Are you taking some actions to get only serious companies to post their projects?

My husband and I were talking about this last night and how everyone has their opinion on whether to charge or not to charge.

Why not just offer a "premium" membership to employers like you do with us freelancers so they are separate from the others. The more we discussed it the more it made sense. It would give us freelancers the option to be selective in which projects we bid on and it would be up to us if we wanted to bid on "free" employer postings or choose not to which would give us an option to save bids.

If the employer does pay for the premium service, just place an emblem on their project posting so we know they are serious and not just fishing. It would then be up to the freelancers to decide if they want to bid only for premium employers or take their chances with the "free" job listings.

Many employers post there jobs on a number of freelancing sites. To impose a penalty for not awarding a job to someone on this site, is like saying, if you come into my store and don't buy something you'll have to pay a penalty for that.

Although in theroy it's a good idea, as well as charging $25 for an employer to post a job here with that fee going into escrow for the freelancer or being refunded if the employer closes their job (instead of letting it sit for a month and expire automatically) it would actually drive away employers. Why would they pay here if they could get the same service for free on the numerous other freelancer sites.

Hi Aligned Systems. Hi Maarit.

There are points both for and against charging a fee. But does it sting that we put time and effort into creating proposals for projects only to have the employers disappear? Yes. Are some employers likely to avoid Guru if there are fees? Possibly.

What if a fee were charged when a project was posted, and later refunded if it went forward? It might be a solution, but it could also be a bookkeeping nightmare. I don't know how Guru could charge a scrub fee for projects that are abandoned. How would they ever police that?

:)

Hi Kay,

Well said! Another little addition to the idea of charging a refundable fee on project award, is that it could stop the employers out there (we have all seen them periodically) who post the same project on every freelance site to which they have free access. I don't know about anyone else but I cross reference before I bid these days. If I see that, I don't bother with the project.

The more I consider it, the more the fee idea seems like a good move. Businesses have to pay for the services they use everyday, including personnel management services. Are Guru and the freelance market really that different? In a way, although independent contractors, we are temp staff.

:)

I agree with your point, Kay, but also agree it's never going to happen. The system that's in place now is much more employer-friendly than freelancer-friendly. The quality of the projects listed (and poor awarding rates) gives me no motivation to be a paid member right now.

I would like to recommend that, in addition to considering a fee for projects, Guru also consider different ways to make this a more friendly (and useful) environment for freelancers. For example, is it not possible to re-vamp the budget amounts so that there is a "less than $100" budget - AND a way for freelancers to opt out of ever seeing proposals in such categories? These never-ending projects of $50 for massive amounts of work are turning many of us off. I have to wade through these "article writing" jobs on a daily basis in my recommended list.

Also, is there a forum here where freelancers can provide some helpful advice to employers on how to write better project descriptions?