Announcements > Freelancer Rank To Be Discontinued
Share |

Hello Guest!
Sign In or Register to ask questions and share answers.

 

Follow Guru
Get Guru.com updates in your favorite formats:
 
Subscribe
 
 
Recent Announcements
27-Aug-2010
My Rank changing to My Marketing Stats
16-Aug-2010
'Manage Feedback' Design is Coming September 12, 2010
12-Aug-2010
New "Search for Projects" Coming November 2010
30-Jun-2010
Fourth of July Office and Payment Schedule
29-Jun-2010
Special Offer for Free Skills Tests Returns
More announcements...
  
Freelancer Rank To Be Discontinued
04-May-2010 Email Email   Print Print

On May 8, Guru.com will begin to phase out its Freelancer Rank.
Over the past 5 years, Guru.com has received many comments about its methodology to compute Freelancer Rank.  All of your perspectives have had validity and truth and we have taken your concerns to heart.

Upon closer examination, we now believe Rank is a flawed, legacy structure that is ill-fitting to the depth, proportion, diversity and scale of the current Guru.com talent pool.  The basic Rank structure cannot accommodate multiple dimensions simply without pitting one group of interests against another, even as it falsely presumes comparison on a level playing field.  Even within the same skill category, each individual provider can offer a very different set of attributes of skill specialization, expertise level, operating capacity, industry experience, location, budget and more.  While such variety holds great promise for the marketplace, it is the confining structure of Rank that prevents the community from finding a shared sense of celebration in its similarities and in its differences.

Thus, the very concept of Rank hinders the success of the majority in favor of a select minority - regardless of which factor is used for the primary sort.  In contrast, Guru.com genuinely wants every Freelancer to have an opportunity to be a winner - not just a select few.

Corrective measures are slated to begin on May 8 and will continue over the next two months to remedy the marketplace in your best interests going forward.
So What Will Change on May 8?
Guru Freelancers can expect to see initial adjustments for the removal of Rank beginning in Guru search results and on Freelancer profiles:
  • As a first step, we will begin sorting search results by earnings as a default.  A new option will also be provided to allow results to be re-sorted by Reviews. Of the available options, a default sort by earnings provides the best view of the health, vitality and promise of Guru Freelancers due to its natural display of financial success and high quote submission activity.

  • Quality Scores and Rank numbers will no longer be visible to Employers.  Both will be removed from your profiles and from the search results. Instead, your reviews and feedback ratings will be better featured to summarize your performance history to prospective Employers in a more familiar format.
These initial changes should quickly foster more opportunities in the marketplace while giving all Freelancers greater self-assurance in asserting the full value of their unique talents and distinct traits. Searching Employers will, in turn, find more confidence in the quality and availability of the Guru Freelancers they do find within the Guru Search.
What Else is On the Horizon?
The changes on May 8 will be the first of many until all traces of Rank have been removed from the platform. Among the additional efforts we will undertake as soon as possible are:
  • Standardized feedback blocking power:  Currently, feedback blocking power is based on your Quality Score percentile. Since we can no longer determine your percentile on a skill category basis, we will offer all users 10% blocking power based on your last year of earnings.

  • Flat rate for premium proposals:  The cost of premium proposals is also currently tied to your Quality Score in a main skill category. We will move to a flat rate of 6 bids for all premium proposals.

  • Quality Score will transition to Marketing Stats:  Employers will continue to find proposals submitted for a project ordered by the recent Marketing Stats (customer acquisition, earnings and retention rates) of their interested Freelancers. However, Employers will still be able to re-sort their proposals by additional factors that may also be of importance such as feedback ratings, date of proposal submission, bids spent, rate per hour, work samples and Guru Vendor status. Guru will maintain a default sort based on Marketing Stats at proposal review because we strongly believe it is in your best interests to do so: since adopting this view for proposals in mid-2009, Freelancers have benefited from an appreciable increase in project award rates.

Thank you for providing your feedback and for challenging us to improve our methods on your behalf.
Guru.com is committed to supporting you and your business acquisition needs; we believe the above changes are necessary to ensure you unhindered opportunity in the marketplace. As the necessary adjustments are put into place, Guru.com will continue to monitor their impact in pursuit of solutions that serve your needs optimally.





User Comments

Betsy R
11:56 PM on 04-May-2010 		This is a very welcome change, thank you for implementing.

Visual Content Communications
11:09 AM on 05-May-2010 		Excellent move! Thank you so much for listening and making an adjustment so rapidly. I like the idea of default proposal sorting by marketing stats. I look forward to the return of the directory default listing by earnings and activity.

Peter Rodick - Art Director
12:35 PM on 05-May-2010 		I've been growing increasingly frustrated with Guru over the past year, and this may be the straw that convinces me to take a bulk of my offerings to Elance.

Guru's open environment is great. Anyone can join, and everyone has something different to offer. Great. However, that strength is also it's greatest weakness. Because anyone can join, a vast majority of Guru's pros don't offer the highest-caliber services. Most are in fact amateurs with professional ambitions. And that's just fine; however, there must be a point of differentiation between the quality professionals and the lower-tier/budget "pros," which the quality rank provided.

With that gone, employers will have a more difficult time finding quality professionals; and I'm afraid those who are in search of top-notch services will take their search to competitors' sites.

The ranking system may be flawed, but removing it altogether is a mistake.

UkrGuru
12:37 PM on 05-May-2010 		Better direct your efforts to increase the draft from solvent customers. Real projects very small percent!

Smonte Technologies
12:43 PM on 05-May-2010 		Excellent Change, But the question is
1. How you are going to rate new providers with quality and best customer acquisition ratio ?

Susan McDonald
12:54 PM on 05-May-2010 		I think this will be a good move. It has bothered me that the top-ranked people in my category are typically folks who latched onto one lucrative, on-going project and that's essentially all they do, which is not in any way indicative of their real abilities and value. Thanks for implementing this.

B.R. Solutions..
01:17 PM on 05-May-2010 		I am not agree with this....... I really liked the smart way they have already, here if you are active and have good understanding of business environment, you move faster and get values for it. Infact, now only those Guys will come on first 3 pages of the Service provider list who are old and earned big amounts and medium and small earning persons will not get attention...

Also, Now, i dont think i will need to worry about renewing my account, as there is no rank system, i have nothing to loose if i just use free bids or renew after months, your position in employer's list will never change.

