Why are UW allowing email addresses to be published in job descriptions?

[#1]

I've had a look at Copywriting "jobs", and 4 out of 15 of the most recent jobs posted feature an email address in it, requesting that freelancers apply by email.  These are overt violations of UW's ToW (inviting freelancers off-platform pre-contract), and very likely scams.

There's a very simple technical solution (RegEx, a few lines of code at most) to prevent a job being posted if it features an email address (naked or obfuscated) in the title or job description, so the question is: why are UW allowing this to occur?

[#2]

Hi Andrew,

I’m sorry this has been a negative experience for you thus far. I understand how frustrating it can be to see job posts that violate the ToS. The Trust & Safety Team does its best to ensure these violations are addressed. Additionally, any freelancer who may have applied for the job will have their Connects returned.

We will continue flagging any report shared here in the Community and continue our efforts to educate new freelancers and clients on how Upwork works and how to keep themselves safe in the marketplace. We appreciate that you took the time to share this here, and we’ll share your feedback with the Trust & Safety Team. 

As for the job posts you’re referring to, could you please share the links in a private message, as I’m unable to locate these in the marketplace? I will report these once I receive your message.

[#3]

You are unable to locate any posts with email addresses in them? Seriously? I flag several per day.

[#4]

Right? I just did a search for writing jobs, and I see 5 out of the 15 most recent "jobs" posted displaying email addresses, all asking freelancers to apply by email. 

[#5]

I don't do writing, but I can imagine trying to find good writing jobs on here is a nightmare. Software stuff isn't too bad if you have a good niche.

[#6]

I was made aware of it in the writing categories because they lure people in with "this job is easy, you just need native English and an internet connection" kind of scam-job.

[#7]

...and we will pay you 10x more than legitimate person would.

[#8]

My experience on Upwork from the time I arrived (long before any of the recent changes) has been that 1-2% of jobs in the writing category are worth clicking through to read the full job post and maybe 1/3 of those worth sending a proposal. But, so far that's been sufficient to quickly land a new client any time I have time available.

[#9]

Look up any writing-related category - rife with this kind of thing. 

[#10]

Hi Annie,

   im sorry but the canned phrase "The Trust & Safety Team does its best to ensure these violations are addressed. Additionally, any freelancer who may have applied for the job will have their Connects returned." is simply not true....

First sentance - The trust and saftey team do NOT do their best, because if they did they would implement the simple procedures to automatically remove emails BEFORE they are posted into a job description. Reporting posts violating terms should be a secondary measure when the simple code integration fails to stop a scam job post.

Second sentance - Again, not true. ONLY freelancers that apply to jobs that you actually bother to remove will get connects refunded. what about the thousands that Upwork willfully leave open on the platform, they dont get refunded!

If I am wrong in either of my conclusions, please, tell us WHY they have not already implemented the **bleep**ing code? (oh look it works on the forum)

[#11]

Well said. As I've laboured over and over, and as you point out here, there are primary filters UW need to put in place that PREVENT such "jobs" being posted in the first place.  Right now, UW allow an unfiltered, open firehose of scams and fake jobs to be posted.

[#12]

Yes it is pretty insane how little is done! What suprises me is that in the event of someone geting scammed for a significant amount of time and/or money I would think they could probably file a legal dispute with Upwork and claim on the basis that Upwork dont even take the basic steps in protecting its users.

I am in not in the legal profession by any means, but i'm sure Upwork have a duty of care that they clearly do not act on judging by the posts on this forum and the amount of scams. It seems logical to me that any legal proceedings would result in Upwork being found to not take even the most basic precautions to keep its users safe and therefore make them liable!

Having said that, they know how unlikely it is for anyone to do it and as such continue to allow these things to happen.

[#13]

What suprises me is that in the event of someone geting scammed for a significant amount of time and/or money I would think they could probably file a legal dispute with Upwork and claim on the basis that Upwork dont even take the basic steps in protecting its users.

You would think so, but I think Upwork's legal exposure would be minimal to none. Upwork's legal team reduced or completely removed any liabilities as indicated in the Terms of Service and User Agreement, both of which we are bound by.

In order for something like this to stand a chance at becoming a legal issue, someone would have to prove that Upwork is doing very little or nothing to prevent scam job postings. The problem is, we do not know what they are doing -- we only know what we see. Upwork could claim that for every 20 scam jobs you see, there are 200 scam jobs that were prevented from reaching the platform. There is no way for us to know and Upwork does not share this data publicly.

Of course, there are always "insider threats." If a disgruntled former employee decided to spill the beans on some crooked activity, it would give Upwork an even bigger black eye than it already has. But I do not think a freelancer getting scammed will get any traction.

[#14]

---

Clark S wrote:

In order for something like this to stand a chance at becoming a legal issue, someone would have to prove that Upwork is doing very little or nothing to prevent scam job postings. The problem is, we do not know what they are doing -- we only know what we see. Upwork could claim that for every 20 scam jobs you see, there are 200 scam jobs that were prevented from reaching the platform. There is no way for us to know and Upwork does not share this data publicly.

