🐈
» Forums » Freelancers » Re: The Town Hall on the new connect changes
Page options
m_roganovic
Community Member

The Town Hall on the new connect changes

I'm listening to the town hall, as I'm guessing a lot of you are. 

 

The fact that we're not allowed a rebuttal to anything the speaker is saying makes the whole thing completely moot. 

 

The host responds with "Got it" every time she is done speaking, and she is never challenged on anything she says. He's reading off first level question and no followup questions are asked. 

 

This is not a town hall. This is just propaganda. 

41 REPLIES 41
pedroed
Community Member

I guess if they allow freelancers to interact with them, we will have a lot of drama and fights :D, so it makes sense. They saw the feedback from freelancers in the community, and they know a lot of freelancers are against this. 

Really? They don't trust us to have a civil conversation. We're not children. We should be allowed a rebuttal in a so called Town Hall. 

 

I've become so invested in this issue, even though charging for connects won't affect me personally. This is just kind of silly now. 

The sound cut out for me, so for all I know they are promising puppies and bunnies to Freelancers who are Top Rated!


Miriam H wrote:

The sound cut out for me, so for all I know they are promising puppies and bunnies to Freelancers who are Top Rated!


They aren't. But that wouldn't be helpful either because those are a huge repsonsibilities lol. 

 

Cute. But not helpful. 🙂


Marina R wrote:

Miriam H wrote:

The sound cut out for me, so for all I know they are promising puppies and bunnies to Freelancers who are Top Rated!


They aren't. But that wouldn't be helpful either because those are a huge repsonsibilities lol. 

 

Cute. But not helpful. 🙂


Hopefully you saw my tongue in cheek 🙂 - I am back in the town hall..


Miriam H wrote:


Hopefully you saw my tongue in cheek 🙂 - I am back in the town hall..


Oh absolutely. Your comment made me a lot less enraged 🙂 

Just hit refresh.  It's cut out 3 times now.  


Miriam H wrote:

The sound cut out for me, so for all I know they are promising puppies and bunnies to Freelancers who are Top Rated!


I hope so. Frankly, since I was never sent that mug, I feel I'm owed at least a bunny.

Marina R, why won't it affect you personally, if I may ask?

 

Also, why can't I figure out how to quote on this forum? 😛


Kelly B wrote:

Marina R, why won't it affect you personally, if I may ask?

 

Also, why can't I figure out how to quote on this forum? 😛


I attached a screenshot of how to quote. 

 

It won't affect me at this point because I'm not really planning on applying for any jobs. I applied for about 10 recently, and got 4. Still being considered for a few. 

 

I also get invites, so it's never been an issue. I always have almost all of my connects. 

 

I didn't mean that the rule will somehow circumvent me.

Since it was mentioned that they are reading the threads, hopefully we can hear back from them (I'm not suggesting to respond to every one of them, but at least the ones being posted which hold the same sentiments).  Many of the issues discussed in the threads weren't mentioned at all during the webminar. One being regarding the sliding fee.  I posted this question during the webminar. Is anyone able to answer it? Doubt it:

 

"Since there are plans to begin charging for connects, why isn't it possible, since the motive to make this change is "to help professional freelancers like you win more jobs" to reduce the sliding fee to a much lower % rate than the current 20%, 10% or 5%?"


Rocio G wrote:

Is anyone able to answer it? Doubt it:

 

"Since there are plans to begin charging for connects, why isn't it possible, since the motive to make this change is "to help professional freelancers like you win more jobs" to reduce the sliding fee to a much lower % rate than the current 20%, 10% or 5%?"


Are you seriously thinking that there is even the faintest chance of that happening?

 


Petra R wrote:

Rocio G wrote:

Is anyone able to answer it? Doubt it:

 

"Since there are plans to begin charging for connects, why isn't it possible, since the motive to make this change is "to help professional freelancers like you win more jobs" to reduce the sliding fee to a much lower % rate than the current 20%, 10% or 5%?"


Are you seriously thinking that there is even the faintest chance of that happening?

 


No, of course not. I just wanted to see if they had an answer to that in order to somehow "assist" freelancers as they initially said was one of the motives for this change. They could at least consider it.


Rocio G wrote:

Since it was mentioned that they are reading the threads, hopefully we can hear back from them (I'm not suggesting to respond to every one of them, but at least the ones being posted which hold the same sentiments).  Many of the issues discussed in the threads weren't mentioned at all during the webminar. One being regarding the sliding fee.  I posted this question during the webminar. Is anyone able to answer it? Doubt it:

 

"Since there are plans to begin charging for connects, why isn't it possible, since the motive to make this change is "to help professional freelancers like you win more jobs" to reduce the sliding fee to a much lower % rate than the current 20%, 10% or 5%?"


