How PRIVATE should your earnings be? (thread renamed)
I am so UPSET!! oDesk people must definitely remove the earnings information in the buyer’s profile. It is very private. This feature only creates Chaos.. Insecurity among developers showing to the public of how much each developer earns .. It is a mess!
Why do we just add up also our favorite underwear.. Britney Spears as our favorite artist or our ideal wife, instead. Include the sizes of our clothes..
As what other buyers said, we only want our profile shows our professional information, experience and skills.
Fixed price / financial information
on Fri, 2007-06-22 21:43.Since the initial launch of the fixed price offering, we needed a
way to display the size of jobs completed on a fixed price basis. The
only natural way (that we're aware of) to do this is by displaying total agreed and paid
amounts for those jobs. This is a common approach in many of the other
project marketplaces as well.
For comparison, we display the
earnings on individual hourly jobs as well. This helps put fixed price
and hourly jobs in the same terms for review by a buyer.
oDesk
Fixed Price Beta
I dont think people should be able to see how much providers make on any projects... fixed price or not. I know that the fixed price mod is in its beta phase, but if thats the reasoning behind showing people how much we've earned, then I think you should do away with fixed price. That is personal information. Thats like giving the public access to your checking/savings statements. Im glad Im not the only one who feels this way.
earnings on fixed price jobs
on Tue, 2007-06-26 22:20.Question: do most people feel the same way about how other marketplaces display financial information:
Examples:
GetaFreelancer: screensnap -> https://url.odesk.com/ylgzo
eLance: screensnap -> https://url.odesk.com/bni1q
ScriptLance: screensnap -> https://url.odesk.com/oe9sh
Is there something fundamentally different about how oDesk is conveying the information versus other marketplaces? Or is this a global issue that all marketplaces need to address?
oDesk
The total amount earned for
The total amount earned for each project and hourly rate for each project should be a private matter. May be odesk can show the total aggregate amount earned by each individual if this display is for marketing purpose. But hourly rate worked on each project impacts providers while negotiating hourly rates.
I understand other marketplaces does show the amount earned but Odesk wanted to be the best marketplace. So does it make sense to replicate what other market places do ? I think odesk should think beyond other market places.
Rakesh
I agree, while it is
I agree, while it is something of a guilty pleasure to see how much my competitors are making, the only way for us, as developers, to rise the tide for all boats is to keep this information hidden. This includes hourly wages as well.
Lets step into buyers shoes ...
I'm a provider,.. still i do put a buyer hats on now and then to know what they want.
So lets step into buyers' shoes,
If you're a buyer, and had this project lets say worth 5,000 US$. The question is might be like this, do you really want to hook up on a freelancer to do this?
If yes, and lets say you choose odesk's freelancers, okay now you got a work to do that is to pick the right person/teams. I'm sure you want to get the job done at it best quality with reasonable price & time. I believe its quite hard to do, one of the information that could be usefull is to see their track records, and the more infos the better. As example : Thats the Project Title, Job Specs, and of course Project's Value...
If there's only project title & rating, i guess it wouldn't help as much as if there's the project nominals... it help you (as the buyer to grab the scope of the project..), why, because we practically couldn't grasp project scope just by looking at its Title, and i don't thinks every buyer have the time to click and review all of its job specs, which is only possible if the project has detailed specs, and the specs didn't change a long the way the project runs.... (i oftenly see a project with minimal to none job specs)
So, IMHO the better way to inform project scope is to use the universal parameter ... and that is how much money involved on the project.
So in case you have budget 5,000 US$ on building some apps, you (or most the buyer does ... i think) might have more confidence on ppl that have had completed similar project that worth around 5,000 US$ ,well maybe less (and maybe several buyer would go alot lesser depend on their willingness to take a risk i guess).
Basically what i'm trying to say is in freelancing or professional, money is the universal language (IMHO) ... its used to measure abilities, competence, and quality... well i don't know if it is the best method yet, but buyer's language is mostly business language and that is profit... hence money, so its a practical way to present something. You would get a bonus if you done the work better than expected, its an appreciation ... and commonly its done with money.
I'm a designer, in presenting solutions to my clients frequently i have to use their language & parameter to communicate my solution (well things like margins, target market, profit, etc... )...
Still, if there's better solution that could benefit both side (the buyer and provider) that would be nice, so i guess if we want to take this out (provider earnings), we gotta thinks of another way to present it. So i guess not just asking to eliminate this but also give your suggestion to odesks guys..
