As there are more and more glitches on the site unsolved for weeks, it will be better either reduce the number of connected needed to place a bid to 1 or provide more options in membership types including more connects.
Now once we finish the 60 connects, we have to buy extra connects as $ 5 per 5 connects.
Upwork, till you people able to give an errorless site, atleast reduce the number of connects needed.
Dont always think about your side to earn. Please let, we, freelancers also to earn from the site. Otherwise very soon Upwork will also be an another kind of sites in the market.
I have been with Elance from 2007 onwards and always I appreciate Elance's policy to provide more and more good things to both freelancers and clients. But once Upwork comes, you people didnt listen to freelancers voice on many of our issues. Most of the ToS on Elance were dropped here which were helpful for us.
You know, and this is not specifically aimed at the OP...but many people seem to be under the impression Upwork is a new site specifically created to get Elancers on board.
No. This is not so.
Upwork used to be oDesk - which bought over Elance (because the site was going south and losing money...probably due to many of the things so many freelancers from there are lamenting the loss of). So in essence, Elance was incorporated into Upwork and people were given the option to move over. Note...I say option, because no gun was held to anyone's head. If you didn't want to move over, you didn't have to.
So Upwork has had the connects system in place for a very long time, as well as its 10% take from each job completed, as well as the majority of everything else. Why would they change a business model that brings them the money and base it on a site's that clearly was losing money? It does not make sound fiscal sense.
As for the connects system: You get 60 connects FREE....gratis, for which you do not pay a single cent. If you use them all without getting any response from clients, it is NOT Upwork's fault. Perhaps you need to look for the reason closer to home.
As for these 'agencies'. My opinion and experience of the majority of them: freelancers who bid on a myriad of jobs that they are in no way qualified to do themselves- and who farm them out to other freelancers at a reduced price. And please do NOT tell me that this is not so. I have first-hand experience of such. The majority of agencies are farmers. And please note that I say 'the majority', not all. There are exceptions.
So - if you want to run an agency? And your connects DO run out? Put your hand into your pocket, invest in your business - and go buy them.
It is against ToS of Elance to post jobs without proper description.
Is that same rule applies here too?
I have seen in some other post somebody says that if there is any such job is there, then we have to apply and ask the customer for more details.
Is that so? WoW. So we have to spend 2 connects to get to know about the job?
Actually, I have found some pretty decent clients off those jobs. So it is okay. I'll spend the connects to enquire about them if their price range is what I am prepared to work for and if they are in my general field.
Before applying for such jobs, first check if the clients payment method is verified, if not, click on the job, beside the job post you will see a few descriptions about the client, check if he's a new comer; because that might be why the client hasn't verified his/her payment method.
After checking these, check the clients rating and know how many freelancers were interviewed, because some of them are scammers looking for free works.
I do apply to such, but I check properly before submitting a proposal. I won't like to end up wasting my connects.
Ramesh wrote, "It is against ToS of Elance to post jobs without proper description."
Maybe that's why Elance no longer exists -- clients preferred oDesk, now Upwork because there were less restrictions. And every freelancer who disdains jobs with sketchy descriptions is in effect reducing the competition for freelancers willing to take a risk. Up to this point, I've avoided those jobs myself, yet I have unused connects at the end of every month so I should probably emulate Irene and apply occasionally.
Clients preferred Odesk rather than Elance? Are you sure?
There are few other sites which are much less or no restrictions at all. So you want to say clients like those sites too?
It seems here there are restrictions are only on freelancers side. That is my main concern.
If a freelancer apply for a membership in Upwork, they are even checking spellings on the profiles and didnt verify them if there are so many mistakes. But there is no restriction on client side even for verification of payment.
Restrictions should be there for both the clients and freelancers. Isntit? :-)
Ramesh, Odesk was more profitable than Elance. From this, I surmised that 'Clients preferred Odesk' because after all they provide all the revenue. But no, I have no data to back up my conjecture.
If I find that the information in the job offer is too vague for me, I don't bid. Not even if I have connects left over. I just don't bid. And I don't give a **** whether that client is well-established, has a top rating and great feedback or not.
It couldn't be any easier for clients to state what they are looking for. Upwork provides guidelines and a simple layout. A few words and a rough indication of the available budget is all it takes. We'll do the rest.
And honestly, if I can manage to write my weekly shopping list (and write out the individual items rather than just "food") on top of all the usual to-and-froing with clients, then they ****** well can as well!
EDITED TO ADD: I posted this in a completely different thread (topic: insufficient detail in job postings), but it seems to have been misdirected! Sorry, folks. There seems to be a glitch in the system.