Thanks

Amy Peterson
01:52 PM on 05-May-2010 		It takes time, effort and dedication, but the ranking system does not just benefit a chosen few-- it can benefit anyone who puts in the hard work and dedication.

I started at the bottom, purchased my Guru membership, and worked my way up. Now I am at or near the top of each bid list because of my customer acquisition rate.

I do smaller projects on Guru, so I may never reach the echelons of the top earnings, but my acquisition rate and customer ratings make me a solid contributor and one of the top 50 Gurus in writing at this moment.

For those of us who are good at what we do, this may level the playing field but it does not differentiate the truly skillful Gurus from the rest of the pack.

I understand the frustration of Peter Rodick, but hope he does not take his business to eLance. My experience over there was a lot of lowballing and a race to the bottom.

Best regards.

Jumble Din Studios
02:07 PM on 05-May-2010 		I don't agree with this move at all. I've been working hard to get my rank up on Guru for about two years now and am finally in the top 100 of people in my category. But compared to my earnings, this change looks like it will hurt my rank a lot because I don't charge employers ridiculously high prices for my skills.

Can we at least keep PART of the old system instead of completely discarding it?

Victor Novak
02:08 PM on 05-May-2010 		I don't mind about it.

I also started from bottom and now I have rank - 30th. It was not easy, but all depends from patience and quality...

DavidRDV
02:24 PM on 05-May-2010 		I'm very new to Guru and am pleased to have had a few assignments through Guru so far. I'm not sure how this change will affect my standing. What I would like to see, however, is a more drastic step to eliminate what turn out to be "fraudulent" employers who are either outright fakes or spammers.

Peter Rodick - Art Director
02:54 PM on 05-May-2010 		I'm glad to see that most commenters seem discouraged by this news.

Basically, this helps those who have little to offer and hurts those who have the most to offer. And ultimately, employers and professionals alike will suffer.

Yes, it's difficult to rise through the ranks when starting. It takes work. It SHOULD be hard. There are indeed pros with a lot to offer languishing low in the rankings, but everyone at the top had to start there, too. Some persistent bidding will allow you to build your ranking very quickly if you have solid services to offer. And in the end, the cream rises to the top, which is how it should be. The level of difficulty in attaining a high ranking only legitimizes those at the top. It works.

RZcreativity
03:41 PM on 05-May-2010 		well-
we who WERE satisfied with the old system did not SAY anything-

and now it's biting us in the butt....

ContrastMedia
04:27 PM on 05-May-2010 		Removing freelancers ranking is not a good idea. Everyone who joins guru can work his way up to a certain rank that is representation of his skills, customers satisfaction with his work and his devotion to freelance work in general. Those achievements should be respected and they should be a guideline to employers. It usually takes years for someone to accomplish certain rank, and if you dismiss ranking system, you'll make your best freelancers (with most profitable projects) very unhappy. Is this really a smart move?

Technology Solutions Group
04:40 PM on 05-May-2010 		This is a horrible move! This will now encourage users to blindly just submit a bid on every project, without regard to actually securing the work. Under the current system, if someone spam bid projects, it would reduce their standings because it would show that they were just fishing for work.

I have been very carful with my bids, not spamming anyone, and carefully choosing the right projects. As such I don't make tons of money, but my ranking is high, because I am selective. Now that all goes away.

There are, in my category, companies that have 1000's of employees, so of course they make tons of money, they would be ranked first, but they can also afford to do substandard work, and suffer negative reviews, which they can block, but their earnings stay very high.

The current ranking system of awarding rank based on ability to secure new customers, i.e. the Customer Acquisition Rate is one of the best measures of the current ranking system.

Basing rank just on earnings can have the system skewed unfavorably. For example, I can setup myself up as an Employer, which I am both, and can just keep hiring myself, paying myself, and go in circles just showing that I have been paid tons of cash, driving my rank up to the top, all while I'm only out the Guru "cut".

What's to stop me from doing this? I can easily deposit cash into my Employer account, hire myself, pay myself, give myself 5 stars, and keep repeating forever.

it would be very easy for "untraceable" offshore companies to create 100's of Guru employer accounts to do just this very same thing.

Do not make this change Guru, it's horrible! A rank is a collection of criteria, not just how much money you make!

Technology Solutions Group
04:42 PM on 05-May-2010 		In addition, another comment, if a Freelancer blocks feedback, then all their earnings for that entire employer id should be not considered as well. This will help a bit.

RCS ({})
04:42 PM on 05-May-2010 		I strongly disagree with this move. This is wrong in every way. I could write a 20 page review about this, but I will try and keep it as brief as possible.

"Thus, the very concept of Rank hinders the success of the majority in favor of a select minority - regardless of which factor is used for the primary sort. In contrast, Guru.com genuinely wants every Freelancer to have an opportunity to be a winner - not just a select few."

Everyone who has a high ranking at some point started with a low one. I am ranked 29 in my category as of this writing http://www.guru.com/freelancers/Software-Developer-Web-Programmer-Database-Consultant-Mobile-Applications-DBA/South-Carolina/Charleston/656272 . I started off with no rank in ~2005, and did just about everything I could to compete with the old algorithm which really only awarded high volume. Finally this new algorithm was released and anyone could benefit. Everything is relative, and it seems like a majority of these complaints are coming from people who don't understand the current algorithm. I am not trying to start a flame war of any kind so I will leave it at that.

I agree strongly with Peter Rodick in this regard. Guru is starting to reveal more amatuers with professional ambitions than actual professionals.

This sounds to me like the equivalent of the Government bailouts. People who want to be just handed something without working hard for it spend enough time complaining and eventually get their way. While if they just focused that energy on committing to their work, etc, they wouldn't have this trouble. Heck just by getting the Guru membership is a good sign of commitment. Its a cost, but so is business.

Anyone wondering why you will want to pay for a membership anymore? Guru might be thinking that people will continue to buy these, but honestly the main reason I presume most did was that it immediately bumped your rank higher. I have looked at most of the jobs I have bid on and most of them are open to the public. So I guess the only thing at this point I *might* get is a little indicator the Employer would see in regards to me being a vendor, but ultimately it sounds like more focus will be on the Reviews and total Earnings.

Smonte Technologies has a really good point too. How does someone new ( likely the exact people who were complaining to begin with ) even make out better with this? They have no earnings and no reviews.

In summary, I think this is Guru taking the exact thing that made it great at one point and throwing it away. I might be looking the same way as Peter Rodick in regards to finding another site.