CMIIW
Ahmad M Yahya
right on
I agree, on a marketing standpoint it is the most realistic approach. I'm a web designer, and I do have background in marketing back in college with AIESEC, and always presentation is the key. How will you present to a buyer if you do not show your past work and how much you have earned.
Let me put it this way has anyone ever worked with a sales person have you ever seen them riding with a sports car or perhaps a very successful broker showing off with his porsche for example? People like them earn by commission; if I want my house to be sold in the open market I would most probably look for someone like them as they would probably have better sales negotiation skills specially in closing and or they have better contacts.
Now if you want to sell yourself you have to show off. Another thing people with a lot of projects usually have strong intrapersonal skills and would be ideal to talk with buyers, now if you were a buyer would you prefer to talk or deal with someone who seems to have a few projects up on his sleeve yet? Hmmmm.... wait let me put let me put it in another way:
Buyers like to talk to sellers its just the way it is, looking at it in another perspective if I would buy fish I would most definitely would want them fresh and I would most certainly scrutinize the fish down to the last detail if I had to -- would you settle for a rotten fish? Most probably not because I don't think so either.
I agree but....
I think there should be an option to activate it to show our earnings to : all/nobody/ specific to the providers/buyers we have chosen 
right, and default it to
right, and default it to false
I've been looking at becoming an active oDesk provider for a long time now and the main two things that keep me away are both related to the fact that the financial information is displayed on the site. For one it's not nice to show how much an individual is making without his/her consent. Secondly, showing this information creates somewhat unfair bidding environment and is shutting off some of the providers due to impression that they can't make living off of their services.The impression may be made based on other peoples' rates displayed on the site, which may be awfully low for their area, or totally off.
Anyway, the point is displaying financial information without consent is a privacy bridge that hurts you as the market place the most.
Instead, you should place more emphasis on other factors such as customer satisfaction, provider rating, etc... So, just keep it private!
more on exposing financial info
on Thu, 2008-01-10 21:03.This has been a debate within the oDesk community for a long time. Seeing the financial info is very powerful for potential buyers. Providers say their rate is $50.00 but all of their active assignments are at $17.45. Similarly, there are many providers on oDesk that started at $9 or $10 but are now billing at $20 or $25/hr. Buyers see this trend and it inspires a lot of confidence.
arojkov, what do you think about this argument?
Michael
oDesk
Valid argument I'd say. But
Valid argument I'd say. But then again, a lot seems to come down to personal preference. We should be arguing about what to make the default option by now
this is private information
Why we consider this issue only from buyers point of view?
Let provider choose what is more important to him/her - buyer's confidence or private information. For example, if provider want to draw more attention to his profile - let he/she will be able to show off private information (earnings). If provider don't want to do this - let he/she will be able to hide this information.
This is similar to changing profile's status (public/private). If oDesk can do this with profiles, why can't do this with earnings/rates?
more on earnings
I have to agree with most of the comments I've seen here. I also find this a drawback as I feel this is like someone having access to my personal financial information.
In my early assignments at ODesk I took a couple of very low paying jobs just to get ratings and now they're reflected on my profile - and while the argument can be made that because I'm making significantly more now it's a plus.
When competing with folks who are writing for 1 - 2 dollars hourly it's tough for those who are making a living from their jobs on ODesk. I am very fortunate that I have a lot of jobs but I'm still a little weird about the $$'s showing in my profile.
Money
Like many of us, I use other sites as well, and those I do use also show amounts earned. It may sound odd, but I don't mind sharing my earnings. On one of those sites I have a perfect feedback for a job that paid over $2000. I worked hard to get that job and I worked very hard to do that job. The fact that someone can see that I made a buyer feel that an amount that large was well spent on my writing is nothing but a plus in a reputation-based environment such as this.
I say we keep it.
Public Rates Allow Comparison of Buyers, Providers & Other Sites
I can’t believe that this discussion has gone on for so long, without someone raising the following point. I just joined oDesk, and the reason I joined here (and not any other site) is that, after sorting out freelancers by their hourly rate and their number of oDesk hours, I felt that it is possible to find buyers willing to pay for American labor.
When I did this comparison at the other major sites, the percentage of work going to areas with a much lower cost of living was way out of balance. As a writer, I am only looking for buyers who want to hire me because they need my written English communication skills. When I see buyers trolling to get someone with mediocre skills to write for less than a penny per word, I can’t take that site seriously. There is no doubt that those buyers are here, but there is a balance.