---

I know what they are NOT doing:-

• not filtering something as simple as an email address in a job description.  This is such a basic first step, it's hard to emphasize how basic this is, and how astounding it is that UW are allowing naked or obfuscated email addresses to be posted on a jobs platform.  End result: in certain categories, upwards of 30% of "jobs" are "clients" soliciting applications via email on a platform where that is an egregious violation of their ToS.
• as far as I've seen (and I've looked at several thousand job postings at this point), they are not filtering anything whatsoever: Google doc links, Telegram links, Skype and WhatsApp...this has resulted in so many "jobs" soliciting for applications to be sent off-platform (explicitly so).

There is no duty of care at all given the above points.  Your notion that "we can't see what we can't see" doesn't hold up given the above. What I see is an unfiltered, open firehose of user-generated content being published on UW, then maybe cleaned up later, but at some unspecified time if so.  It will also require the manual flagging, the forum posts, the returning of connects etc.  All that heat and light can be avoided with the most basic duty of care that can EASILY prevent the above two points. 

Honestly, that I've had to point out the obvious for so long on these forums is beyond bizarre. 

[#15]

You're too optimistic. Proving Upwork is doing little to nothing to prevent scam postings would be very unlikely to create any legal liability. If it were demonstrated that Upwork had consciously chosen to allow those postings in order to sell connects, perhaps. Just not bothering? Very unlikely.

[#16]

That's a good point.  There should NOT be the expectation that on a reputable jobs platform...upwards of 30% of "jobs" being posted (in a category like writing) are out-and-out scams.  It doesn't help that so many established freelancers here love to pile-on new users and solely blame them for going off-platform when UW aren't doing the most basic duty of care to prevent such solicitations to go off-platform in the first place (that can be done automatically).  Instead, it's all unfiltered, then they manually clean up later (maybe).  Connects spent, connects....uh, maybe returned, maybe not.

UW's motto seems to be: work harder, not smarter.

[#17]

---

Jonathan H wrote:

If I am wrong in either of my conclusions, please, tell us WHY they have not already implemented the **bleep**ing code? (oh look it works on the forum)

---

Maybe they won’t implement nuking the clients address because what would they replace it with, “Edited for Community Guidelines” or “Edited for Terms of Service”?  Now that would look really bad (and embarrassing) on a job post, so, they’re not going to jeopardize losing a client.  It’s much easier to leave it there because, you know, it’s more money for them too.

[#18]

Thanks for the reply Annie.  However, my question has not been answered:

• why do UW allow email addresses to be posted in job descriptions when there are trivial technical solutions to automatically prevent email addresses being posted in job descriptions? (the gist of my post)

Why are you saying the only solution is to manually "flag" such "jobs" (scams) when there is a trivial technical solution to preventing these jobs being posted in the first place?

Could you get any of your technical team to respond here?

Don't you agree it would be infinitely easier to automatically prevent such "jobs" being posted in the first place, and not require freelancers and UW staff to manually remove them? That would save a lot of time for people applying to such fake/scam jobs, flagging them, people complaining in the forums, returning connects.  What a lot of bother when it can be prevented automatically without anyone lifting a finger.

Since the advent of the internet in the 90s, developers have used one or two lines of code at most to remove things like email addresses via RegEx.  It's so trivial to do, and actually, your platform already uses such tools on this very forum.  Many words are automatically censored on this forum.  Why not on job descriptions and private messaging, where scams are deployed?

[#19]

re: "why are UW allowing this to occur?"

lack of will to do anything about it.

[#20]

Andrew and Jonathan,

I understand your frustration and for some time I too have wondered why Upwork so stubbornly refuses to take any meaninfgul action to clean up the platform from spam, bots and scammers. I stopped getting frustrated when I realized Upwork is no longer in the business of curating a quality marketplace that connects clients with freelancers and is now fully in the business of monetizing the perception of opportunity via harvesting connects by any means necessary (including by not removing scam "jobs" in hopes of luring the clueless or careless). This strategy may work for a while but ultimately has a short runway and most successful freelancers know that, so they (and I) have moved on to finding other revenue streams. It's the best advice I can give.

[#21]

This is it - monetizing the perception of opportunity - well said! When UW can make money from every single job application, and when every job posted - no matter how low quality - seems to garner a bare minimum of 10 applicants, there's a massive conflict of interest going on.  As you say, it's a very short-term strategy no doubt prompted by UPWK's all-time-low stock price value, but it's going to provide diminishing returns very quickly as UW becomes a money drain for freelancers. 

[#22]

---

Gergana K wrote:

. . . monetizing the perception of opportunity

Yup. Well put. Wish I was smart enough to have thought of that one.

Definitely stealing it so I can pretend I was, though.

[#23]

There are tons of things people complain about that are genuinely tough problems to address. This doesn't fall into that category.