rating providers

That's exactly what I argue. Rate is less important than the buyer comment.

Didrik

See here's the problem:  Many buyers use a '3' rating to penalize providers who do not do a good job.  What winds up happening is that the ranking system of '5' is used to 'filter' out less than great providers to be frank about it.

If the feedback system were done differently I could understand this but frankly you have to look at the way the ratings work.  If you put a good comment in feedback and give me a 3 rating then it looks like you didn't know what you were talking about.

And unfortunately it does in fact affect how folks are filtered for jobs because if you look at the various ways you can sort people and some of the minimum requirements - then it takes all ratings into consideration.  

Here's an example of what I mean:  Let's say that you as a buyer say that I need a 4.5 feedback to participate in your job opening.  I have successfully completed 3 jobs and wound up with 4.5, 4.6 and 3.5 on those jobs.  My overall rating (now I'm doing the basics as there are other considerations such as rate/hours) based on this is 4.2 - that means that buyers who are looking for a 4.5 overall rating I can't apply for those jobs.

And frankly: Rate is more important than comments - not that many buyers are going to review comments and decide that even though you rated someone 3.0 they had great work!  Doreen

It is very easy for you to suggest that this is a lie when you have all perfect 5's or darn close to it in your rankings.  This is unfair categorization on your part because it will stop some buyers from considering the providers because *most* buyers will not take the time to look through comments left by other buyers but instead will review the 'star' ratings.

What the system *says* I'm merely pointing out what it actually *does* and how it works.  Unfortunately *most* buyers don't take the time to look at the rating system and flag folks with *5* stars for work they are satisfied with.  Buyers who are looking for providers use the stars to evaluate their work and they *think* anything less than a 5 is not good. I had a similar discussion with a person I hired a while back and gave her 4's on her job and she was very upset as she felt she had done a good job.  Being both a buyer and a provider I understand where you are coming from but I also see the providers problem and all I was doing was pointing out to you what the problem was from the providers perspective.

Doreen

I'm upset even if buyer give me 4.9 - because I'm always doing all my best for buyers. But simply - 4 is good and and 5 is for those who really EXPERTS in what they do and have done extremely well their job.

Anyone want to get 5 stars, but all buyers should make right decidion to not broke someone's good start on odesk and 3 - is is NOT good for what buyer call "I can call a good job"

This is an interesting topic to discuss. I submitted a help ticket a while back asking that oDesk consider changing the "terms" associated with the star ratings. Under the current system, 5 is exceptional, 4 is excellent, and 3 is good. I had a buyer who rated me 4 because he said I did an excellent job, but it was not exceptional!

I argued that I look at it differently. When a buyer rates me 5 in a category, it means he has "no reservations" in that specific category, not because I am exceptional. He actually agreed with my reasoning and decided to rate me all 5s.

The bottom line is a lot of buyers put too much thought into the "feedback terms." And so they decide to rate providers as 3 or 4. They definitely don't mean any harm.

Some buyers also do not rate providers based on the task at hand, especially in the "quality" and "skills" categories. They rate the quality and skills of providers in general, not the work quality and skills related to the assigned tasks.

Hope that makes sense!

Ashraf

I fully understand where a buyer would rate all 3's or all 4's. But the fact that *most* buyers don't use their own rating system does in the long run hurt the providers.

I understand that Danalyn like me is a provider and a buyer - I guess I'd have a real problem using my own rating system because I understand what it does to the rating that is 'accepted' here as the norm - I wouldn't want to be the reason someone didn't fall into one of the 'minimum feedback score' categories because I rated them 3's thinking that was 'acceptable level of work' ....

Doreen

I'd rather see (either in addition to or in place of the star rating system) comments and one question:

If given the opportunity, would you hire this provider again or recommend them to another buyer? (yes/no/maybe)

I'm willing to bet that the majority of the providers here would fall into the yes/maybe categories.  This would leverage things a bit, especially for providers who do a "good" job...where a 3-star rating would hurt them, a "maybe" wouldn't as much.  Then, buyers can search and sort based on recommendation.

I dunno.  I might be rambling - I blame the parade and marching band that woke me up way too early this morning. 

- Danalyn

Before you complain about rates, read all 4 parts of the oDesk Insider Blog's Make More Money series.

or maybe just a short one Will Hire Again? and one of the answer will be shown (yes/maybe/no). Which will be a better gauge of how the provider had performed. And since everyone seems to handle the star rating individually, it's a very inconsistent way to rate a provider or a buyer.

Girl I don't want to be anywhere near the marching band.

Must agree - there does seem to be a little confusion about the whole affair.

It seems that most of the buyers I have worked for use a 'Negative' rating system.

1. A provider automatically starts off with a 5 star  rating.
2. Points are deducted if the work was late, substandard or the availability was poor etc.
3. Therefore, if a provider does everything that was asked, they receive 5 stars.

The weakness is that there is no distinction between a job well done and true excellence, but that is what the 'comment' section is for. Be lavish in your praise!

This is why the providers are unhappy, and I agree with Doreen upon this one. 90 per-cent of buyers would give them 5 stars if the work was completed on time, and to a reasonable standard. They are at a disadvantage and are being punished for doing a good job. Buyers are swayed by the ratings, and look for the fives.

Put it this way; imagine that a writer does a small writing job, of one short article. How are they supposed to show excellence? It is very difficult to go above and beyond the remit for such a simple task.

Maybe I am talking from my posterior, as usual.

The marching band thing sounds like torture.

Have a good day, folks

Martyn

Martyn, I happen to agree with you - though I have to admit to being slightly peeved when a buyer puts 4 stars on quality or nearly any other category for the simple reason that I have always told my clients that if in fact they get *anything* from me they are not 100% satisfied with that I will happily reprocess it free of charge.

As a buyer I take the approach that if a provider fulfills the requirements that I laid out in the job then they automatically get all 5 stars.  If they 'fall down' in any category then I reduce from the 5.  As a provider, I do exactly the same thing - If I have a problem with a buyer (which I typically do not) I also use the backwards rating: they start at 5 and go down from there.  I have only one buyer whom I have ever given less than a 5 rating - and that was someone who hired me - took up well over an hour of my time to interview - then spent the next week not following up with me on anything - and finally stopping the job in mid-stream with barely an explanation.  It was by far the weirdest thing I've ever seen on oDesk.

But yes, like you - I think you start at 5 and work backwards deducting from the various categories.  I understand that isn't how it's supposed to work but since it does seem to be the way it is used *most* of the time that's also how I've used it.

Doreen