Dan
Public Rates Allow Comparison of Buyers, Providers & Other Sites
You said: When I did this comparison at the other
major sites, the percentage of work going to areas with a much lower
cost of living was way out of balance. As a writer, I am only looking for buyers who want to hire me because they need my written English communication skills. When
I see buyers trolling to get someone with mediocre skills to write for
less than a penny per word, I can’t take that site seriously.
I do agree with you as far as displaying rates to be hired however, with the 'earnings' showing I do feel a little like my banking information is being disclosed to people who have no business knowing it. I wouldn't have a problem with earnings being disclosed to buyers as I chose to disclose them for comparison purposes, but the fact that any ODesk buyer or provider can review my profile and see my earnings is an issue (which doesn't bother me all that much clearly since I'm still here and working). I think that an option to have the earnings made private unless someone OPTS to have it disclosed is a nice option and one that I think would be beneficial to have as a part of ODesk.
As I pointed out, it's not enough to keep me from working - and to be frank about it as my rates have climbed up I've not suffered from the 'cheap labor' issue at all, my feedback and reputation have helped me obtain sufficient work to keep me more than busy.
From another thread..
I created a new thread with my post below - not realizing this discussion was already going on...here's what I wrote
I'd like to see this changed in our oDesk profiles....
When a buyer (or anyone else surfing public profiles) clicks on a
Provider's profile he or she can view the charge (hourly) rates for
previous or ongoing jobs that the Provider is currently working on or
has worked on. It is no one's business but my own what I am getting paid to do a job. I consider this personal information in the same way my Social Insurance (Social Security in the U.S.) number is personal information.
If you were working for a non-virtual company and got your pay by
paper check - the check would be sealed in an envelope for each
individual employee. In some retail jobs I've had - it was forbidden
to even disclose your rate of pay to co-workers. If a complete
stranger came up to you and asked "how much money do you make a year?"
you would tell them it's none of their business, right? This is the
same thing, in my opinion.
The following proves my point, I believe...
I got an interview
invitation from a Buyer yesterday. In his job description he
advertised that he wanted someone to do the work for less than $15 per
hour. My charge rate is consistently $10 an hour - and that's what I
bid on his project. I have been doing similar work for another Buyer
since last November and it was only my second oDesk job. My charge
rate at that time was $8.50 an hour and this Buyer and I are currently
negotiating a raise, since I now have "certification" for the project
and because we've worked together for a year. The Buyer who contacted
me about this new position said...and I quote..."We also want you to
work for us below $10 as you are already working on the similar type of
work below $10." It's not going to happen. This Buyer obviously
looked on my profile and saw that I was doing similar work for a lesser
price and so now doesn't want to pay my current rate.
The only thing a Buyer needs to know is a
Provider's qualifications, education and experience in order to
determine whether or not the Provider is a good fit for the position.
I don't want my "earnings" displayed for the world to see. Even
putting your profile on "Private" is not a solution, because any Buyer
inviting you for an interview can still see your earnings.
Respectfully,
Debbie MacKenzie
And despite reading all the posts in this thread on the topic I haven't changed my mind. Financial information is personal and marketing or not - I think the suggestion someone made to maybe show the total a Provider has earned would be preferable than the way it is but divulging personal financial information on Providers is still not desirable.
I suggest oDesk do a poll of all Providers to get their input and then go with the majority - after all, oDesk is making money from any Provider who works here.
DM
Interesting thread.
their rate is $50.00 but all of their active assignments are at $17.45.
Similarly, there are many providers on oDesk that started at $9 or $10
but are now billing at $20 or $25/hr.
Must say that this is an interesting thread - shame I did not find it sooner. Personally, I do not mind buyers seeing the total amount earned for a job, but I would like to keep the hourly rate private.
ODesk, when people question 'wage restrictions,' states that it is a free marketplace and that it cannot interfere. This works both ways. By letting potential customers see a provider's previous rates, it gives them a 'bargaining tool' to negotiate lower rates. Tying one hand behind a provider's back is not allowing a free marketplace.
To compare, I work outside ODesk, too. If I am giving a customer a quote for a job, I would not give provide them with the exact price paid by previous customers. That would be economic suicide. I give a quote for a job and they decide whether to accept it or not.
The other point I fail to understand is the idea that it is wrong for a provider to set a higher rate. If it is a free market, a provider should be allowed to set their rate to whatever level they want. If I set my rate at $30 dollars, but bid on an assignment for $15, that is my choice. Once again, we are told that it is up to providers *not* to bid for low priced jobs. Using the same argument, it is the right of the buyer *not* to employ a provider at a higher rate.
