Back to oDesk.com » Love the way you work.

Welcome to the oDesk Community! Connect here with fellow clients, contractors, and oDesk staff. Please review our Usage Policy.

How can i get a job in Odesk?

I am new in Odesk but I have a good skilled and experienced on SEO.I have completed my profile 100%, completed 3 odesk test, add 1 portfolio.Now I try to get a Job in odesk but I can't get.I apply jobs everyday.I don't know why it occurs.Please help me.

Vote Result

++--------
Score: 2.0, Votes: 1
Hi, welcome to oDesk! Please

Hi, welcome to oDesk!

Please read the links below for helpful advice on how to build your profile and apply for work:

Contactor Manual

Contractor Learning Center

Want to get that first job? Then check this out...

Job warning signs

Staying Safe on oDesk

oDesk Forum Moderator

Always reach for the skies, for even if you fall, you'll still be on the top of the world...

Change your self-assessed English

You might change your self-assessed English score on your profile. Any client looking at your profile will immediately see that you are not 5/5 and may not trust you for further work.

Honestly

I doubt most clients even look at that. Also, I have a feeling it is automatic. Not sure why somebody always adds a comment about the self-assessed English every single time a newbie posts a question. I don't think it matters much.

To the OP, I haven't looked at your profile, but looking through Ayesha's links would be a good place for you to start. Read everything. Once you've read them and if you have any specific questions, you could ask them here.

I do think it matters.

Judith B. wrote:
I doubt most clients even look at that. Also, I have a feeling it is automatic. Not sure why somebody always adds a comment about the self-assessed English every single time a newbie posts a question. I don't think it matters much.

No, it is not automatic. Yes, it does matter, and Yes, clients do look at it. Clients also get to specify if they want a contractor with fluent written and spoken English skills. If a contractor has not set his at 5 out of 5 it filters them out, which is the whole point.

It does matter, because when someone lies point blank about one aspect of their profile a client can be expected to assume that there are other lies as well.

Petra's right.

Petra R. wrote:
Judith B. wrote:
I doubt most clients even look at that. Also, I have a feeling it is automatic. Not sure why somebody always adds a comment about the self-assessed English every single time a newbie posts a question. I don't think it matters much.

It does matter, because when someone lies point blank about one aspect of their profile a client can be expected to assume that there are other lies as well.

Totally agree. Clients do look at that when they want someone able to communicate well, and they often get misled.

Except that

almost everybody has it set to 5/5, meaning that it would be an utterly useless way to search for fluency in English. Then you have the subjectivity, it can mean anything from "my mother thinks my English is quite good" or "I didn't think about this" or "Ah'm a native speeker so it has got to be perfect" to "I think my English is beyond perfect" and no way of telling whether that person is right. I don't think it is particular helpful for people to pounce on every single new user, including on occasion those whose English is actually quite good, and tell them to change the score. It is almost certainly *not* the reason they aren't getting jobs yet.

I disagree.

Just because one lemming jumps off a cliff, it doesn't mean the rest of the lemmings have to follow.

If a client

tries to judge somebody's language skills by their self assessment then that client is, frankly, an idiot. Therefore, it is unlikely that buyers are judging or searching by that, at least not the sensible ones, and I think it is fair enough to say that it is mostly ignored. At the worst it looks like a misjudgement, not a lie, and not a particularly important one. What is highly unhelpful, and I am not saying it specifically about this thread - I am thinking of another one - is people getting a dig in by telling somebody whose English appears fine to change their score.

I don't think so. It's not how it works, anyway.

Judith B. wrote:
tries to judge somebody's language skills by their self assessment then that client is, frankly, an idiot.

When I look for a contractor with the skills X, Y and Z, and whom I would like to speak fluent English I tick the "fluent in verbal and written English" box along with searching for the skills X,Y and Z. It is meant to filter out the people that are not.

If I then click on a contractor who is in the list that comes up and I see that he can hardly put a single legible sentence together despite claiming 5 out of 5 English skills, (like the OP,) I will not believe any other claimed skill in the whole profile because the contractor has already shown himself or herself to be an out and out liar and I don't like to spend my time and money on liars.

Thinking you are better at something than

you actually are isn't really a lie. Considering how many people there are running around with fake portfolios, fake work histories, fake qualifications, fake names and fake photos, I hardly think being over-generous in your self-assessed English skills, which the vast majority of oDesk users are, stands out as a shocking piece of dishonesty. In some cases, yes, downgrading that score a little along with a whole load of other things might make a profile look slightly better. That's it.