Aperch IT Consultants
04:55 PM on 05-May-2010 		I think this is a stupid move.
1. All freelancers are not equal. The previous system might not have been perfect but it allowed employers to separate quality freelancers from the rest of the herd.

2. What then is the advantage of guru.com over places like elance without the rating system?

Pay Per Click
05:16 PM on 05-May-2010 		I have to join the group here that think this is a bad move as well. I have started using Guru after the new year and very carefully studied the system and worked to make sure that I did not hurt myself by bidding on every project, but also by very carefully writing each proposal or customizing it so they could see that I read their proposal.

I was able to get my acquisition rate to 20% in 3 months through hardwork and looking for projects that I was very qualified for and could show proof in the proposal.

All my ratings are 5 star and I have not blocked one. I also have had about 40% of my employers endorse me without asking one to do so.

These type of results have allowed my bids to show near the top with companies that have over a year of experience and multiple employees who someone at the firm has some interest in these things.

I think it has been a great equalizer and has made me seriuosly consider trying to make a large portion of my income from Guru.

Now I have no idea if I will. It may now be required to be a Vendor and have a staff of people that I go to for all types of projects as I will not rank unless large amounts of money are going through my account.

I really dont want to be an employer, I want to work in projects in my core competency and have my proposals show in the top 3 or 4.

Lynda Forman
05:29 PM on 05-May-2010 		I too am not happy with this change. After working very hard to obtain clients, to get high feedback ratings, and to move up in the rankings, now it seems that hard work will have been for nothing.

Currently at 21st, though I've been as high as 15, I think, I am a professional who offers professional services. I feel that a ranking shows not only my skills as a marketer (which is important to have as a writer, not only for myself, but for my clients who need me to understand marketing for their projects), but also my value as a writer.

I have worked hard to earn my place at the top of bids for projects and this sounds as though that will not happen anymore unless I want to use more bids for each project bid. This new system seems to benefit those who can afford to pay more for their memberships or for extra bids - not necessarily a measurement of a good writer or service provider.

Let's leave the ranking system as is. It's one of the things I like most about Guru.

Thanks,

Lynda

Squeaky Dolphin LLC
07:06 PM on 05-May-2010 		You're aren't actually getting rid of the ranking, you're simply changing it to be dependent on earnings only.

I've been very disappointed with Guru over the last year or so. I simply can't charge enough for my skills to make it a good marketplace. I'm already competing with people that charge very little, but can't really provide what is asked for. This only makes that situation worse.

TOP PRO
07:33 PM on 05-May-2010 		This is going to be 4th Rank system change on Guru.com in 5 years, or maybe even 5th.

I used to be #1 in my category for years, then Guru com started to play with the rank and that moved me to 100th position, further changes and introduction of quality scores moved me to 60th position or so where I hang now.

Let's leave all as is once and for all, if you ask me. NO MORE RANK CHANGES! WE'VE HAD ENOUGH!

Inder Guglani - Guru.com CEO
08:09 PM on 05-May-2010 		In reading the posted comments above, there seems to be confusion on some key points.

Hopefully, these clarifications will help:

a. We are doing away with a Freelancer ranking system. There will be no ranks assigned to Freelancers.

b. As there will be no ranks, there is no question of assigning ranks based on earnings.

c. Search results will be sorted by earnings as the default sort. Additional sort options will be available to the Employers.

d. Even as search results are sorted by earnings, Guru and Guru Vendors will be sorted to the top of search results.

e. Proposals submitted to projects will continue to be sorted on the current metrics of CAR, CER & CRR.


The objective behind developing a ranking system was to aid Employers in making a project award decision. We would like to retain the benefits of what we have created in CAR, CER & CRR by continuing to use them to sort proposals; however, at this time, we do not believe it is necessary to assign ranks to our Freelancers.

Comparisons amongst Freelancers become somewhat necessary when Employers are deciding who to hire for a project. In that context, we can (through our sort logic) provide some assistance to the Employer. This helps in decision making and leads to higher award rates for projects posted on Guru.com. In almost every other scenario, ranks tend to do more harm than good. It is this harm that we are trying to get rid of.

Mark Weitzman Lets-Narrate
09:22 PM on 05-May-2010 		Using earnings to determine anything is just as retarded as Rank.

JFBizConsultant
10:21 PM on 05-May-2010 		Guru, seriously if this move is FOR the professionals, I suggest that you do some type of survey to really see what the pros want. From my understanding the change will hurt the pros that worked so very hard to increase their rank, and NOT really help the pros that are new, as they still do not have much earnings or reviews.

We all had to start at the bottom, so in essence the system is fair. As it stands you are force too bid against each other, with pros in different countries. Many employers tend to go with the pro that is charging the least, thus your income can end up being low, even when doing good work. Add to that, the fact that an individual has to compete with a company with a multitude of employees.

The one thing with the old system, is that there were a couple of things that came together to build your rank. This help to create some fairness. With this gone, I don't see how Guru is helping anyone.

I also have the question as to what is the benefit of a paid membership at this point?

Perhaps removing the rank itself, but keeping the customer acquisition rate and customer retention rate as ways to search/sort may do the trick. So all the elements remain searchable and usable.

This really should be thought through.

WordChannel
10:32 PM on 05-May-2010 		Please, just leave it alone -- I concur with of those who say that this is just a skewed way of looking at the issue. Please don't change what already works just fine. This is part of the reason I really like Guru; you don't make changes just to follow trends. Please don't start now.

Kudos Graphics - Nancy
10:43 PM on 05-May-2010 		THIS IS HORRIBLE NEWS! a lot of us worked hard to get our rankings so why penalize us now?

Peter Rodick - Art Director
10:59 PM on 05-May-2010 		@Inder Guglani - Guru.com CEO:

I don't think there's any confusion at all. Your points simply affirm everyone's complaints.

And ranks only do more harm than good to pros who have little to offer. Removing ranks will harm pros with higher quality offerings.

I've only been actively involved with Guru for less than a year; however, I'm presently in the top 15 in my category. Ascending the rankings takes a little work but is very, very feasible if you offer a worthwhile service.

I, and my highly-ranked colleagues, worked hard to earn our ranks and have brought in significant revenue for Guru, and yet you're negating our hard work.

This will benefit those who offer sub-par services and charge a small fraction of the industry standard for their services. That means smaller revenues for Guru, muddy waters for employers to navigate, and limited opportunity for pros who offer quality services (and charge clients appropriately).

