the tendency by some people to cry "personal attack" whenever facts and logic fail to support their position, and/or when they simply don't like what they read.

nhakhand
Member

In some cases job poster is not active after posting the job.It is not beneficial for both Upwork and Contractor to wait for a month-long hiring process.After one month freelancer gets connect when none is hired or job poster cancel the job.I think Upwork can make a rule for Client (job poster) to recruit contractors within 7-10 Days.Contractors can use returned connects and may be hired if client fails to recruit within the deadline..