With all due respect: I disagree. It's not "it"

Judith B. wrote:
you actually are isn't really a lie. Considering how many people there are running around with fake portfolios, fake work histories, fake qualifications, fake names and fake photos, I hardly think being over-generous in your self-assessed English skills, which the vast majority of oDesk users are, stands out as a shocking piece of dishonesty. In some cases, yes, downgrading that score a little along with a whole load of other things might make a profile look slightly better. That's it.

But it's NOT *it*

I'm putting my "client's hat" on for a minute now, ok?

When I tick the "fluent in written and spoken English" box as a requirement of my search I will only see the contractors who put their English skills as "5 out of 5." I may not NEED fluent English skills for some jobs, and for those I don't tick the box. When I DO want someone who is fluent then I don't want to wade through near illiterate profiles. It wastes my time and my time costs money.

If I then see they can not string a sentence together then I will not believe the other skills they claim to have. They say they can (for example) design a website. I am after a web designer. They claim to be able to do that in the same way they claim to be a fluent English speaker. I can tell immediately that the latter is not true, and because of that I am not going to spend my money on finding out that the former isn't true either.

Is it the most heinous crime on oDesk? No. But it DOES matter to clients, it IS a major irritant when weeding out applicants, and whether it is an out and out lie or a complete misjudgment of their skills, it boils down to the same thing. It tells me that the person can not do what they claim to be able to do and that I should move on.

I would MUCH rather give the contract to an honest programmer who shows me his programming skills and happily admits that his English isn't great. I work with that. I have another 2 or 3 languages we can try. Or just make do with what we both have. But someone who claims one skill he doesn't have will probably be blind to the fact that his or her other skills are equally misdescribed.

Even in the case of..

...people that are honest and excellent judges of their own skills, you still have the problem of defining what 5/5 even means. In the case of skilled programmers, to use your example, somebody might consider 5/5 to simply mean "fit for purpose" - i.e. able to communicate well enough in that language to get the job done. That could include absolutely abysmal spelling and highly unusual grammar. On the other hand, somebody who was rating themselves honestly for writing might take 5/5 to mean "way, way above average native speaker level".

It's not, in my opinion, gross dishonesty for somebody to put 5/5 English skills when their English isn't particularly good. It might not even be a misjudgement. If I was hiring, I'd ignore it. If a person could communicate well enough in English to do the job, I can't really see myself caring whether I thought his/her self-rating was correct. In the case where somebody just couldn't communicate in English and we had to use another language, OK, that person should not have that score at all but that is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Not so much this thread but elsewhere, I've seen people with pretty good English who weren't writers, editors or translators told to lower the score. To be fair, THAT is what was annoying me. This thread just happened to be the next place I saw the dratted self-assessment mentioned.

I do understand where you're coming from. I still beg to differ

Judith B. wrote:

It's not, in my opinion, gross dishonesty for somebody to put 5/5 English skills when their English isn't particularly good. It might not even be a misjudgement. If I was hiring, I'd ignore it. If a person could communicate well enough to do the job, I can't really see myself caring whether I think his/her self-rating was correct. If that person couldn't communicate well enough to get the job done, I wouldn't be hiring him anyway.

That's where we differ. I generally hire for things I can not do myself. I need to be able to trust the person I am working with because I don't have the skills I am paying them for.

To me that means that I will walk away from any whiff of dishonesty, illusions of grandeur or simple bullsh*t.

We're not talking about a programmer (sticking with that example) who has stated 5 out of 5 English skills and has a few errors, typos, or spelling mistakes on their profile.

I am not, anyway. It's people like the OP, who has literally no English skills to speak of, and STILL claims 5 out of 5. It is NOT automatic, you have to complete it on the profile. It makes me instantly believe that the rest of the profile may well be just as untrue, especially in an area of business where words *do* actually matter.

I do, however, agree that sometimes people can jump on the 5-o.o.5 train when it's not as clercut as it is here.

But the fact that people do could also mean that whilst it may not matter much to you, other people feel very strongly about it.

I'm happy to leave it at that

Especially as I've found a typo Smile

Petra R. wrote:
I do, however, agree that sometimes people can jump on the 5-o.o.5 train when it's not as clercut as it is here.

Anyway, that puts it nicely. People have been jumping on that train rather a lot recently and it was getting on my nerves.

So you found a typo

Judith B. wrote:
Especially as I've found a typo Smile

I do apologize. It is half past 10 at night and I have been up since 3 am this morning with a "life and death" emergency with my day-job. I hardly stopped to breathe until gone 8pm. I have not had lunch yet. Let alone dinner.

You found a typo and jumped on it. Good for you. I was trying to fix the typo immedfiately but you stopped me from doing so by replying.

Obviously the fact that I have made a typo in my third language disqualifies me from having an opinion.