I don't mind the 20% so much, and I imagine that's where they get the bulk of the fees, but the 5% threshold is too high imo. I have two long-term clients and I still haven't gotten to the 5% with them... it seems like it's super likely that by the time freelancers get to 5% they're also aging out of the circumvention policy... maybe that's by design.

Don't get me wrong, if I did mind it, I would have never even started on this platform.  I was okay with that, seeing that they have to take their cut.  It seemed fair enough.  However with their greedyness of millking freelancers, I am now not very willing to share that 20% with them.  They can take the connects fee from that 20%.  And yes, I do agree that the 5% limitations are far too high for freelancers to reach.  In all fairness, I don't believe any client would be willing to stay with Upwork and one single freelancer for that long. 


Rocio G wrote:

  They can take the connects fee from that 20%. 

 

For you, sure. What about for the 91.8% of Upwork freelancers who have never earned a dollar on Upwork and so never paid a percentage of anything?

 

And yes, I do agree that the 5% limitations are far too high for freelancers to reach.  In all fairness, I don't believe any client would be willing to stay with Upwork and one single freelancer for that long. 

 

I have clients at 5% and know several other freelancers who do, as well. 


 


Marina R wrote:

Kelly B wrote:

Marina R, why won't it affect you personally, if I may ask?

 

Also, why can't I figure out how to quote on this forum? 😛


I attached a screenshot of how to quote. 

 

It won't affect me at this point because I'm not really planning on applying for any jobs. I applied for about 10 recently, and got 4. Still being considered for a few. 

 

I also get invites, so it's never been an issue. I always have almost all of my connects. 

 

I didn't mean that the rule will somehow circumvent me.


Thanks. I knew it was something ridiculously easy lol.

 

I didn't mean that you were above the rules either. I usually get invites too, but have noticed a decrease with this new limit they've placed on clients.


Marina R wrote:

Really? They don't trust us to have a civil conversation. We're not children. We should be allowed a rebuttal in a so called Town Hall. 

 

You make it sound like you've never read a forum thread. 100+ pages of rant in which various people said the same thing in slightly different words dozens of times in all caps is a good tip off that intelligent discussion is not likely.

Well, ranting


Tiffany S wrote:

Marina R wrote:

Really? They don't trust us to have a civil conversation. We're not children. We should be allowed a rebuttal in a so called Town Hall. 

 

You make it sound like you've never read a forum thread. 100+ pages of rant in which various people said the same thing in slightly different words dozens of times in all caps is a good tip off that intelligent discussion is not likely.


Well, ranting in forums is what we do when we don't get a chance ask questions and followup questions. 

 

For example

 

"Are you doing this for more money?"

 

"No, we're actually expecting not to make money from this." 

 

"Got it." 

 

-Now, instead of "Got it", we could ask "How did you calculate that math. You say many people buy connects for one dollar each, can you say how many? Additionally, are you saying that you won't make extra money from Plus being more expensive? If so, what are you doing wrong when you're charging 50% more, but coming out not making any money?" 

 

Those are all legitimate questions. They are not ranty. I'm seriously curious. 

 

Additionally:

 

"We're doing this so that clients don't need to sort through so many apps. However, if they say they want Top Rated only, we'll let everyone else apply because clients can sort and filter."

 

A question there could be: Is this filter available if the clients don't state their preference? If you say that clients can sort, what stops them from sorting right now? 

 

Also: 

 

"We made this change where we charge for connects. You will get the connects back only if a job is closed or reported as fraud. We didn't want to make too many changes, so we won't give you back connects if the job is inactive forever." 

 

A followup there would have been: 

 

"But why? Not making a change for a sake of not making one additional change because there are too many changes seems ignorant.

 

Why not make an additional change that would benefit the freelancers, for example, if a job is inactive for more than a month, you'd send the potential client an email saying that you will close the job if they don't hire anyone. 

 

If you don't hear from them, you'll close the job automatically, not leave it active indefinitely. Clearly, that wouldn't any purpose other than keeping the money you get for connects?" 

 

Now, Tiffany, I don't know if you think those are insulting to them, or somehow seem agressive, to me they just sound like rational followups. But we weren't allowed to ask followup questions, meaning the whole thing was just for show. Nothing was explained, other than the things that were previously already explained. 