You're cheapening the system. If that's what you're going for, I suppose that's your prerogative; but if you won't give the most productive members of your community a say in the matter, I suspect you'll lose many of them--myself included.

As far as I can tell, with the Guru ranking system aside, Elance offers a superior service that benefits quality pros.

Peter Rodick - Art Director
11:10 PM on 05-May-2010 		@Inder Guglani - Guru.com CEO:

P.S. Please at least reopen this for discussion. It seems that 90% of the comments are adamantly opposed to this change. After all, you rely on the Guru community as much (if not more) than we rely on you.

Pastor Bunny
12:15 AM on 06-May-2010 		Please reconsider this move. I think the ranking is a good thing.

The Writer par excellence
12:36 AM on 06-May-2010 		@ Inder:

Using the total money earned for the default sort is going to be very bad for professionals who take up a few projects to provide quality work at reasonable rates. We can't compete against the Vendors. Why don't you just do a random sort initially, the employers then will have to sort the results again to find an appropriate provider. Also each of the present factors that are used to calculate the rank can be included as options in the sort but with the employer informed about the relevance of each as a box that appears when they hover the particular option.

Betsy R
12:50 AM on 06-May-2010 		There are many of us who appreciate this change, Inder, thank you. As for those who are concerned, all of us started at the beginning. I have been here 7 years this year and my employers look at my feedback, the projects I have worked, and my profile, to determine merit and hire me. There is no substitute for hard work. Just keep bidding, and doing good work you will be noticed.

Mark Weitzman Lets-Narrate
01:59 AM on 06-May-2010 		The Writer par excellence wrote:
"Using the total money earned for the default sort is going to be very bad for professionals who take up a few projects to provide quality work at reasonable rates."
Exactly. Plus, how does earnings relate to ability, quality, professionalism and the like? Earnings is in no way relevant to the hiring process.

Peter Rodick - Art Director
02:20 AM on 06-May-2010 		Betsy, based on the comments, it doesn't appear there are very many who appreciate the change. Though I understand and respect the reasons some (albeit an apparent minority) may have to support the change, it's detrimental to the community as a whole, and that's why it's meeting overwhelming resistance.

Ecoplants
02:34 AM on 06-May-2010 		I am not sure how this move is going to help freshers like me, who show low financial success currently. However, if we could get more response on our bids should be fine.

Haresh Khemani
03:22 AM on 06-May-2010 		I think this is a good move. A year ago, I was in top 25. Later, I started working on full-time basis for one company, which I have left now. During this time my ranking went far behind, since I didn't bid for projects at Guru. It would have been tough to regain the previous slot, but I don't need that rank anymore since ranking system is being removed and I can enjoy the benefits of five star ratings from the previous employers.

Buddypress, Wordpress, Worpdress MU
06:10 AM on 06-May-2010 		While changes are being implemented here, other places are implementing "strict rating" >> elance

Cage8
06:18 AM on 06-May-2010 		I this thread shows very clearly that if this was put up to the vote, the overwhelming majority - myself included - would be firmly against the idea.

At the very least, I'd like to see a temporary postponement whilst Guru and the freelancers (both for and against) could have the opportunity to discuss it openly without an impending deadline hanging over our heads, I think we deserve that much.

Gabriela - Translator & Editor
06:39 AM on 06-May-2010 		Hello there,
I have read all the comments around here and I have to say I'm also against this change so I had to stand for it just to let you know I pass by.
Dear GURU CEO,
a). 90% of the reactions here show that we don't want this change, but you keep refusing to reconsider it. Do you really this this is a smart move?
b). Rank should be all about professionalism, not about money earned.
c). Many freelancers already are considering another options and in the end you will lose, the whole community will lose..
d). This new system will not help new freelancers - they will have NO CHANCE to prove their value.
e). As one said in here, you should at least consider discussing this and open a poll to see how many are pro and how many are against. You will be surprised.(Or maybe not after all this)

Consulting & Development Wizards
06:44 AM on 06-May-2010 		Absolutely a wrong move that may effect many rankers.

GURU needs to re-think on this as it will create a negative impact in the later part though may seems better for several at initially.

Clients may now have a tough time in choosing a quality provider.

RCS ({})
08:52 AM on 06-May-2010 		@Haresh Khemani

I didn't really get a indication on which route this was going by what was submitted above by Guru. But what if they only show the information for the last year and not all time?

My thought is they would only do the last year, as doing it all time would "favor" Guru members like myself who had been using the service for ~5+ years.

In the event it would only be the last year, you would actually be penalized just the same, as those payments and more importantly to you the feedbacks would not exist.

All in all half the problem I guess is that there really isn't 100% clarity in this document with all the questions that would immediately have to be asked when seeing something like this.

IDDGroup, Inc
08:54 AM on 06-May-2010 		this is becoming like the "new" eBay feedback ratings... totally worthless.

you should base rank on ratings 1st (quality), then money earned.

Curt Handley, Esq.
09:27 AM on 06-May-2010 		As a long-time member of Guru (I was a member of e-moonlighter and the old Guru before their merger) who has worked hard to become one of its top ranked attorneys, this is disappointing news. Rather than start a lengthy diatribe on why, I'll just simply say that you will effectively destroy the value of your board to both employer and freelancer alike if you make this all about money.

I strongly encourage you to reconsider...

Sincerely,
Curt Handley, Esq.

2Leaf Web Development, Inc.
09:35 AM on 06-May-2010 		From Guru.com's recent email regarding discontinuing the ranking system:

"Thus, the very concept of Rank hinders the success of the majority in favor of a select minority - regardless of which factor is used for the primary sort. In contrast, Guru.com genuinely wants every Freelancer to have an opportunity to be a winner - not just a select few."

Thanks Guru. I am one of those that felt the ranking system was very bias. Now, however, you have just implemented a new ranking system, one which allows whichever freelancer is currently making to get more projects. By 'ranking' the bids by earnings, you are giving even less of a chance to smaller companies like my own. Many will tire of not getting projects and will leave the service leaving only a few large companies behind.

Why not instead sort the bids using an unbias method such as 'time the bid was placed' (i.e., bids are organized showing the oldest bids at the top). This will help more people bid on projects faster (as they would like to be at the top) resulting in more bids being spent (more money for Guru.com) and happier employers (quicker bids).

Please consider my comments seriously. I have been a long-time Guru.com freelancer and appreciate your service very much.