I apologize for both the typo and for daring to have an opinion.

oh for goodness sake

I wasn't pointing it out to make a point. I was pointing it out as a joke.

I had a sense of humor bypass today

Attempted suicides among the people I am responsible for kind of have that effect on my Thursdays.

Judith B. wrote:
I wasn't pointing it out to make a point. I was pointing it out as a joke.

Look, I was trying quite hard to explain why I feel the way I feel about the 5 out of 5 English skills issue. I tried to give examples and I tried to show it from a client's point of view. I put some effort into showing the other side.

I admit that I am a little short on patience today which is not your fault or your problem. I saw the typo and tried to fix it and was frustrated that I could not, as you had already replied.

To have my entire post reduced to a typo pissed me off.

I still think you're great in general, you just caught me off balance. I should probably go to bed!

I'm sorry about the people you look after

Anyway, I wasn't reducing your post to a typo. I was saying that I thought you made good points and I was happy to leave it at that. At least that is what I meant to say. Then I thought I'd have some fun typo hunting. I think I need to go to bed too.

Ah :)

Judith B. wrote:
Anyway, I wasn't reducing your post to a typo. I was saying that I thought you made good points and I was happy to leave it at that. At least that is what I meant to say. Then I thought I'd have some fun typo hunting. I think I need to go to bed too.

Ah. OK. See, in my tired, hungry, humour bypassed state I just saw it as reducing my thoughts to a typo. I see what you meant now, and how you got there. Sorry I jumped down your throat. Laughing out loud

no worries

Hope those people are recovering.

Good

Pleased I'm not the only one. It was getting a bit much and a bit pointless in places.

Please tell me details

Please tell me details.I don't get clear concept of your comment.Do you want to tell about odesk test? Melissa Watkins

Hello there. Your writing

Hello there. Your writing conveys that you might be more of a 4/5 on english. It's obvious that you are not native, and 5/5 would be a native english speaker.

Just my opinion, obviously not the same as Judith's...

Welcome to the forums, Melissa!

Despite the intense discussion your comment seems to have sparked, I don't think there was anything mean-spirited about it.

Welcome, and hope you weren't frightened into the shadows forever. Smile

Thanks All

Thanks for sharing valueable information.

Your rate is embarrassing in

Your rate is embarrassing in comparison to the industry standard (notice I didn't say minimum wage, ha!).

Your English is kinda poor and regardless of your self-asseessed level, it definitely makes a difference both in your profile summary and communications with your client. Optimizing content and meta data with improper English isn't going to make you any fans.

The written overview of services that you offer are full of spam tactics that have recently caused websites to fall pages down in rankings (see: Google Panda/Penguin). No one (with any sense) wants to hire someone that follows the same tactics that Google has made an example of as spam.

I would personally hide your SEO test score. There are something like 2,800 of us or so with a "Top 10%" notation and double that if you include those with Top 20%. Thus, your skills look poor in comparison when compared directly.

With that said, your profile really has nothing to offer. If you fix the above then take it a step further and create a professionally appealing report. After all, if you're not basing your SEO tactics on an evaluation then what are you basing it on? Show them what one of your evaluations looks like in your portfolio.

When all of that is over with (or even before), update your skills starting with the amazing SEO beginners guide at SEOmoz. From there, branch out and eventually learn how to do your own A/B testing and so on...

Regardless of the long discussion,

For the kind of work OP is doing, I agree:

Robert Seal wrote:
Your English is kinda poor and regardless of your self-asseessed level, it definitely makes a difference both in your profile summary and communications with your client. Optimizing content and meta data with improper English isn't going to make you any fans.

As far as the self-assessed being a matter of personal perspective, no, it is not supposed to be. Each number represents a specific level of fluency. So, unless the definition of fluent, written, oral, and English are now subjective, then there is really only differing degrees within each rating. The "self-assessed" label simply indicates that this has not been tested in any way and that the contractor is expected to make an honest report based on the different levels of fluency provided to choose from.

OP,
You are asking for help with why you aren't getting a job. Regardless of whether a more honest representation of your English level would help, your English truly does present you with an obstacle. The kind of clients that you want to attract are going to be reluctant to hire you for work that deals directly with content. Working on increasing your English proficiency and doing the other things that Robert suggests is the best way to turn things around for you. The clients you may attract right now may not be the type you want to work with anyways.

Using what metric?

Robin C. wrote:
As far as the self-assessed being a matter of personal perspective, no, it is not supposed to be. Each number represents a specific level of fluency. So, unless the definition of fluent, written, oral, and English are now subjective, then there is really only differing degrees within each rating.