For example, I have two rates, a lower one for 'run of the mill' work and a higher one for technical writing. Unfortunately, every time I apply for a technical job, I have to remember to raise the rate on my profile. This prevents the buyer seeing that I have worked for less, on 'easier' jobs. The idea of showing a gradual increase in rate should have no bearing - that is what the feedback system is for.
This is the main reason why I spend less time on ODesk, now.
Anyway, rant over.
Martyn 
I like that idea
Personally, I do not mind buyers seeing the total amount earned for a job, but I would like to keep the hourly rate private.
I like that idea.
I don't mind having all rates shown...but this seems like a good, solid middle-ground.
- Danalyn
Before you complain about rates, read all 4 parts of the oDesk Insider Blog's Make More Money series.
No worries
Glad you managed to make some sense out of the ranting!
The opposite
I would rather people see my hourly rate than see how much the total I have earned is. That is what really should be private.
Transparency
I love to see this idea to be implemented on oDesk.
At the same time, I have another concern. I could see a steady flow of increasing no of new buyers into oDesk every month. There are many reasons that those new buyers would like to come to oDesk to see how it works. The reasons might be "qualified professionals", "oDesk team software", "no-guarantee fixed-price jobs" etc. I'm sure one of the reasons is transparency that oDesk provides. IMO, the flow direction would change, even if one of the ideas gets approval.
Again, personally I would be extremely happy to see anyone of the ideas being implemented without affecting the flow. (Again I love Martyn's idea than others)
Thanks,
Pothi.
interesting idea.
fantastic timing
on Mon, 2008-11-03 18:19.Martyn, great timing re-surfacing this thread. This issue has come up again internally and I was about to post a new discussion about it, and you beat me to the punch!
First, some principles:
(P1) We agree that providers should have more control, not less, over what information they display in our Marketplace.
(P2) However, Buyers do need information about whom to hire - the fact is, 5.0 feedback at $50/hr means something very different from 5.0 feedback at $8/hr.
(P3) There is a difference between the rate that shows to everyone in the Marketplace, vs. the rate that show to potential Buyers with whom you've connected around a particular job opening.
Next, a couple of questions:
(Q1) If the total earnings and total hours are shown, then it is easy to calculate your average hourly rate, is it not?
(Q2) It seems clear that providers should have the option to show their hourly rate, no?
(Q3) What about tiering? Dollars earned: "$1 to $999", "$1k to $5k", "$5k to $10k", "$10k-$20k", "$20k and up"
So what should we do?
For me, P2 is critical. Knowing how much you earned tells me that you have a good history on oDesk, but it doesn't tell me the right price range. Someone who is a superb value at $10/hr maybe be very disappointing at $50/hr. I am inclined to do something like the Q3 tiering, but also find a way to respect P2 and P3. A potential buyer you have connected with in an interview should be able to see more than a random buyer looking at you in the marketplace, it seems to me.
Anyway, that was a lot - please keep the feedback coming!
Michael
I Don't Mind Showing my Financial Info to Buyers
I just feel uncomfortable to know that everyday other providers come across my profile and see the amount I earned. I agree with Michael that both a provider's hourly rate and the total amount earned on previous projects are valuable information to a buyer. I just think that such financial information should be made private to providers who surf other providers' profiles.
Making your profile "private" doesn't help either. When you apply for a job, other providers in the candidates queue can unnecessarily check your profile and the amount you earned when it's clearly none of their business.
I know for a fact that one of my friends (a provider) added me to his favorites! When I asked him why and told him that this feature should only be used by buyers so that they can follow-up with these providers in the future, he told me (jokingly) that he wanted to check on me to see if I'm getting rich!
This brings me to another issue by the way. Providers shouldn't have the option to add another provider to their favorites. It doesn't make any sense, does it?
Just a thought!
Ashraf
Couple of Questions
Martyn, great timing re-surfacing this thread. This issue has come up again internally and I was about to post a new discussion about it, and you beat me to the punch!
First, some principles:
(P1) We agree that providers should have more control, not less, over what information they display in our Marketplace.
(P2) However, Buyers do need information about whom to hire - the fact is, 5.0 feedback at $50/hr means something very different from 5.0 feedback at $8/hr.
(P3) There is a difference between the rate that shows to everyone in the Marketplace, vs. the rate that show to potential Buyers with whom you've connected around a particular job opening.
Next, a couple of questions:
(Q1) If the total earnings and total hours are shown, then it is easy to calculate your average hourly rate, is it not?
