*** Share Your Opinions of The Clarification Board Here ***
Basically, does anyone like it or find it useful?
Anyone prefer to post clarification board questions before, or instead of, sending a proposal?
Anyone posted on the board, got a response from the buyer, sent a proposal and been awarded the job?
-
Official comment
Many thanks for your suggestion. I will pass it on to our product team.
Please let me know if I can help you with anything else.
Comment actions -
I liked it better before it was *quite* so heavily moderated.
However...
- I'm sick and tired of certain frequent flyers managing to slip "I'll do this job for you for $1 please contact me" through the moderation net time and time again
- I did - once - ask a question, get an answer, send a proposal, AND get the job. They're still a client now.
One positive I have noticed of late is that PPH are down on fake jobs like a fox on a binbag - presumably a combination of people reporting the job, and posting "are you taking the piss?" messages on the clarification board.
-
I'm genuinely surprised you've managed to have success with the board—I, and it seems many others, frequently find that by the time a question has been approved the job has been awarded.
But you generally like it and prefer it to sending proposals even if the available info is meagre, right?
What was it like before? I've been a member of PPH for years but only recently returned to *try* to use it after having not been active for approx. four years.
One more objective issue I've had is trying to ask questions based on a job posting without being able to scroll up to see the posting or even the buyer's name. This is because once the "ASK A QUESTION" button is clicked, the scrollbar disappears, so I have to open the job in another tab to see the details.
Have you also had this problem?
-
I wouldn't go so far as to say *success*, y'know...my ongoing client is (I think) the only instance of having a proposal accepted after asking a question, and I'd say that buyers only respond in maybe 10-15% of cases. I'd like it if it worked as it should. And if buyers took it - or rather sellers - seriously. I'm going to start taking a bit more notice of how many jobs are awarded that *need* clarification messages (rather than sellers just going "look at me!"), as that can be an indication of tyre-kicking.
If the info is meagre, I usually avoid. I'm not a mindreader, and rarely does the level of information improve once the job is in progress. I suppose it's a handy filter in that sense. Again, as I've said above, a vague job can offer a clue that the buyer isn't serious about awarding.
I seem to remember that the clarification board used to be "post first, moderate later", and allowed sellers to respond to each other's posts as well as the client. A combination of handy, and frequently hilarious.
-
Oh, I definitely avoid jobs without vital details or with terrible English, etc.
*However*, I also give many buyers the benefit of the doubt—they don't know how to write a job posting and I doubt PPH provides much guidance.
In other words, if a buyer seems business savvy but less so about job postings I'd like to be able to help them to help me... to help them... and I don't think the clarification board really allows this.
I'm a consultant so the kinds of questions I need to ask are beyond the usual, "What's your budget?" and "What's your timeframe?"
The obvious solution is to use proposals, but I've been in contact with PPH who seem to be suggesting that by sending a proposal I'm agreeing to do the job if it's accepted.
Anyway, I'll put you down for, "Good idea; bad execution"...?
-
For sure Kelly is a bot, and I am almost sure that there are a few people working at PPH now. I have posted my question on the Clarification Board and I will, probably, wait for xxx days my questions to be approved.
Sometimes buyers don't have much or enough experience and they cannot arrange their proposals in a "professional" way, but they need, I am sure, time and some experience to change this.
In the meantime, why should a moderator delay the questions, when these young people really need to see that there are people who have experience and desire to do the work in a professional or at least in a devoted and nearly perfect way?
There are bots and apps that stop the m a i l s and other info. Why PPH stop the active young people to get much more info?
People with experience will ask the buyers not stupid but useful questions. These questions will BE related to the project.
-
Had a delightful demonstration of just how inconsistent the board moderation is today.
This morning, I reported one of the frequent flyers for stating their skills and rate in the clarifications.
This afternoon, I asked a client if there was upward movement in their budget, as the specified rate was very, very low, even for entry level.
No prizes for the correct guess that my question was binned for not meeting community standards. Despite the fact that I type the IDENTICALLY WORDED request without any problems several times a week.
Now, *if* the weekend modding is done by Bot, then I can understand how my question might have been binned - if it's looking for £ signs as an indication someone might be quoting their best price, then that's fair enough.
However, if not...well, let's just say if I were a cynical or suspicious sort with a taste for conspiraloon theories, I'd be having a field day right now.
-
What's wrong with stating one's skills and rate on the board?
