Spread the burden across clients and freelancers more evenly.

[andrew-beatty]

According to the announcement regarding the new paid Connects system (https://community.upwork.com/t5/Announcements/Upcoming-Changes-to-Connects/td-p/580451), Freelancer Plus members get 70 "free" Connects per month and the price of Freelancer Plus was raised to $14.99 (it's not free if I'm paying for it.) Under the new system Connects cost $0.15 each. Why are we not getting 100 Connects? I understand the Plus comes with the ability to view bid ranges and hide earnings, but is that really worth the money? I don't feel that it is. I would rather have more Connects, considering I now need 6 for most jobs posted. If I go back to the basic and just pay for $15 for 100 Connects I feel I'll be better off. 

It's clear to me that Upwork wants to monetize bidding because of the high number of jobs posted which never actually result in a contract. They're likely not making money from jobs because of the low number of actual hires so they've decided to make the freelancers pay upfront. Freelancers are the revenue source for Upwork, not clients. There has to be a better solution, one in which the initial financial burden is spread across the clients and freelancers more fairly.

I really think there needs to be more accountability when it comes to clients, and I use the term "clients" loosely, who post jobs without ever hiring. If the client cancels we get our connects back, but if they just let it expire we lose those connects. So I'm essentially paying up to $0.90 for someone to test the waters and then leave when they realize 
they actually have to pay for someone to work for them. 

Perhaps implementing a system in which jobs posted without a verified payment method or job history require fewer connects. I don't feel that freelancers should bear the burden of every random who thinks they're going to be the next Shopify CBD mogul without having to work/pay for it. 

I understand Upwork needs revenue and they deserve to be paid for the service they provide - I just don't see this as the best system. 

[tlsanders]

It seems like you're missing the point of the change, which is to make it harder and less desirable for freelancers to bid on a lot of jobs. The thing you're complaining about is the key benefit of this change for Upwork. 

Upwork wants more clients and fewer freelancers--when you look at it that way, it makes a lot of sense to put the full burden on freelancers.

[andrew-beatty]

I don't think I'm missing the point. I understand why and how the connects system works. Looking at the Freelancer.com platform as an example - every job is bombarded with barely relevant, often copied proposals in broken English. It's so bad that I don't even bother bidding at all most of the time.

I like the system here but the new changes aren't placing enough burden on "clients", in my opinion, to actually follow-through. Uninformed and half-committed clients are posting jobs that can easily be accomplished in small timeframes with low budgets at longer timeframes and higher budgets because they don't seem to be aware of the impact those factors have on proposal costs. I agree that it is important to limit the amount of freelancers applying, but freelancers need a system to better select and vet clients as well. We shouldn't be required to pay nearly a dollar to bid on a job that doesn't necessarily exist.

I guess my main conclusion and point is that Upwork ought to do a better job at vetting clients and ensuring an actual job exists. If I have to pay for the proposal I'd like some sort of assurance it isn't completely in vain.