(Q2) It seems clear that providers should have the option to show their hourly rate, no?
(Q3) What about tiering? Dollars earned: "$1 to $999", "$1k to $5k", "$5k to $10k", "$10k-$20k", "$20k and up"
So what should we do?
For me, P2 is critical. Knowing how much you earned tells me that you have a good history on oDesk, but it doesn't tell me the right price range. Someone who is a superb value at $10/hr maybe be very disappointing at $50/hr. I am inclined to do something like the Q3 tiering, but also find a way to respect P2 and P3. A potential buyer you have connected with in an interview should be able to see more than a random buyer looking at you in the marketplace, it seems to me.
Anyway, that was a lot - please keep the feedback coming!
Michael
Michael, I think this got brought back up because of this post that I referred over because oddly enough I remembered having this discussion some number of months ago and at the time I remember having exactly the same concerns.
I sort of lucked out - to be honest about it - because I was one of the 'newbies' trying out the 'Affiliate' from "Freelancer" and had to set up a new profile to do so when it first came out. Because of that some jobs I did then (which you can see here) were as low as $5 per hour. Now my 'average' rate is $20.13 - so I can see where this would be an issue for new buyers who might be hiring me.
So anyway, with that I have a ? for you about the feedback weighing - how is a 5.0 feedback different on a 50 dollar job than on a 5 dollar job? For example: (hmm and I'm actually going to admit this) One of my long term buyers was having some financial issues and rather than suspend my assignment I agreed to a lower rate for a short period of time - as it turned out it was only 3 hours of work at a rate that was 6 dollars less per hour. He subsequently increased my rate back up to the high rate we'd agreed on and left feedback and it was a 5.0. So you're saying that the 5.0 on the $20.00 job is different than the 5.0 on the $26.00 job that I did for the same client? Can you explain what the difference is on the 2 for me so I can see the 'comparison'?
I also feel that there should be some way to 'hide' my rate I've been a proponent of that for a while - I would like the option of being able to show it to buyers if I want to but not *required* to show it unless they've asked. I've got mixed feelings about this as I said the last time we discussed this because I still feel that showing a steady increase in rates also helps to show you are improving in skills and ability so for me I find it a bit of a Catch 22
Doreen
Lol - The credit belongs
Lol - The credit belongs to Doreen. My football team lost again, so I was in a particularly argumentative mood over the weekend.
Firstly, I do appreciate that the whole feedback thing is a difficult balancing act. Finding a system to suit both buyer and provider is difficult.
As I hinted at above, the idea of showing the hourly rate earned does damage providers. We are already bidding against each other, so bidding against ourselves makes the task doubly difficult. Using the Free Market argument against wage restrictions works both ways. Providers should have the freedom to make a quote, without giving the buyers an excuse to lower the price.
Still not sure whether I agree about the hourly rate thing, either. Is a programmer on $50 per hour better than a writer on $25, or a data entry professional on $10? It is difficult to compare. If a provider from the US charges $20, are they better than an Indian or Filipino at $10. Was the quality of work really poorer, or did the cost of living mean that the bid was lower? If I was still in the UK, I would have to bid $25 per hour to make a reasonable living. In Greece, I can get by on a lower rate. My standard of writing has not declined since living in Greece.
Taking your point, someone at $10 per hour could be disappointing at $50, but they could also be a superb acquisition. That is a risk that the buyer takes. Secondly, that is a false argument. Many providers are never going to get near $50 per hour, so you are exaggerating the perceived risk. The difference between, for example, $10 and $20 is much finer, and is not going to bankrupt a buyer. Most sensible buyers appear to use trial periods anyway, so I think that you are overplaying the potential damage. Taking on a contractor in the real world is much more of a financial gamble.
Where do fixed price jobs fit in this picture? I could have spent three hours on a $100 job or fifty hours. Who knows? Many of us work outside ODesk and manage to find customers on the strength of recommendations, and a portfolio. Why should ODesk be any different?
Buyers take some risk, but so do providers, and it seems that the system is weighted too much towards the buyers, at present. I appreciate that they pay the money, but we work hard for it, and deserve the chance to negotiate rates as we see fit.
Too many questions - I have been writing philosophy articles, so I am in a pensive mood!
Time to step down from the soapbox,
Martyn 
Nope not me :)
Lol - The credit belongs to Doreen. My football team lost again, so I was in a particularly argumentative mood over the weekend.
Firstly, I do appreciate that the whole feedback thing is a difficult balancing act. Finding a system to suit both buyer and provider is difficult.