I mean, if the job posting is for cold calling and the board post is, "I make websites and charge £X per hour", then that's misusing the board.
But if the job is driving traffic to a site via social media then I don't see anything wrong with someone posting, "I generate traffic through backlinks—it's more effective because of X, Y, and Z,—but I charge £X per hour, which is more than you're offering."
Personally I don't *even* see anything wrong with sellers using the board to suggest other solutions to the buyer's problem, like telling a buyer who's looking to improve traffic by redesigning their website that "It's the copy that needs the most attention. Let me know if you agree, and I'll send a proposal."
-
I'll tell you exactly what's wrong with it:
1) That's what proposals are for, and;
2) It's against the terms and conditions
Don't get me wrong - I agree with you that the clarification board isn't working as it should (and could), and I think your last point has legs.
However, what you propose is an open invitation to the "I'll do your job for $1 hire me now" brigade, who inevitably then subcontract at half that and deliver an appalling job. You might argue (and I'd tend to agree) that buyers who aren't prepared to pay a living wage get what they deserve, but it skews the price for a) sellers who are already working at minimum wage plus or minus a quid here and there after PPH's cut, and b) for buyers who quite genuinely have no idea what the market rate is for, say, a 500 word blog.
Both of those things lower the value of the site, in every sense.
-
Sorry, I should have added, "Is it worth sending a proposal?" to my examples, as in "I know you're not looking for a website, but are you interested in one?" vs. "I know you want to use social media to generate traffic, but are you interested in using backlinks instead? And would you consider a higher price?"
(I've got Sunday brain...)
Yes, you're right, without the additional text those are purely self-promotional posts.
My question is do you report people who merely mention their skills and rate, or do you differentiate between those who do it to self-promote and those who do it to clarify whether or not they're relevant to the job?
BTW, where are the T&Cs for the clarification board? The closest thing I can find is the text by the board's tickbox:
"I confirm that this question is essential for the submission of my Proposal and I understand that it will be publicly posted in the Job's clarification board and in case it is used to spam or solely advertise my skills, my rankings will be severely affected."
I agree with everything else you wrote—although I don't consider the $1 brigade as my competitors nor those buyers as my prospective clients, I understand how they affect other sellers, and I agree that many/most buyers know very little about the services they're buying (e.g. the last example in my previous post).
-
P.S. Sunday brain is starting to weaken and my more potent Monday brain is gaining strength.
Here's a more succinct way of asking my question: did you report the seller for merely *stating* (i.e. mentioning, including, etc.) their skills and rate or for advertising their skills and rate?
-
If someone is mentioning their skills and their rate, they're self-promoting.
The T&Cs are the text referred to above.
And I don't view the "I'll do your job for $1" brigade as my competitors either. Buyers do, however, frequently use the "so and so will do it for £5 for 1000 words, so your rate is just greedy" argument to suggest that their sub-minimum wage budgets are the market rate. Again, as I stated above, they are very, very rarely individuals, but fronting content mills at a fraction of a penny per word (they're usually found on the content writing jobs). It cheapens skills, cheapens buyer/seller trust, and worst of all, cheapens the market rate no matter where in the world you live.
I think we're singing from the same hymnsheet here; we're just coming at it in different keys, if you like.
-
"PS: PPH have a bottom line to think of in terms of their cut - I'm very surprised they're not sharper on the sub-minimum wage jobs/rates than they are."
I think it's because these low price jobs are in such a large quantity and high demand it's more profitable to accommodate them than to deter them in favour of higher prices.
It's the "customer (/buyer) is king" plus "those buyers are going to go somewhere so they might as well come here."
Where in the T&Cs does it say merely mentioning one's skills and rate is self-promotion? Or is this just your personal opinion (which you're obviously entitled to and I respect) rather than PPH's policy?
I'm actually OK with PPH's policy that unless a seller is "solely" advertising their rate and skills, let them be.
But yes, I think we both agree with that there's a problem, but you seem to encounter it more often than I do and want it gone! NOW!
While the amount of low quality content created by low prices does genuinely annoy and concern me... well, if it's any consolation, I also think the buyers who pay those low prices wouldn't know what to do with high quality, high price content.
As an example, I can remember years ago writing some decent quality copy for a client only to see it styled on their site so it was barely legible (think 10px for both headings and body, set in dark grey on a black background).
In other words, those buyers paying £10 for a 500 word blog post would get around the same £20 ROI with a £500 post—i.e. they'd lose money.
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
16 comments