Detailed job posts pleased!
Having signed up to PPH I find it increasingly annoying as a copywriter when you have buyers that post jobs with very little detail e.g I need content writing. You can either ask a question on the bottom of the job post, which often goes unanswered or take a risk and apply using your 2 connects even though you don't have a clue how many pages of content are required and what industry they work in or what the website is that they require new or improved content for.
Surely, there is a way of PPH ensuring that buyers provide sufficient detail about the work they require, otherwise they should not allow the job post in the first place or the job post should be removed. It also makes me skeptical as to whether those jobs posted with little detail are actually genuine.
-
Official comment
Hi Rosemarie,
I understand your concerns and will certainly pass them on to our product team.
A few things to bear in mind regarding some job posts:
1) Even the smallest of job posts can lead to the biggest and best clients, I have heard of some smaller posts becoming a constant business opportunity for some freelancers and large source of income for years.
2) Anyone can post jobs on our jobs board once they have been accepted on our site - included sellers from your own industry trying to gauge what other people are offering and for how much. Take this into consideration if there is a 'copywriter' or blogger offering a short job description. Though don't be too cynical!
3) Check things like job awarded % and seller worked with %. If you are first to apply on a short description there is nothing to lose as you are not losing any credits anyway. However if it is a 'High Value' job with proposals already, you may think twice.
4) Please do use the clarification board, as these should be used by buyers that are genuine and want to work with people that are proactive. not to say that busier people will not be able to answer all messages posted.
I will pass on your concerns but please use our board as you are doing, along with the gained insight I have offered.
Please let me know if I can help with anything else.
Comment actions -
I'm boosting this, since out of the 25 or so job invitations I've had this week, only two or three have had enough detail to put in a sensible proposal. The clarification board is largely unhelpful (there's another thread on this) for a variety of reasons.
The answer, then, would appear to be making it harder/impossible to post a job without more detail e.g. content writing jobs should have wordcount and subject matter as a bare minimum. Easy enough to grey out the 'post job' button until that's in place. If someone isn't sure on exact requirements until they've talked a project through with a seller, there's still scope to say so in the description for a genuine buyer.
It would also have the added incentive of weeding out the tyre-kickers; you might say "don't be too cynical", but PPH can be a depressing playground at times.
-
@Zoe - I wouldn't be too sure about "boosting" this thread. I only noticed it because I manually sort the threads by recent activity. (The default is "Newest post".)
Like you and Rosemarie and probably every other seller on this site I agree that many job descriptions are too short and vague, and I agree with your minimum word/character count idea. In fact, I think it should be for every job.
Perhaps PPH could even get more social and ask sellers to suggest the key information they need for a successful proposal, have the sellers vote on the suggestions, then turn the results into the job posting form.
@Kelly's response.
1) That has nothing to do with Rosemarie's problem.
2 & 3) So you're saying PPH knows they post fraudulent jobs but it's the sellers responsibility to avoid them...?
4) Basically the clarification board is a solution to the problem of buyer's not providing enough information, but even you admit it's flawed. So why not focus on solving the aforementioned problem at its root by making it easy for buyers to provide the required information in their posting rather than making more work for them *and* sellers with the clarification board?
-
I think the problem doesn't just apply to myself I feel that it probably applies across the board. Don't get me wrong PPH is a great platform, it tends to have better pay rates for copywriters and it is far from being anything like Freelancer (which is the worst platform I have ever used and expects freelancers to pay for tests and to pay to apply for jobs, which is a disgrace). I like PPH and think it is a good platform.
However, I think the platform can be improved slightly to make it better for everyone. I think that this can be easily done by asking the buyers to fill in mandatory fields before they post their job, so that they add in the necessary details. This will make it better for everyone because then it would reduce the need for asking questions that tend to go unanswered and it means that the right sellers will be applying and matching up with the buyers needs.
I am a copywriter and a therapist, but in the realms of copywriting unless I know what industry it is I cannot ascertain if I am right for the job or if I am interested in doing it, secondly if people do not state how many pages are required or product descriptions then you cannot quote an accurate price for the work and have to just provide a guess figure if you decide to apply, thirdly, it is also useful for people to attach or provide the piece they need rewriting or the website link, again this helps a writer ascertain if they are the right for a job.
For me, personally I have written for industries that I have no prior knowledge in and find this enjoyable, however, there would be some more technical work that would mean a wasted credit in applying.
I am sure there would be other useful requirements and details that would be useful for other fields, such as photographers, graphic designers etc and other skilled professionals too.
-
I agree with everything you wrote, Rosemarie...
Apart from PPH being "great".
However, I think the biggest barrier to it going from barely-usable (at least for me) to at least adequate is *communication*.
Put plainly, they (deliberately?) make it very difficult for users to communicate with PPH, for PPH to communicate with users, and even for users to communicate with other users.
Take this forum—the automated, "Thank you for your suggestion. We'll pass it on"-messages suggest it exists more for us to vent and move on than for PPH to listen and make changes.
If I have an issue with, say, the UX design or coding of a feature I want to discuss it with a designer, not support staff.
If multiple PPH users are having the same problem it would be useful if we could discuss it together and vote on a suggested single solution, then PPH could see the problem is frequent and the solution is popular, and take appropriate action.
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
6 comments