RPR Public Relations, Inc.
10:07 AM on 06-May-2010 		I'm confused - will we still be penalized if we bid on a job and don't get it?

There will be no "ranking" system (except for earnings ranking) ... so can I bid at will now without penalty if I don't secure the project?

I'm just tired of feeling like a racehorse that's being held back - I want to bid on more projects - but I don't want to be penalized anymore if I don't get it - since a high percentage of projects are not awarded to anyone - they just fizzle out (tire kickers).

One statement from Guru says there is no ranking ... but proposals submitted to projects will continue to be sorted (does "sorted" mean ranked?) on the current metrics of CAR, CER & CRR. Isn't that a type of ranking?

Abakus
10:33 AM on 06-May-2010 		Yes, I also think doing away with the ranks is a misguided move, as is also misguided the CAR ranking currently in use. I started by doing quasi-free work to be able to demonstrate the quality of my work due to my business experience, academic credentials, etc. After that my interest was centered mainly on bidding on projects posted by employers who were ready to pay a fair amount of money for good, sophisticated work (I passed on all "less than $250" projects, unless it was something to be completed very quickly) and have not done bad in earnings or feed backs. Other pros routinely bid on small and very low paying projects. Result: they have a very high CAR while mine is very low. Is that fair? It should not be possible to game the system or to get a high ranking just because your earnings are very high. How about if the dollar size of individual projects is factored in? Low paying projects are and have been awarded to those who are ready to work for little money. Employers who are ready to pay a fair amount of money for an important project will look much more in the feed backs and the type of projects a particular pro has done in the past. I know I would. Wouldn't you? To me, pros should be ranked by earnings, size of projects completed and feed backs.

Inder Guglani - Guru.com CEO
10:40 AM on 06-May-2010 		Folks,

I have been reading all of your posts and I truly appreciate the time you are putting into your comments.

Here are some additional thoughts; hopefully, these points will provide further insight for the discussion at hand:

a. Over the past 5 years, we have heard & analyzed numerous perspectives on how a rank should be derived, only to realize a single perspective unfairly rewards one sub-group at the expense of others.

b. Each of you present a perfectly valid perspective. Rank works well under a certain set of conditions. It is therefore extremely natural for you to argue strongly and passionately for your perspective. The issue we face as a marketplace is - how does Rank impact the community as a whole?

c. Every change of this nature brings about a communication challenge. It is also easy to miss a few details in the communication process. Please try to keep calm as you process all of these changes and forgive our imperfect communication of what to expect.

d. Folks who do get upset at proposed changes typically become more vocal, giving the perception that they represent the majority view. That may, or may not be accurate.

e. It is very difficult to describe all of the tests and analysis we have conducted to come to the conclusions backing the changes we are about to implement. We have put a few months into the exercise. You have barely had a few minutes to digest the information. We understand that it may be very difficult to get you on board with these changes instantly.


I will leave you with a few scenarios that created some challenges in working with a rank.


a. Take the writing category as an example. A German translator can be materially different from a creative writer. To stack them against each other, and to sort out who is better than the other proved not only to be difficult, but unnecessary. What is important is who has had success as a German translator for a German translation project.

b. The alternative to the recently announced changes was to break the ranking system down by sub-categories. We considered this alternative very seriously. Numerous technical challenges prevented our progress along this path.

c. When there are a few candidates for a project, it really helps to know who is the better amongst the choices that are presented. Who is 1,2,3,4,... It probably hurts and not helps to know that the best selection is ranked no. 1,000 of 20,000 in a main level skill category grouping divergent areas of expertise.

d. With the growth in the subscriber base, every new entrant is assigned a rank, the size of which continues to grow. This in fact becomes a deterrent for a newcomer, and an obstacle they have to overcome despite receiving good feedback.

Folks, no one system is perfect. Each has some pros and some cons. We can focus on the cons and tear up practically any system design. That hinders progress.

Unfortunately, deficiencies do not reveal themselves overnight. When they do reveal themselves, however, we are obligated to take corrective action.

The Guru community as a whole is far smarter than we are. Over time, and through trial and error, we strive to continually learn from you and improve for you. We have worked very hard to arrive at the conclusions we have presented here. We truly request your understanding & support as we implement these changes.

Get Your Words' Worth
01:28 PM on 06-May-2010 		This is an extremely disappointing decision. Just because someone takes tons of jobs doesn't mean they are good. I am not only a freelancer also a GURU.com employer who worked for a company that almost exclusively used Guru.com freelancers. As a senior editor, my job was to select and hire these freelancers (which is how I heard about Guru in the first place). I learned the hard way. For example, just because someone had a high job acquistion rate, this didn't reflect on his abilities. It often indicated that he was a low bidder. Numerous times we would have to rehire other to correct the work that was done.
Also, as a freelancer I want to point out that many of us freelancer turn down invitations because we are selective about the work we take. Also, like many others, I use GURU.com to supplment my income, not rely on it for my bread and butter. Why should I be ranked by the amount of work I accept? We should be ranked by the quality of our work and how people rate us. The stars were fine.

Mylene Salviejo
02:15 PM on 06-May-2010 		How about me? I am new here and I have no earnings that will make me show on at least top 50 list but I know I can compete with anyone else listed within my categories and skill set.

DesignSource Studios, Inc.
02:27 PM on 06-May-2010 		Inder,

"d. Folks who do get upset at proposed changes typically become more vocal, giving the perception that they represent the majority view. That may, or may not be accurate."

This is true, as one of the many proponents of improving the old "ranking" system, I for (many) one, am glad you listened and are trying to build a better system. Many felt the current system was fundamentally flawed as some believe this will be.

I believe we should reserve judgement and welcome these changes without fear, because as one poster already put it, cream always rises to the top.

Regardless, thanks for weighing our input.

Cyber Sprocket Labs
03:43 PM on 06-May-2010 		What a huge mistake. Like others we started way at the bottom. Hard work & commitment to quality for our clients helped us move up the list.

Now we'll be competing not only with the "new guy" but also those many, many providers that just don't care about their profession and are only out to make a quick buck.

I fear this will push pricing AND QUALITY to the lowest levels. As the saying goes "you get what you pay for"; there are a lot of employers that are going to learn that the hard way.

