@shamontiel V wrote:Will you please elaborate on this? I don't believe I knew idle jobs were an issue for scoring. What if a client leaves an assignment open but only has occasional work?
I wish I could elaborate, but part of the problem with the secret calculations is that it's all a lot of guesswork and inference. There are many threads that discuss the matter, so if you go through them you might come to a different conclusion than me. Upwork wants contracts closed so they can get the feedback that feeds their JSS statistics wanking. So after some time period of idleness, contracts count against you. Fixed priced ones are auto-closed after 3 months, but hourly can go on indefinitely. When exactly the penalty kicks in is unclear (and may differ for each type of contract).
If you are given work often enough, though, it might not be a problem. Again, nobody really knows because Upwork is being tight-lipped on the issue. They'll just tell you it's better to close the old contract as soon as possible and start a new one when more things need to be done. But if you close too many, that will also count against you if the client can't be bothered to give feedback. Upwork never says what quantity represents the "too many" pattern.
If that seems unhelpful or confusing . . . welcome to the club. 
Darrin O., thank you for trying. I'm impressed that you tried to break it down for me and saddened that it's exactly as ridiculous as I thought it was. I have asked similar questions via customer service inquiries and gotten the same generic, political response. Upwork, if you are reading these messages, you are REALLY going to lose great (or at least hard-working) writers on this site. I'm not sure if you care or not because average/decent/OK ones will always pick up the pieces, but it is bizarre how indifferent Upwork is about this scoring mechanism.
If not for one particular client, I'd have left long ago because I genuinely do not like how the filtering process is with clients. I can't defend the scoring. I can't say what I did wrong. I can't even say, "Oh man, that one assignment was the one I really goofed on." I don't mind the constructive feedback. I welcome it. I've had clients give me a perfect score and I still ask, "What could I do to make it better?" I do, however, mind the hiding part. To be honest, if my one regular client ever closes the contract, there's about a 95 percent chance I'm outta here.
I cannot think of any other (successful) online business that is so one-sided. Not one.
@Sandeep C wrote:Atleast make JSS system fair. Atleast make users understand how JSS system works. It is difficult to work with a system which is not "transparent" "logical" and "reasonable"
PS: I know many will not agree because they have got the scores they want.
Absolutely agree!
Just make the jss system clear for understanding, and questions about the system will be gone.
the picture is the simple example how it could be.
Setu,
it may be as well that if we found out that some of our clients give us bad private feedback we would not work for them and upwork would see their 10% jeopardized 
Anyway that of hiding the rating algorithm is an interesting approach. They value clients privacy but despise ours at the same time to the extent of forcing us to display our earnings to everybody out there (either that or we switch to private and become like a ghost...)
It is hidden because they do not want anybody to see what they are doing: artificially segmenting the freelancer performance sphere so that clients get the feel they can choose top/ elite freelancers. If they get 20 proposals and 10 of them are 5 stars they will not feel any confident. However if there are only 3, it is more likely they will enter into a contract (and with upwork).
M i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n
Same thing goes with the blue bar and the same with applying a rating algorithm retroactively. They target is clear and they do not care about being fair or not.
Regards,
Javi
@Javier M wrote:Setu,
it may be as well that if we found out that some of our clients give us bad private feedback we would not work for them and upwork would see their 10% jeopardized
Anyway that of hiding the rating algorithm is an interesting approach. They value clients privacy but despise ours at the same time to the extent of forcing us to display our earnings to everybody out there (either that or we switch to private and become like a ghost...)
It is hidden because they do not want anybody to see what they are doing: artificially segmenting the freelancer performance sphere so that clients get the feel they can choose top/ elite freelancers. If they get 20 proposals and 10 of them are 5 stars they will not feel any confident. However if there are only 3, it is more likely they will enter into a contract (and with upwork).
M i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n
Same thing goes with the blue bar and the same with applying a rating algorithm retroactively. They target is clear and they do not care about being fair or not.
Regards,
Javi
No you are wrong.
It's being done because "some" freelancers from certain countries ABUSED the old system.
This is the result of that abuse.
@Setu M wrote:
No worries.
See my motto I am trying to live by below.
And let me clarify the 5* comment further, since you have a journalistic mind (are a journalist). Star rated public review systems (all) tend to be skewed to the far right - for systems which allow mutual rating of vendor and buyer.
The buyer is not rated on Amazon, so there is no fear of reprisal, malice or spite. Or is there fear of future malice (like you cannot buy from 'x' store). So the buyer feels at ease in giving a more honest review.
That is not what happens on a site like this. Both vendor and buyer get to public rate each other blindly. So there is a tendency to rate high regardless of the experience, to avoid reprisal, future problems etc.
Ideas like - I wont give a client 2 stars because I may want to work with them again. Or what will other clients think? I may scare future potential buyers because I gave a negative review etc etc.
The interactions are complex here. But we do not talk out of thin air (at least me). There is data to back this up. And others have also sourced similar independent data.
Motto: Yes, I know. 
The first time I saw it, I assumed it was Bill Withers and then looked it up. Lionel Richie. Learn something new everyday.
Buyers: I was an Amazon seller who rated buyers, too. It gave sellers the chance to explain why a buyer was giving them a bad review. I sold things on Amazon for many years. Half and Ebay, too, but Amazon the most. Or, maybe I'm mixing them up and its Ebay that lets sellers review buyers. One of them DEFINITELY does though. I haven't sold things online in a long time. I now just donate on FreeCycle, but my point is the reviewing is still there.
Independent data: I will look up your percentages exactly to narrow down this report.
Review backlash: I just can't agree to it. I can respect your opinion, but I do not agree with it. If I don't want to work with a client again I just don't care about repeat work with him/her. I posted on another forum how I wish we had the option to block clients altogether that we no longer want to work with. For [insert competitor here, I will not do so again] I have done that 7-8 times. It's not a regular thing I do. I've done a couple of hundred assignments before even getting to the point of having to block a user. But if we don't mesh well, then I would hope other clients would understand that. If I'm a hiring manager, I wouldn't expect every resume I come across to be loaded with bosses that were in love with their employees. I'd be prepared that some may like the applicant more than others. But it's really the feedback part that I think is important. I have made a point of going to places or buying things, even with negative feedback, because I just didn't agree with the people giving the place/product bad feedback. And then I actually liked it!
| User | Count |
|---|---|
| 446 | |
| 298 | |
| 225 | |
| 164 | |
| 148 |
