[idea] Increasing quality level of oDesk service
Here are some ideas that most probably could lead to greatly improve quality level of oDesk:
- Removing some tests. Some of them, like Frontpage 2000, or Dreamweaver are completely useless, since knowledge of these and similar software means nothing with actuall skills thay may be hidden before requirements to the projects asking for Frontpage or Dreamweaver expertise - i.e. HTML/CSS. People who use these softwares are don't know how to code HTML themselves (which is considered to be the best practice for web-designer). By removing this tests oDesk will force large amount of freelancers to take tests for HTML4, CSS2, WCAG practices and only then buyers will be able to see adequate provider's expertise in question of markup coding.
- Add a quick "how-to" for buyers, creating the project. By "how-to" I understand a short list of possible project types with accompanying technologies that could be used in these project. This will greatly help to improve project descriptions and make project requirements adequate. For example: having such helper on project creation screen will stop buyers from creating projects of crazy requirements like asking for ASP.Net test passed for PHP task.
- Remove useless questions from tests. Some tests, related to online software (example: Wordpress test), have majority of their questions about things like knowledge of admin interface. Which renders to be completely useless, when most of requirements for Wordpress projects posted at oDesk are theming, plugins coding e.t.c. Completing such tests will not display actual level of skills for provider, instead of forcing him to remember where he'd seen certain GUI element in Wordpress admin interface. I'm sure there are a lot of other tests which have same useless question not related to inside part of the skill/software.
- Profile images/avatars alternative to load from specified URL. Why not to add a feature to specify url for individual photo and company logo for provider's profiles, instead of using image upload with crazy cropping and quality downgrading for uploaded images. This will solve free a lot of oDesk storage space they could use for adding more project-related cool feature, and will make providers (and probably buyers) happy by being able to display their photo or avatar or logo in normal quality and with proportional height and width.
- Alternative payment systems to add. I bet a lot of providers and buyers from ex-USSR would be really happy if oDesk could offer WebMoney Transfer ( payment system to fund their accound and to withdraw their money to. This payment system work worldwide, but very popular in ex-USSR (http://wmtransfer.com/) more than 6000000 active accounts, a lot of safety levels, low transaction fees, merchant apis). With this you'd get a large number of skilled providers from Eastern Europe to compete with with cheap (but often low-quality) workforce from India and Pakistan. Buyers will be happy.
- Independent portfolio entries rating system. Many of us (providers) have their portfolio filled with examples of their skills applied to graphic and website design tasks. By allowing a single oDesk buyer to cast their vote on any of portfolio entries listed in provider's profile (allowed to vote only once per portfolio enter per buyer) would give an average that would describe some of provider's skills even better than his rating and feedbacks by displaying average rate of votes summarized). With this feature enabled buyers will be able to vote for works they liked in portfolio of any provider they are looking to, and displaying average vote rating near to their completed projects feedback will show how adequate their skills are. Example: provider who does below average quality designs for buyers, who rate him high just because they don't know this design could be much better. Now some buyers decided to rate his portoflio entries quality while browsing his profile when he applied for their project. They've rated his works 1 of 5 because they've seen much better designs from other providers. Then buyers who decided to award this buyer with design related project (interview doesn't actually helps for such type of jobs), notify that average rating for his portfolio entries are low and will choose more adequate and skilled designer for this task who will have a better rating for his portfolio entries.
To be continued... probably
Nice P.S. Nu mozno bylo i
Nice 
P.S. Nu mozno bylo i po russki skazat'
Worthless tests
I definitely agree about the worthlessness of Frontpage(wasn't this discontinued by Microsoft?), and Dreamweaver tests. Dreamweaver is a fine application, but it is worthless without a backbone of knowledge in HTML, CSS, etc, so I am in total agreement.
some thoughts
on Sat, 2008-10-11 05:04.Thanks for the feedback! Some initial reactions:
(1) and (3) It is an interesting idea to limit the tests to the best and most relevant - our philosophy to date is to provide the broadest selection we can. As for poor questions, we have gradually improved the tests over time via user feedback, but there is certainly more room for improvement.
(2) Good suggestion!
(4) I'll pass the suggestion on to our front-end team. We should be able to fix any image quality issues.
(5) We have looked at WebMoney, and solicited feedback before in community, but have had limited response. We may add it in 2009.
(6) Good suggestion again - we'll be taking another look at the portfolio system soon.
Keep the feedback coming!
Michael
Great so far - a few more ideas...
Hello,
Great thread, some good ideas for improvement, here's a few more:
-- Recommending a minimal hourly rate for different job categories (and marking on the posting if the buyer has chosen to ignore and post a job below the recommended level) – it doesn’t have to be high, but reasonable enough to encourage and promote the quality of the service oDesk is providing. I understand the differences in the Global economy and that companies want to outsource work for ‘cheap’ .. and that people are willing to take that work for next to nothing. This however can still happen, but with a bottom set that helps to prevent unscrupulous buyers from exploiting individuals who are in need of income and willing to work for next to nothing. Is it quality or quantity you are looking to promote here... or a middle-ground?