Peter Rodick - Art Director
04:14 PM on 06-May-2010 		Inder,

Your latest post makes the most sense. Though I still disagree, you've articulated the reasons well, particularly the first point. I have no idea what the technical hurdles to subcategories are; however, that would seem to be the most intuitive solution--a solution that I imagine would garner more widespread support and level the playing field to an appropriate degree.

However, the current plan of action seems to be a half-baked attempt to do something--anything--even if it isn't the right thing. The current system has its merits AND flaws (though I think the merits outweigh the flaws). It seems like it would be wiser to do the right thing later (work out the kinks in a potential subcategory ranking system) than the wrong thing now. Though apparently challenging, surely a subcategory system isn't altogether impossible (?).

Thank you for listening.

Peter Rodick - Art Director
04:16 PM on 06-May-2010 		P.S.

And perhaps the most frustrating thing about this announcement is the minimal warning you've given the community. No invitation to discuss--just a notification of a firm decision mere days before it takes effect. That's aggravating.

seomajesty
06:15 PM on 06-May-2010 		@Inder Guglani - Guru.com CEO

I am Really against this move.If you really want to hear us(all of the above comments posted)

It takes day and night efforts to get ranked in a profile.

We came from No where to #14 and it took nothing less than our blood to come up here.

If you really want many pro like us to be with GURU for years to come, I would request you not to make this move at all as this is really a bad impact on our business.

Just think about a individual who started as an individual and is having a great company now...How will he be affected.

The companies with good earnings will continue to get more and more business and what about companies like us who have struggled a lot to be here, We followed GURU's Guidelines to be on TOP of the Ranks and now you are changing the system.

Still GURU has been a great platform, I will struggle again to come up well on other portals as well...

Cheers!!!!!!

Pastor Bunny
07:40 PM on 06-May-2010 		Instead of doing away with rankings, perhaps they could be divided into catagories. Article writer, book writers etc.

New Millenium
07:55 PM on 06-May-2010 		I am new here and just landed my first project, so I am at a severe disadvantage...but...that will not stop me from rising through the ranks.

Inder Guglani - Guru.com CEO
08:25 PM on 06-May-2010 		Peter, You are 100% correct about the "notice period". It was honestly not enough time to digest the change. Guilty as charged. Long story behind that part; but, I do not want to digress here. Some other day & time.

I totally believe we need to take the search results sorting down to the subcategory level. (That is why we started to collect invoicing by subcategory - May 30, 2009. That was/is still the grand plan.) Comparisons on a subcategory level should be a lot more relevant than at a category level. However, what we are doing now is actually even better. Bear with me as I explain further...

Even within a subcategory, there are different types of projects. For example: web programming could be for PHP developers, or ASP.NET developers etc., small budget projects, large budget projects etc...

When we take our sorting tools (based on CAR, CER and CRR) and apply them at the proposal level, we get the best results since Freelancers pursuing similar opportunities also tend to be similar in profile: pursing small budget projects or of a similar technical skill, etc. (We had to do some data mining to see this.) So a homogeneous group is somewhat of a requirement for a rating/sorting system to be effective.

What Employers care about is who is the best available Freelancer for their project. We can do this effectively at the proposal level, without having to rank our community of Freelancers at a category level that comes with a baggage of problems.

The technicalities (described above) are very, very difficult to communicate to a large audience - in an announcement. Folks tend to form an opinion quickly. So we have to keep taking it on the chin with the belief that over time better communication will occur.

Having worked for many years in trying to improve the ranking system, it was a bit of a shock to me to come to this conclusion - that the concept of the ranking system is the problem. When I shared this with my senior team, they were in shock. It took us 48 - 72 hours to digest the realization - and yes, we live and breathe this stuff!

In all your comments I keep searching for a new perspective that we may have missed. So every comment left here helps! For our members not to see all perspectives behind this change is totally totally understandable. They do not manage a marketplace. That is our job. Their perspective will naturally be a bit different. So it is natural to see the disagreements. None, I repeat, NONE of you are in any way, shape, or form being unreasonable with your comments. I mean that from the bottom of my heart.

One clarification about the comment left by RPR Public Relations. Projects that do not result in a paid invoice are not used for calculation of Customer Acquisition Rate (CAR). So you submit a proposal for a project. That project does not result in an invoice. Your proposal is not counted for the computation of your CAR. CAR helps to keep spamming in check and makes it easier for Employers to find good proposals. Good quality service providers should not be thinking about calculation of CAR. It is to protect them & not to restrict them.

jamesdpartin
10:06 PM on 06-May-2010 		I think this is a positive move

Sedate Technology Pvt. Ltd
06:31 AM on 07-May-2010 		I too am not happy with this change. After working very hard to obtain clients, to get high feedback ratings, and to move up in the rankings, now it seems that hard work will have been for nothing.

Currently at 21st, though I've been as high as 15, I think, I am a professional who offers professional services. I feel that a ranking shows not only my skills as a marketer (which is important to have as a writer, not only for myself, but for my clients who need me to understand marketing for their projects), but also my value as a writer.

I have worked hard to earn my place at the top of bids for projects and this sounds as though that will not happen anymore unless I want to use more bids for each project bid. This new system seems to benefit those who can afford to pay more for their memberships or for extra bids - not necessarily a measurement of a good writer or service provider.

Let's leave the ranking system as is. It's one of the things I like most about Guru.

Thanks,

Sedate Technology

Lynda Forman
08:33 AM on 07-May-2010 		Hey Sedate Technology Pvt. Ltd - I'm not sure it's a very appropriate addition to the conversation to simply cut and paste my comment, passing it off as your own. I'm not sure this is going to look good to prospective employers and clients. At the very least, note that you agree with my statement, giving me credit where credit is due.

Great conversation here everyone!

Lynda

M Alan Roberts
08:41 AM on 07-May-2010 		I think everybody pretty much agrees that this is a move to maximize guru's profits, not to best represent the freelancers. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there are a lot of low bidding, foreign writers that do not provide quality work. They drive prices down. Those of us to provide highly professional services need to make it a very serious point to charge premium rates. I regularly provide content for lawyers, doctors, upper level managers and loads of other professional people. They want quality. I deliver quality. I charge premium rates. They pay.

Here's a flash for you all: it doesn't matter to me how guru wants to rank the freelancers here at this site. It holds no bearing on me. The reason is because I know that my work shines. The material that I provide is error-free, of optimal quality, entertaining, educating and optimized in every way for excellent performance. My material will be noticed. My list of clients will continue to grow regardless of how I am ranked.