As I hinted at above, the idea of showing the hourly rate earned does damage providers. We are already bidding against each other, so bidding against ourselves makes the task doubly difficult. Using the Free Market argument against wage restrictions works both ways. Providers should have the freedom to make a quote, without giving the buyers an excuse to lower the price.
Still not sure whether I agree about the hourly rate thing, either. Is a programmer on $50 per hour better than a writer on $25, or a data entry professional on $10? It is difficult to compare. If a provider from the US charges $20, are they better than an Indian or Filipino at $10. Was the quality of work really poorer, or did the cost of living mean that the bid was lower? If I was still in the UK, I would have to bid $25 per hour to make a reasonable living. In Greece, I can get by on a lower rate. My standard of writing has not declined since living in Greece.
Taking your point, someone at $10 per hour could be disappointing at $50, but they could also be a superb acquisition. That is a risk that the buyer takes. Secondly, that is a false argument. Many providers are never going to get near $50 per hour, so you are exaggerating the perceived risk. The difference between, for example, $10 and $20 is much finer, and is not going to bankrupt a buyer. Most sensible buyers appear to use trial periods anyway, so I think that you are overplaying the potential damage. Taking on a contractor in the real world is much more of a financial gamble.
Where do fixed price jobs fit in this picture? I could have spent three hours on a $100 job or fifty hours. Who knows? Many of us work outside ODesk and manage to find customers on the strength of recommendations, and a portfolio. Why should ODesk be any different?
Buyers take some risk, but so do providers, and it seems that the system is weighted too much towards the buyers, at present. I appreciate that they pay the money, but we work hard for it, and deserve the chance to negotiate rates as we see fit.
Too many questions - I have been writing philosophy articles, so I am in a pensive mood!
Time to step down from the soapbox,
Martyn
Doesn't belong to me LOL - anyway, I think you're 10 cents (or soapbox) works well. I get too impatient typing long messages LOL D
True...unless
(Q1) If the total earnings and total hours are shown, then it is easy to calculate your average hourly rate, is it not?
True...unless bonuses were given. But as seen with the recent trend of legitimate applications getting marked as spam, it might be safe to say that those same buyers may not take that time to do the math.
Besides, fixed-price assignments already do this.
(Q2) It seems clear that providers should have the option to show their hourly rate, no?
Definitely. At the very least, take baby steps - give providers the option to hide (all) rates from fellow providers, but still let buyers (once a provider is a job candidate) see the rates. Normal employers always ask for a salary history, but co-applicants never see this information (especially not here in the US with privacy laws). Contractors never have to divulge this information (even here in the US). Since oDesk is kind of a cross between both, how 'bout a middle-ground approach?
Then, depending on how that works, and how many people use the option, expand it to let providers hide hourly rates from buyers, but not the overall amounts?
(Q3) What about tiering? Dollars earned: "$1 to $999", "$1k to $5k", "$5k to $10k", "$10k-$20k", "$20k and up"
I don't know about that...
1) Where that that put short-term/one-time projects? A provider could have done 5 hours worth of work in 3 hours at $80/hr, but be lumped into the 1-999 range for something (to both the buyer and provider) was superb work.
2) Where does it put providers in other countries who can afford to work for lower rates. Let's say a provider in the Philippines works a long-term assignment at $5/hr, 10 hours/week, for over a year. It's a great assignment for them...but it will take that provider 5x as long to reach the upper tiers simply because of their ability to work for lower rates.
So what should we do?
It's a tough situation, given the global nature of the site.
Here are my suggestions...take them however you want:
1) Give the providers the option to hide rates on the assignments/work history
2) With hiding rates, goes hiding hours worked on each assignment
3) Hiding rates/hours worked in the work history does not hide the total hours worked in the provider details box on the right of their profile - this will at least let the buyer a rough guesstimate, without having to show ALL details of the provider's past work history
4) Implement the option to hide ALL rates from other providers (like the "authenticated users" option when hiding profiles) - this will at least let them keep their profiles public, but not have to display their financial information to other co-applicants.
- Danalyn
Before you complain about rates, read all 4 parts of the oDesk Insider Blog's Make More Money series.
a follow-up...
on Tue, 2008-11-04 02:50.Excellent suggestions, Danalyn.
To your #3 -- a lot of these suggestions work for pure hourly assignments, no bonuses, no fixed price. But what about these cases:
(1) A provider gets started with Fixed Price, earns a couple of thousand dollars, before his first hourly job. Her hours = 0, but in fact she has a good history on oDesk.
