'If "recommended # " on all bids is actually your relative "Marketing Score", why isn't it called "Marketing Score" . Calling it "recommended" looks and sounds like a judgement on quality of work.'

Hi Robin,

"It is an unfair system, particularly for those freelancers new to Guru and freelancers who have substantial track records with Guru (and who are most likely paying membership fees), but end up being shown low on the "recommended" list because they have not worked consistently through Guru during the last 12 months. "

Exactly!

I've seen a number of freelancer profiles who appear to be inactive if you viewed their stats. It may or may not be true! Many have been busy with long-term assignments or have been working off-site (as in local employers, private companies that promote their specialized skills, etc.) The current system is not a true reflection of their skills or abilities in any way. This was one reason why I mentioned having an "away" or "busy" with a return date notation that we could use on our profiles. Of course, it may not be the best solution because it won't reflect in the marketing score unless it's created to (and maybe that's another suggestion!) but I would rather see that and know that someone is out there working their magic for an employer either with Guru or not, than to have their profile (or mine, or yours) show that we are down at the bottom because we're not necessarily showing a heavy transaction load on a weekly or monthly basis.

I can't imagine how it feels to be #63 or #100 on the list. Everyone deserves a chance to shine.

:)

Thought I'd jump back in here. I've been on Guru, on and off, for a number

of years and also on Elance and a few others. Most of my clients are

direct, and not thru an online interface such as Guru - Elance...etc

Guru's monthly cost is higher ( for me ) than the charge at Elance, but it

isn't so much the higher charge that concerns me, It's that the higher cost

comes with an unwanted and very unhelpful "Recommended #" on every project

I bid on, and since inherently, the majority of my business is obtained off

Guru, my chances of ever acheiving a higher "Recommended #" are essentially

nil.

This "Recommended #" rating is, actually, a "Marketing Status" rating, the

main purpose of which is to advantage Guru. That's Ok. If Guru grows so

does the potential client pool.

It should, however, be labeled what it really is, a Guru internal,

arbitrary, "Marketing Status" rating, and if it is to be continued in use,

it should not be publically attached to every bid.

http://Guru.com has no business "Recommending" any one contractor over another.

Each contractor should rise or fall based on their own merits and

abilities.

http://Guru.com should be a "facilitator" not a "Recommender".

The following is a Message to Guru Staff:

I contend that the term "Recommended" along with the High to Low "#" rating

placed on every bid, by http://Guru.com, itself, is highly detrimental, and on its

face, gives the appearance to potential clients of a judgement of

contractor quality.

Can Guru Staff provide Statistics showing where the number of 'Awarded'

projects, falls on the "Recommended #" scale.

I'd be interested to see how many and what percentage of -Awarded

Projects- actually fall into the bottom half of the overall "Recommended #"

ratings.

I'll trade those rather silly "Badges" and the "Karma Rating" for a Guru

Staff response to this question that has some actual substance to add to

this issue.

I wanted to revive this post- because it looks as though many of the pros in my field, including myself, are not bidding on some projects because we get 'dinged' for bidding and not having a project awarded to us. I bid on 10 or so projects that never got awarded to anyone- and even though I have excellent reviews and have made quite a bit of $$ here, my 'rank' dropped below someone in Asia who made a whole lot less but hardly ever bids. This kind of scoring certainly confuses employers.

It also will drive off new employers who don't get the bids they want...makes no sense to me at all.

Thank you, Robert Powers, for an excellent observation.

As described in his posting, the term "recommended" is not particularly accurate in describing the listing of ranked professionals displayed for each project. It's a very important distinction. How well a freelancer markets his/her abilities/skills is very different than a recommendation of a professional's abilities/services. I know the latter is not Guru's intent, but does an employer recognize that? Seems like there's room for misunderstanding here.

Guru, please consider addressing this issue, for the sake of the many freelancers who pay membership fees and for potential employers. It seems simple enough -- clear descriptions will benefit everyone. Thank you!

If suggestions posted to this board indeed may be considered by Guru for implementation then I suggest that Guru removes the "recommendation" ranking, the "total marketing score" and list names in alphabetical order. Freelancers could continue to submit premium proposals that could still appear at the top of the proposal list. I assume that an employer is looking for the best candidate for the project, not necessarily his/her marketing prowess. And while they're at it, Guru could set up filters so that if an employer identifies a geographic limitation (example: only professionals from NYC), only the freelancers from that designated location can submit proposals for the project.

Please post your thoughts... Thank you.