Yes, I agree, this sucks. I have worked hard for years building my rank and agree with all of the complaints made by others here. However, complaining really does no good in my life. I have faith in my abilities and I know that there are professionals all over the planet that demand high quality material. It's a business necessity and plenty of people are willing to pay nicely, especially when they know they're going to receive meticulous service.

So don't sweat it guys; just focus on quality and great customer service. Then, there will be no need to concern yourself with guru's somewhat disrespectful decision to poop on our ranks.

M Alan Roberts
08:54 AM on 07-May-2010 		I also want to add that I stick with guru because it is the world leader. I've had some experience, years ago, with other freelance sites. They cannot meet the standards of quality, efficiency and professionalism demonstrated here at guru. As I said before, provide excellence, charge premium rates, keep your clients exceptionally happy - and there will be no reason not to succeed.

And by the way, Inder Guglani - Guru.com CEO, thank you for your input here. It's nice to know that you're out there watching and that you care.

B.R. Solutions..
09:25 AM on 07-May-2010 		Hi Inder,

I noticed reading all comments, most of people are unhappy with this move because they will not only loose the rank, what he has gained working hard and maintained it, but also their proposal's listing position by default to the employer, in proposal list.

I being in 100th position in just 3 months providing quality work and with many positive feedback, i feel now, my proposals will not be getting any attention as it will be appearing at bottom now...and those who even do not provide quality work but charge high will appear before me.

I and most of the service provider will agree with the option of listing of proposals by default to their submitting time.. means one who bid first should be 1st on list to the employer by default...except Premium ones. In this case everyone will get equal chance to show his offerings to the employer. Whereas, employer can still choose any sort order whatever he wants.

Please think about Service providers/Freelances who has just joined your site or planning. This can be a cause to loose big number of freelancers due to frustration of not getting job.

Thanks
Bhaskar

therabbit86ed
10:22 AM on 07-May-2010 		Well... Heck! I was trying to get my ranking up, because I haven't earned as much as other pros on the site and I had JUST recently joined.

This change makes me sad! Now new quality providers who want to give Guru a try won't stand a chance of getting noticed because they haven't earned as much to begin with. So now, I am stuck unnoticed at the bottom of the earning pile, when I provide a quality product and service.

And while the pool of projects is great, Guru needs to concentrate its efforts in weeding out customers who post projects and just lets them expire, thus wasting provider bids. Out of 100 bids that I have nearly every month, I'd be lucky if I get 1 job...

I have been a member of Guru since January of 2010 and I have earned less than a grand, if that! And that is after nearly 300 + bids mainly on projects that never get awarded!

The only thing I have going for me is the ranking since I provide great product and service and now you are taking away the only chance I have to get noticed because I haven't earned as much as other providers who have been here a long time...

Multimedia Designs, Inc.
10:35 AM on 07-May-2010 		I agree with Peter Rodick and others who strongly disagree with this change. It might be time to take my business elsewhere.

I have been with Guru since they took over Creative Moonlighter in 2003. I have worked hard to earn my freelance ranking, and have worked with some well-known clients through Guru. I believe my ranking on Guru has had a lot to do with me be awarded these quality jobs. I provide a quality service, for quality clients.

By going back to essentially the old ranking system, earning first, there is no way an individual freelancer can compete with a Guru vendor, small company, or those that outsource their awarded projects.

Currently, Guru's ranking system makes it unique to other freelance marketplaces, enabling employers to find the right freelancer for their project, whether their priority is high quality, low price, or a quick turn-around. Take that away and Guru just goes back to the old flawed ranking system that was in place a few years back, which obviously didn't work. Vendors and companies will rise to the top.

I think Guru needs to focus on the employers that are posting jobs. Why are 80 percent of the jobs never awarded? I have also seen an increase in employers posting new jobs when they multiple outstanding invoices. Why should an employer be allowed to post a new job when they still owe a freelancer or freelancers money?

I think Guru needs to focus on the employers, not the freelancers. This change in the ranking system will hurt a lot of freelancers, including myself.

Cron Systems Corp
12:52 PM on 07-May-2010 		This change effectively eliminates the tried and trued method of allowing the customer determine which freelancers/companies actually successfully completed a project. Without the ranking, customers (employers) will be at the mercy of the bots which peppered projects without ever reading a project. This action will resume now and more to the point, you will lose customers (employers) as they are not able to get through the bots (spam).

You should consult an outside expert on business activities for this type of business. I cannot imagine any B School graduate ever recommending this action.

Additionally, we purchased credits and extended efforts (both financial) based on our ability to hold a high rank. Your company will have legal responsibility regarding this area.

Pastor Bunny
01:51 PM on 07-May-2010 		I have long called guru the greatest source of income opportunities on the web and also the greatest game. I like checking my ranking, it gives me an idea how I'm doing. Please leave it. Thanks

Sun of Apex
03:03 PM on 07-May-2010 		I like the rank system, since it gives me sense that I accomplished something as I'm moving towards the top. To the point that I'm getting invites to bid for projects. As most of the freelancers here I really don't like to see it to go away.
The proposed change is to sort the freelancers based on the earnings, why don't you leave the default sort by rank and add earnings as an option? As a matter of fact the employer should be able to sort the freelancers on multitude of option.
The feeling I have from this change is that Guru.com decided to award their biggest cash cows and display them on the top. They are earning money (5-10%) on the earnings of the freelancers.

Betsy R
03:03 PM on 07-May-2010 		@Pastor Bunny- you are right and nothing really will change. It's still a great income opportunity and the 'game' is still there. You just have to plan your moves differently! Believe me, I practically live on the computer and it is great fun being competitive. The competition will still be there. Just because there is no number rank you still can bid creatively, sell yourself and win projects! There will be different ways to sort the Professionals, and as someone else said, the cream always rises to the top.

Vcode Infotech
09:27 PM on 07-May-2010 		Perfect move. Thanks for implementing this change.

Writing, well done.
11:16 PM on 07-May-2010 		Thank you Inder, you listened to the community and implemented a change.

Does anyone seriously LIKE the ranking system as is? It unduly rewards one-client freelancers who use Guru for their single "cash cow" client. It discourages "one-off" jobs. It discourages small jobs. It discourages bidding and exploring the marketplace.

Just because it took you a long time to claw yourself up the rankings, doesn't mean the system is a great thing. Let's not conflate the merits of the ranking system with your personal sweat equity or whatever you'd like to call it.