(2) A provider accepts a low hourly rate from a Buyer with the understanding that he will earn bonuses for meeting certain milestones. Again, the hours do not tell the whole story.
I still think it is important to distinguish between hours worked at different rates.
I do agree that at least as a first step, potential Buyers (where you're connected via a job application or interview) should be able to see your complete history, even as co-applicants or users doing a public provider search cannot.
Michael
Like I said, it's a really
Like I said, it's a really tough call...the fact that providers and buyers are all around the globe PLUS the fact that fixed-price and hourly assignments are mixed in almost every provider's profile makes it that much harder. Having the hours hidden on individual assignments will (almost) bridge the gap between fixed-priced and hourly assignments on the work history page.
Personally, I think that the one thing that makes this the best freelance site out there is also the cause of a lot of problems here as well - the hourly model...and I think a lot of that has to do with personal perceptions and interpretation. Without going into a long rambling psychological diatribe, I think the fact that mixing the hourly model with the fixed-price model makes things harder to please ALL sides of the argument.
Aaaanyway...
How about if rates are handled like the contact information - the buyer can't see them until the interview stage?
- Danalyn
Before you complain about rates, read all 4 parts of the oDesk Insider Blog's Make More Money series.
Guys, I'd like to be able to
Guys, I'd like to be able to show my profile with all financial info to any Buyer to show that I am pretty serious about my work - marketing.
But...I've already got small problems locally from ppl enving me..
So. My proposal will be options to show financial info:
1) To everyone
2) To registered users
3) Only to VERIFIED buyers
4) Completelly private
If I will have such choose I will select what fit me best and that's all. Also, it's really easy to do. I am not sure if profiles are done as drupal part of odesk, but even if it's not a part of drupal, it still shoudl be easy to implement.
I tend to agree with the
I tend to agree with the suggesstions put forward by pkorovkin.
The provider would have a "choice" to show or not.
especially, when 2 -3 rounds of interview are over, especially for large ($$$$) projects, then its fair for the buyer to ask , have you worked on similar large projects before. Then its "selective display".
However, added to this, personally i would prefer the slab sytem
Regards
Deepa
adding "Earned:" to the summary tile in the provider profile
on Thu, 2008-11-06 09:54.
All,
Thanks for continuing this excellent discussion.
One of the important tradeoffs that you've all been discussing is that between giving buyers information and giving providers control over information. As I mentioned, we are working on the control issue, and I agree with many of the points that have been brought up. As for the buyer information issue, one thing we'd like to emphasize is *recency*.
As it is, it is very difficult for new providers to break into the top of the search results, because veteran providers with long histories always have more hours. If we emphasize *recent* hours (last 90 days or last 6 months) then it's easier to have more turnover. If you work for a few months you'll be able to move up.
Here is a proposal for this:
Several of you said that you were okay with total aggregate dollar amounts showing, as long as the actual rate was broadcast less loudly. Well here, "Earned:" would include all earnings, including bonuses and fixed price payments in addition to hourly earnings.
What do you think? Knowing that we are working on the privacy control issue,do you like the recency "tile"? Is it okay to show "Earned"?
Michael
I would say it is
I would say it is Ok.
Sorry don't have much time to write a lot. Just wanted to let you know that I wouldn't mind the "Earned" line.
Thanks
I agree...
I agree with that displaying the total amount earned for a completed job would be acceptable, if not essential. I have a B.A. and am still only charging $10 an hour. If I were still teaching, of course, I would be earning substantially more than that. However, personal circumstances forced me to quit teaching and work from home...so I felt I had to be realistic about what I could charge for the types of positions I am qualified for on oDesk.
I totally agree with what Martyn said above:
"the idea of showing the hourly rate earned does damage providers. We are already bidding against each other, so bidding against ourselves makes the task doubly difficult" and that is so true. Buyers take some risk, but so do providers, and it seems that the system is weighted too much towards the buyers, at present. I appreciate that they pay the money, but we work hard for it, and deserve the chance to negotiate rates as we see fit."
Obviously if you are serious about freelancing, you are not going to charge $50 an hour for a job you are not able or not qualified to take on. What would be the point in doing so? You wouldn't be able to do the job, would make a complete mess of it, tick off the Buyer, waste his/her valuable time & money and end up with poor feedback. All of which would be counterproductive.
I also agree with provokin who suggested offering Providers the option of showing our financial information in this manner..