Marina, to me they sound reasonable, too.  Of course, that's in no way relevant to my comment, which clearly had nothing to do with what you personally would have asked Upwork.

Tiffany, I addressed that in my first line. We rant because we don't get answers. We would have an intelligent discussion if given a chance. 


Marina R wrote:

Tiffany, I addressed that in my first line. We rant because we don't get answers. We would have an intelligent discussion if given a chance. 


I didn't realize that you were privy to the thoughts and motivations of thousands of strangers whose behavior in the forums gives no indication that they have anything in common with you whatsoever. Now that I know you are either psychic or the world's busiest and most geographically diverse psychotherapist, I defer to your super-human knowledge.


Tiffany S wrote:

Marina R wrote:

Tiffany, I addressed that in my first line. We rant because we don't get answers. We would have an intelligent discussion if given a chance. 


I didn't realize that you were privy to the thoughts and motivations of thousands of strangers whose behavior in the forums gives no indication that they have anything in common with you whatsoever. Now that I know you are either psychic or the world's busiest and most geographically diverse psychotherapist, I defer to your super-human knowledge.


Haha this made me giggle. 


Marina R wrote:

Well, ranting


Tiffany S wrote:

Marina R wrote:

Really? They don't trust us to have a civil conversation. We're not children. We should be allowed a rebuttal in a so called Town Hall. 

 

You make it sound like you've never read a forum thread. 100+ pages of rant in which various people said the same thing in slightly different words dozens of times in all caps is a good tip off that intelligent discussion is not likely.


Well, ranting in forums is what we do when we don't get a chance ask questions and followup questions. 

 

For example

 

"Are you doing this for more money?"

 

"No, we're actually expecting not to make money from this." 

 

"Got it." 

 

-Now, instead of "Got it", we could ask "How did you calculate that math. You say many people buy connects for one dollar each, can you say how many? Additionally, are you saying that you won't make extra money from Plus being more expensive? If so, what are you doing wrong when you're charging 50% more, but coming out not making any money?" 

 

Those are all legitimate questions. They are not ranty. I'm seriously curious. 

 

Additionally:

 

"We're doing this so that clients don't need to sort through so many apps. However, if they say they want Top Rated only, we'll let everyone else apply because clients can sort and filter."

 

A question there could be: Is this filter available if the clients don't state their preference? If you say that clients can sort, what stops them from sorting right now? 

 

Also: 

 

"We made this change where we charge for connects. You will get the connects back only if a job is closed or reported as fraud. We didn't want to make too many changes, so we won't give you back connects if the job is inactive forever." 

 

A followup there would have been: 

 

"But why? Not making a change for a sake of not making one additional change because there are too many changes seems ignorant.

 

Why not make an additional change that would benefit the freelancers, for example, if a job is inactive for more than a month, you'd send the potential client an email saying that you will close the job if they don't hire anyone. 

 

If you don't hear from them, you'll close the job automatically, not leave it active indefinitely. Clearly, that wouldn't any purpose other than keeping the money you get for connects?" 

 

Now, Tiffany, I don't know if you think those are insulting to them, or somehow seem agressive, to me they just sound like rational followups. But we weren't allowed to ask followup questions, meaning the whole thing was just for show. Nothing was explained, other than the things that were previously already explained. 


This sounds really awesome and reasonable, but think about it: that's only one question for each subject coming from one person (you), and even then the answers you got to each question might yield more follow-up questions. Just from you.

 

Imagine questions coming from 100 or even just 5 or 10 different people, with their own answers, questions, rebuttals and follow-ups to rebuttal answers, for every single question. The one podcast would have covered like...one question. If it go that far. 😄

 

I've been watching debates on a certain subject on Youtube lately. It's amazing how far afield of the original question these debates can get just having TWO people going head-to-head...yes, rationally and without an excess of emotion or verbal all-caps. You have the moderator constantly stepping in to put things back in place...which adds yet another element.

 

This method would be totally impossible with this Town Hall thing (I didn't watch it, BTW, I knew it wouldn't yield any new information, really).


Melanie H wrote:

This method would be totally impossible with this Town Hall thing (I didn't watch it, BTW, I knew it wouldn't yield any new information, really).


Well, maybe then, as I said earlier, the town hall served no purpose whatsoever. Other than **Edited for Community Guidelines**, so they can say they did it. 

 

It was useless to me. 

You're right! I let them know (not that it matters to them anyway) during the forum that the only questions they we're choosing to bring up have already been answered by Their team on Upwork Community days ago. So this proves that they're also not being honest about "reading" them.
rocio-gomez
Community Member

Spoiler


Marina R wrote:

I'm listening to the town hall, as I'm guessing a lot of you are. 