-- Penalise Providers that add fraudulent information to their Profile/Title and all sorts of outlandish statements about quality etc. ‘Certified Microsoft & Macromedia Developer etc’ .. and then when you look at the profile they have nothing to back this up.
-- Adding an attribute/icon key to Providers that shows up on the Candidate list for both Providers & Buyers – When you roll over the attribute icon a tool-tip pops up giving more information. Examples of the icons (Profile Complete %, Published Tests, Current Assignments, Completed Assignments, Portfolio items etc.). By doing this it may help to: distinguish good Providers from the masses, help the Buyer to quickly see potentials even if they are at the bottom of a list of 50+ applicants etc.
- Recognise Providers that have taken X number of tests in a particular field, with a decent pass mark (80-100%). Perhaps an easily recognisable indicator on the profile summary. oDesk Certified - Web Designer, .NET Programmer, .NET and Microsoft Programmer etc.
-- oConemy - provide Statistics on the number of Buyer projects posted that actually go to completion.
Best Regards,
Will
Comments
Hello,
Great thread, some good ideas for improvement, here's a few more:
-- Recommending a minimal hourly rate for different job categories (and marking on the posting if the buyer has chosen to ignore and post a job below the recommended level) – it doesn’t have to be high, but reasonable enough to encourage and promote the quality of the service oDesk is providing. I understand the differences in the Global economy and that companies want to outsource work for ‘cheap’ .. and that people are willing to take that work for next to nothing. This however can still happen, but with a bottom set that helps to prevent unscrupulous buyers from exploiting individuals who are in need of income and willing to work for next to nothing. Is it quality or quantity you are looking to promote here... or a middle-ground?
Time and time again this comes up and up and up. Most of us feel pretty strongly that there should be no 'minimum' wage set up on oDesk. I think most of us believe that we should charge in line with our own particular expertise. While I understand that it's frustrating to look for work when jobs are posted for anywhere from 40 cents and hour up, I still believe that this trend will not last in the long run. The higher the quality of provider that oDesk attracts the more likely it is that they will not accept low wages.
My biggest argument against setting minimums is very simple: If you have an opportunity to hire writers and the minimum wage here for writers is say $8 per hour - I charge $25 - in my mind that means that I am less likely to get a job at $25 because most buyers would go for the $8 per hour person. Flat out - this doesn't work for freelancers who feel they're worth more per hour.
Stop and consider this: If I can produce 1,000 words in one hour and you're paying me $25 per hour, you could hire 3 people for one hours work and even if they only produced 400 words in that hour then let's face it it's a better deal for you.
-- Penalise Providers that add fraudulent information to their Profile/Title and all sorts of outlandish statements about quality etc. ‘Certified Microsoft & Macromedia Developer etc’ .. and then when you look at the profile they have nothing to back this up.
I believe this becomes 'self governing' myself. I don't believe that most providers 'stretch' their profiles enough to warrant oDesk stepping into this quagmire. Factually buyers will weed out these providers themselves and provide the appropriate feedback. Chances are that providers who have feedback that is consistently 'against' their statements in their profiles would not get work.
-- Adding an attribute/icon key to Providers that shows up on the Candidate list for both Providers & Buyers – When you roll over the attribute icon a tool-tip pops up giving more information. Examples of the icons (Profile Complete %, Published Tests, Current Assignments, Completed Assignments, Portfolio items etc.). By doing this it may help to: distinguish good Providers from the masses, help the Buyer to quickly see potentials even if they are at the bottom of a list of 50+ applicants etc.
There is an indication when you get a provider. If you click on the link to their profile it's easy to distinguish one from another. This may not be as transparent as you're recommending but not sure why you'd ask for this except a buyer doesn't want to spend the time reviewing applicants.
- Recognise Providers that have taken X number of tests in a particular field, with a decent pass mark (80-100%). Perhaps an easily recognisable indicator on the profile summary. oDesk Certified - Web Designer, .NET Programmer, .NET and Microsoft Programmer etc..
? the profiles have flags on them for those who make the 10% to 20% ranking among providers. I think again what you're asking is to remove some of the burden from the buyer (which is commendable) but this probably isn't all that easy to implement either.
Given that many of us have long term buyers who hire us for one project and then keep us 'on retainer' for longer periods of time this could be a bit tricky. For instance: I have a buyer who hired me last fall for one job and liked my work so I'm still working for him. It's not the same job I started last year
Doreen
Hi there! Thank you so much
Hi there!
Thank you so much for detailed suggestions. I will pass them on to our product managers and have those responsible for different areas comment on what is possible, what may already be in the works and ask further questions to better determine how things can be implemented.
Regards,
Olga