1) To everyone
2) To registered users
3) Only to VERIFIED buyers
4) Completely private
And then after or during the interview process if a Buyer asks if you've done a similar project and how much you charged, make the information available to only this Buyer at that time.
Thanks for the discussion - everyone's viewpoints are interesting, but ultimately I feel this issue is about being given the "choice" to display or not display what I still feel is personal financial information to anyone who "happens" upon an oDesk profile.
DM
I Like
Michael for myself I like this design a lot - my big concern has been from the other screen where it shows the jobs/hours/money - is this going to be able to be hidden from view (the dollars etc)? but still accessible as a provider?
I hope that makes sense!! Doreen
Good Call
Must agree with dmackenzie - the total amount seems fairer than just hours, especially because it incorporates fixed price. At the moment (I may be wrong!), it seems that somebody who completes a $2000 fixed price has less weighting than somebody with 50 hours at $10 p/h.
Many providers prefer fixed price, so this seems to be a good compromise; it gives the buyers some transparency, whilst protecting providers.
I like!
What do you think? Knowing that we are working on the privacy control
issue,do you like the recency "tile"? Is it okay to show "Earned"?
I like!
The "recency" box is great. Especially if it factors into search results.
The total earned is great, too. But I'm with Doreen - what happens to the actual Work History tab when all jobs are displayed? Will the amount/hours column simply be removed all together? Or just show the hours worked but remove the amount+hourly rate?
Either way, I think it's a step in the right direction.
- Danalyn
Before you complain about rates, read all 4 parts of the oDesk Insider Blog's Make More Money series.
fantastic!
on Thu, 2008-11-06 19:14.So glad you guys think this is a step in the right direction. And I absolutely hear the concern about the rate details in the assignment history. We are looking at that separately as part of the "rate privacy" initiative, and you have given me great feedback there. The immediate action is to emphasize recency, so we'll go forward with the recency tile here and I'll keep you posted about the rate privacy issue!
Thanks all,
Michael
I am a buyer, and I do not
I am a buyer, and I do not like it, sam I am.
* Providers should have the option to display, if they wish, but it's private data, and should not be mandatory or on by default.
* It's not helpful. I look at the jobs they did, what was involved, the feedback, etc. If I knock on your door with a lawnmower, does it help you to know I made $10,000 in the past 3 months?
* It undermines Odesk as a seriously viable professional workforce management offering. This really violates a basic privacy premise - and a standard protocol of HR environments and principle at work in workforce management systems (which is where Odesk shines and what it is becoming): earnings should be reportable only by the earner. If you want to give them that control, it's still dubious (don't most companies prohibit exchanging this information, to avoid wage warfare), but at least it's not mandatory and a haphazard rejection of the principles of modern human resource management - which, if we're casting off, we should cast off intelligently, with clear reasons - there are certainly clear reasons why those protocols have become the standard.
* There are issues to consider both with IRS reporting for US citizens (are you going to report Odesk fees, provider costs/deductions, etc. on public profiles, also?) - but think about other political systems in which publicly announcing earnings garnered by moonlighting (from non-state-provided or sponsored jobs) may have more serious effects. Case in point: I employ a person of one nationality who is working on contract in another nation where strict controls exist that most of us can't even imagine (including controls on internet usage), and in which this person occupies more than one officially (not informally - but mandated by law) disadvantaged groups. Unless you're willing to survey all those circumstances and assess the potential human cost of it, I recommend you don't proceed.
* It clouds the issue - you want to gauge an earner by feedback, or by how much bank they're making? If I'm second guessing feedback with dollar amounts, what's the point of leaving feedback? I paid them - should be good enough, right?
* It's going to artificially affect rates. It'll drive them up for people that want to show high earnings, and down for people that want to compensate for lower earnings. Why would we implement such a control on the economy? If it's voluntary - it currently is - people can add whatever they want to their profiles - that's one thing - if it's mandatory, you're tweaking an economy in a controlled fashion and you're asking, in any such case, for ill-considered effects. You're likely, for instance, to reward seniority over quality, seniority over negotiation. Frankly, might as well go a bit farther and organize a union on Odesk and make us call the "hiring hall" for workers. The capitalist entrepreneurs here would rather negotiate directly, which, I thought, is what Odesk is all about.
- politely disappointed that this is even being considered
Earnings of providers
I would want oDesk team to remove financial information from oDesk providers profiles. It is enough to show just how many hours worked in oDesk in provider's profile.
Does financial information makes sense to anyone? It is private information. Why anyone can know this information? Why you have included this in profile? I would want to hear answers from oDesk guys.