 

The fact that we're not allowed a rebuttal to anything the speaker is saying makes the whole thing completely moot. 

 

The host responds with "Got it" every time she is done speaking, and she is never challenged on anything she says. He's reading off first level question and no followup questions are asked. 

 

This is not a town hall. This is just propaganda. 


exactly and the questions that are being "screened" are the same ones.  I'm one writing the same question (posting is a different question every time) but has to do with sliding fee being decreased, and it's not being picked up...The guy is picking the same questions which have to do only with the same topic and not dealing with the issue of what this bogus webminar was supposed to be about which is the fact that we're all ticked off about them making a change which no freelancer was taken into account when making a decision. 

rocio-gomez
Community Member


Marina R wrote:

I'm listening to the town hall, as I'm guessing a lot of you are. 

 

The fact that we're not allowed a rebuttal to anything the speaker is saying makes the whole thing completely moot. 

 

The host responds with "Got it" every time she is done speaking, and she is never challenged on anything she says. He's reading off first level question and no followup questions are asked. 

 

This is not a town hall. This is just propaganda. 


I suppose I was very persistent, my question just got picked up.  

 

"The initial message that went out making this decision stated that many clients and freelancers were taken into consideration when making this decision. How many freelancers were actually polled for this and why wasn't this done with a larger # of freelancers? Specifically the freelancers who are Top Rated? It really does seem like an unfair process."

 

Is she really answering the question?  I don't believe so.


Rocio G wrote:


I suppose I was very persistent, my question just got picked up.  

 

"The initial message that went out making this decision stated that many clients and freelancers were taken into consideration when making this decision. How many freelancers were actually polled for this and why wasn't this done with a larger # of freelancers? Specifically the freelancers who are Top Rated? It really does seem like an unfair process."

 

Is she really answering the question?  I don't believe so.


That's why we need rebuttals. Answering first level question, and echoing things that we've already had answered before is fine. But without the rebuttals, we don't really get real answers. 

I think they handled it well and transparent. I'm actually really supportive of this move.
They answered a lot of questions like if this is a ploy to make money. Which it's not.
I would have gone in the same direction. Be grateful connects aren't $1 dollar still 🙂

Skyler S. wrote:

I think they handled it well and transparent. I'm actually really supportive of this move.
They answered a lot of questions like if this is a ploy to make money. Which it's not.
I would have gone in the same direction. Be grateful connects aren't $1 dollar still 🙂


Really? Remember when connects were free, though? They were only a dollar once you went over 60. If you need more than 60, that's the kind of problem they are saying they want to address. 

I was convinced this was a positive step for both clients and contractors. But honestly, I wish the apologists would stop being so confrontational.


Michael P wrote:

I was convinced this was a positive step for both clients and contractors. But honestly, I wish the apologists would stop being so confrontational.


I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what is generally meant by an apologist

 

 

lysis10
Community Member

I bet she got at least one "plz give me job sir" question.


Jennifer M. wrote:

I bet she got at least one "plz give me job sir" question.

 

You SWORE you wouldn't tell anybody I asked that.

 

So embarrassed right now...



Melanie H wrote:

You SWORE you wouldn't tell anybody I asked that.

 

So embarrassed right now...



😄

 

I wonder if she got our local madman **Edited for Community Guidelines**

Please god stop calling it a "feature". I know every PR and Marketing book tells you to do this, but it's insulting. Call it a new policy which is true to what this is (while benign in tone) without being cringey. 


Scott B wrote:

Please god stop calling it a "feature". I know every PR and Marketing book tells you to do this, but it's insulting. Call it a new policy which is true to what this is (while benign in tone) without being cringey. 


Well, for them it's a "feature" which means more money in their pockets, even thought that's not what "their intent" was...we'll, at least not publically admiting to it.  🙂

kochubei_valeria
Community Member

Thank you for attending the Town Hall on the upcoming changes to Connects. The Q&A session was hosted by Drew McCrary, who leads Upwork’s Training & Education team and Jessica Tiwari, our VP of Product.

 

For those of you who were unable to attend, the recording is available here.

 

We were happy to see such great participation from our community of freelancers and clients. We regret that we weren’t able to address each one of you individually during the hour, but hope we touched on the biggest concerns and questions.

We will, of course, also continue to read your comments here and collect that feedback.

Thanks again!

 

~ Valeria
Upwork
Latest Articles
Featured Topics
Learning Paths