Cliemt fills out job form.
Client is shown 10 Freelancers to invite to apply.
Let's say Client is looking for Resume Writer
Why is the client shown a number of people with no resume writing experience nor is it listed as a skill they have.
On the other hand, I have the experience and have it listed as a skill, but receive no invite.
Can you please explain why this is constantly happening?
Before when clients paid the 10% fee, I did not pay as much attention to this situation as I should have. Now that freelancers pay the 10% fee, and more importantly pay for memberships, I question whether these practices would be found legitimate by third-party entities.
With all of the new practices that have been implemented, the lack of transparency, "hidden" folders, flaws in client search and freelancer search features, and flaws in the bidding process, to what extent do freelancers have a reasonable expectation of success--a fair opportunity to succeed?
On the other hand, if the freelancer search for jobs features were improved, and I could locate the best jobs and quality clients in an accurate, timely manner; and the platform would guarantee that my bids would appear in any so-called recommended "top ten," then, I would be willing to pay a $10 to $50 premium for each bid on a case-by-case basis. It's "pay to play" [pot luck -- 10% fee plus membership fee] or "pay to win" [10% fee plus premium placement fee]. Of course, any such "premium placement" feature would only be available to oDesk "Top Rated" freelancers with or without a paid membership.
Actually, as a result of changes on this platform, since 2014 I have been using a US based, international employment agency for professionals and executives in search of contracts for remote work. Thus far I have not had to pay for their premium services, and I still have a designated account executive that I work with (a recruiter that gets paid a draw plus her commission). That recruiter and my own B2B marketing efforts have provided me with more success than all of the freelancer platforms on which I participate. Nonetheless, I still have hopes for oDesk.
It is newish on Elance too. Sometimes, I'm never quite certain if a client even sees my bid. Elance states that this 'matching' only occurs with new clients in order to 'help' them - so perhaps it is the same on oDesk too. But clearly, either the algorithm is not working, or if there are real people doing the matching, they need some serious training.
I have had a few invitations here recently, which have either been spam, or offering such low remuneration, it isn't possible even to consider them.
One job I have applied for in the last few days has remarkably few bids for the writing category, so I do wonder if the buyer has not been spoonfed other choices and hasn't looked at the 'hidden' bids.
When a client is given 10 choices it shows up in the applicantion a a Client invite although it only says Client. When you see 10 Client invites you know they've hit the invite all button and all 10 received an invitation.
I don't mind this except for the fact it's annoying to me and to the clients to be given choices that do not even match their criteria. This defeats the entire process and what it was meant to do and it won't be long before clients simply ignore this option as they'll come to feel that it does not help them much.
For me it means that I don't get invited but someone who is a software engineer does receive an invitation. This lowers my chances of coming up in the que sooner and becomes a useless function to the client.
For the freelancer invites, this seems to be on a rotation basis. You may be on the list for a few days and may get invites and then have to wait 2-3 weeks before you're back in the rotation. This is fine if the client has 10 qualified people to choose from.
Jean, very informative, thanks! I noticed those very first 10 applicants; Now I know why. Before, judging by the first 10 applicants' profiles, I was wondering what the heck the clients were thinking. None of the applicants were anywhere near qualified.
Clients sending 10 mass invitations are just making more work for themselves reviewing those freelancers' replies. Unqualified freelancers will be getting false hope. Recall the "hidden" folder was implemented to make things easier (faster) for clients? A lot of changes on oDesk don't make any sense.
I was wondering what the heck the clients were thinking. None of the applicants were anywhere near qualified.
...and therein lies the problem.
As someone who is qualified for the resume jobs it's really painful to see unqualified people being invited. I'm hoping maybe Garnor can see if this situation could be corrected.
This is good feedback Jean, thanks for sharing. The list of 'recommended' freelancers a client sees after posting the job should be based on a combination of skills and work history. We want to give clients relevant, qualified options for their selection.
As you've pointed out, sometimes these options aren't the best qualified. Though it doesn't prevent clients from searching and inviting other freelancers to the job, it is something we need to improve. I'll share your input with the team and we'll continue doing what we can to improve this.
Garnor, it's hardly a new thing. I've commented endless times about getting invitations for writing jobs despite being only a proofreader and editor. I've had three more today. My profile says *I AM NOT A WR*TER" and various versions of this three times.I don't like defacing my profile like this but I reckoned it would at least deter clients who had the patience to do a manual search.
But it can't stop the robots, who place me in the top ten for writing jobs merely (I presume) because someone has stuck proofreading and editing a a sub-section of writing - hih it is not. It means that the lazy clients get suggested unsuitable freelancers, because, as usual, you algorithms are far too simplistic to be of any practical use. So yes, please continue to keep working towards improving them, because it's little consolation to me that I get credited for declining these offers quickly. I'd much rather for everyone's sake they just didn't arise in the first place.
Garnor, sounds good in theory; however, it does not work (probably never will). The data and the fragmented manner in which things are programmed make it an impractical and costly task.
It seems the best thing for all is to abandon those efforts; at least on the current platform. Save those ideas for development of a completely new site (not that plans exist for a new site).