There isn't a proper one. "Fluent in blah" is hardly objective. I worked in language schools for a long time and there were often one or two students who'd been placed in the wrong class. Now, they'd all had their language skills evaluated using a detailed metric (not supplied by oDesk) and by a trained person (also not supplied by oDesk) and it still wasn't perfect at all. The self-assessed English here is *entirely* a matter of opinion.

It is like asking an untrained person to evaluate their own driving skills. Once you get past "can't" and "can", there is a huge range. Mr A, a Formula One and stunt driver, might say 5/5 should only be for race-car driver level or something. Mr B, who passed his test two weeks ago after 18 attempts, might say that anybody who can get a car half a mile down the road without crashing qualifies for the top score. Both have given themselves 5/5 and neither is lying. And then you have Mr C, who has been driving for 20 years and who is quite clearly a much better driver than Mr B; however, he's nervous about driving on motorways and aware that he's not a professional, so he gives himself 3/5. He's not lying either.

Need more coffee

I haven't had any, and my foggy brain can't make heads or tails out of how your examples relate. 1 or 2 kids miss evaluated by teachers? This discussion involves far more people inaccurately making a statement about themselves. And both of your drivers have passed some test.

5 means fluent in both written and verbal English. I can't recall the other ratings. I think 4 is fluent written but not verbal (that may be the other way around). I can't recall. It was so long ago that I did that myself. People can look it up themselves. The different numbers do not represent how fluent someone is, as in 1=not fluent at all, 3=somewhat fluent, 5=very fluent. That is not how the rating is set up.

At any rate, as far as a matrix, yes, albeit very basic (it is English they are supposed to evaluate themselves on. It should probably not be long and drawn out). Every number 1-5 does directly relate to a specific definition of verbal or written fluency (even if it is a simple few words that define it). I can see where someone might have difficulty misjudging HOW fluent they are at each of the levels, but the term is rather clear. It does not mean I am confident letting Google help me speak.

Fluent means fluent, and it is level 3, I believe, that you have to start agreeing that you are fluent, not 5. By the time you get to 5 and claim fluent in both written and verbal, it would seem that a large number of kinda-fluent-but-not-really would have to pass on 5.

I will have to agree that many forum posters are venomous with pointing this out. I believe it does relate, and it is valuable to point it out, but not to be rude or mean.

Have some more coffee

and read it again. Self-determined "fluency" is not objective at all. It is just an opinion. Look up some of the real criteria for evaluating somebody's English (or any other language) levels and you'll see what I mean. I've said that when people are evaluated properly, mistakes get made. When people evaluate *themselves* based on something as utterly vague as the oDesk English skills thing, there is not going to be consensus.

However...

Judith B. wrote:
and read it again. Self-determined "fluency" is not objective at all. It is just an opinion. Look up some of the real criteria for evaluating somebody's English (or any other language) levels and you'll see what I mean. I've said that when people are evaluated properly, mistakes get made. When people evaluate *themselves* based on something as utterly vague as the oDesk English skills thing, there is not going to be consensus.

It's all about context.

When people, such as the OP, bill themselves as SEO and social media experts, then their acumen in the written English language comes into play.

The OP's 5 out of 5 self-assessment -- which is obviously overblown by what we've seen here -- then makes everything on his profile suspect. I would no more hire him to promote my business through social media and SEO than I would one of my pets. If he can't be honest with himself, he surely can't be honest with me.

If he were a web developer or a graphics artist, there would be no problem.

Well, yes

That's true. If you are trying to sell yourself as skilled in a language, you really ought to be above average native speaker level. Even here though, it is not so much the self-rating as the fact you obviously just aren't that good at it. Somebody might have misjudged their own skill level but no sensible person is going to hire them for that sort of task anyway. As I mentioned before, 5/5 when you aren't marketing skill in that language could just mean "able to communicate, albeit with millions of mistakes", which is fair enough. Now please let me go because I think there is danger of agreement, something I do not approve of.

Wow, I wasn't being rude

Why do you need to be?

Judith B. wrote:
I've said that when people are evaluated properly, mistakes get made. When people evaluate *themselves* based on something as utterly vague as the oDesk English skills thing, there is not going to be consensus.

I guess I do need more coffee. I did not get that from your examples. Now I get how you are using them.

I am sticking with my belief that it is a valuable thing to point out, especially to people who want to work dealing with content. It does not need to be done rudely, but neither do many thing that are said rudely here need to be.

Eh?

Where do you find "rude" in that? I was explaining. Have some more coffee.

Rude to me

On this side of the pond "read it again" is generally said very smugly. As in, "you didn't hear me, so I won't listen to you until you clearly understand me."

I do enjoy the invite to have more coffee, however. I am going for it now.

Amen to that!

Amen to that!Smile