Bodnar Ink
05:40 AM on 08-May-2010 		Kudos! Thank you for this smart move. I am so happy to hear this.

Bodnar Ink
05:42 AM on 08-May-2010 		P.S. In showing amount earned, can you make it "all time" rather than just the last 12 months? While it shows I've made $18k the last 12 months, I've really made around $100k! I think employers would find the latter more impressive.

Jits Info Solutions
01:03 PM on 08-May-2010 		I entirely disagree with Guru (or Mr. Inder) on new rankings.

Earlier Guru was considering couple of very good parameters to rank freelancer and it was preventing freelancer to illegally stay on top.

If search will show freelancer only by their earning then it will trigger race to earn high at any cost.

Also, now employers have to do homework on their part to search for best freelance.

NedWebs
01:36 PM on 08-May-2010 		I say and will always say, first come should be first served. Ordering by any other means as a default is unfair.

A Rose By Any Other Name
03:12 PM on 08-May-2010 		I just logged on to the site today, excited to see the new changes, and now I'm confused. Based on everything I read from Guru, I thought that rank was being discontinued while proposals for projects would continue to be sorted by the CAR calculations. However, in looking at the projects I've bid on, they now seem to be sorted by rank. Anyone equally confused?

Writer_Editor_Coach
03:27 PM on 08-May-2010 		I'd signed on to Guru thinking I would find people in serious need of excellence and experience. I offer both - and have been freelancing since 1975. I've bid on a couple jobs for which I felt I was an ideal match - not spamming anyone. But I'm sensing my bids are too high as I refuse to work for less than I deserve. I would hope quality employers would realise that if they want the best work, they will need to pay well. But I see long lists of bidders on some jobs and can only wonder about the quality. Since I haven't secured even my first bid yet, I'll appear very low in rankings. I had thought I would land a couple writing, editing or proofreading gigs and if it went well, I'd buy my guru status. But if this new policy goes into effect, I won't stand a chance. Best wishes to all hard workers on here who are not constantly lowballing projects just to get ranking. I think I'd do better to just continue marketing my own website.

www.WebsiteDesignAndMore.com
05:08 PM on 08-May-2010 		It appears to me that this move is more oriented towards the best interests of Guru financially (now more people will bid to more jobs w/o fear of losing their rank and thus more people will also buy more bid packs) than a consideration of what is best for the employer.

That being said, although I am consistently in the top 100 for my category and sometimes in the top 50, I don't completely mind this change. You see, I am now free to pursue more jobs (exactly what Guru wants I suspect) without fear of losing my ranking. So at the end of the day I'll likely make more money.

I don't really care how projects are sequenced (by rank or dollars earned)...the more people I can reach out to the more money I'll make.

Infinity Mark - Drupal Excellence!
11:39 PM on 08-May-2010 		We worked very hard to achieve a #1 ranking and this move has penalized us for that hard work. We will now be forced to use other sales channels as Guru.com seems to be too flaky changing the rules every six months!

Extremely frustrating.

Infinity Mark - Drupal Excellence!
11:46 PM on 08-May-2010 		We are close to signing a contract that will bring in $180k per month. I HAD intended to bring all of that business through our Guru.com account; however, due to this move I will not be doing that. It is ridiculous that Guru would make such a drastic measure without discussing it with it's members first.

This clearly demonstrates why it is irresponsible for a company to place so much investment into a sales channel that has this much control over its destiny.

Bad move on your part Guru!

WeaselADAPT
01:58 PM on 09-May-2010 		This is the death of common sense, Guru!

As I understand it, you're trying to give "the little people" who have "big potential," a lift, right? Yet you do this by eliminating the only classification that has served to distinguish them from the more "corporate giant" types.

No, seriously, NOW there's hardly any way at all for an employer to choose to take the chance of finding a truly skilled and dedicated but brand new talent by scouting from the lower ranks...because there ARE no ranks!

Why would an employer ever want to do such a thing, you ask? Why would they purposely trust an untried talent? Surely, Guru.com knows the answer to this, but just in case: Because more people than you apparently realize have found their own way out of the pits in this very same way! Many of your employers are here for their first project ever also. They are proud of themselves for clawing their own way out and not yet so jaded by success that they forget to seek out others who may also need just ONE break in order to make it!

And on the other end, you have people who have received their break, found their stride, have put in the time in training and pushed tirelessly forward to become the most successful... and you've basically just peed all over them too!

I'm trying very hard to see who you feel this move will help, and so far I see no logic in it at all.

I certainly hope you didn't just get this idea from a bunch of newbies who feel, "it's too hard to get noticed with the ranking as it is," because whether they know it or not, they're going to have a harder time than ever now. Seriously, which would you hire, someone whose rank and stats indicate that he or she is new, or someone who's raised $0.00?

While the Freelancer Rank field may very well have required some manner of reform, it is not your responsibility, Guru, to comply to the demands of the group who cries the hardest... but to make the best decision for everyone.

As RZcreativity implies, maybe if we who WERE satisfied with the old system had offered you more Kudos, we'd be having a more constructive dialog today.

If you dare to be the good shepherd, there's no time like the present, and I for one, who have been here for months and not yet made a single proposal, am willing to join in these talks.

lecameleon
11:47 PM on 09-May-2010 		Well said, Weasel. I doubt if I could have added anything to that. Thanks for saying out aloud what I was brooding about for a coupla days now. If it ain't broke... !!!
In a way, it is retribution too. All these fellas who said the ranks hurt them are going to find it even tougher in future. From Athens to modern democracy, the most important lesson learned is : The majority is not always right. In fact, mostly wrong.
Vox populi, vox tee hee.

999Dev
01:44 AM on 10-May-2010 		Very good decision!!! Before this it was not a good way if young and completely unknown boy had the same position like good and trusted company. It was not fair for clients who want too see trusted and competitive professionals and it was not fair for companies/prof who made money with guru during last many years. Sometimes we couldn't see a sense to register our new projects with guru help because it had not any relation to our rank. It's not good for guru (I guess) and it not true for keeping of common business too. New boys should keep less hourly rate than companies and they will be definitely chosen by employers, like we all did it 5 years ago. It's definitely good decision and right way to increase business. Thanks!

Next Logic
02:54 AM on 10-May-2010 		Guru, i think that all the people here that vote against your move are actually more angry than they let know, indeed all started from 0 and achieved a nice rank and did so working hard. Dumping all that is just wrong, i do sincerely believe that all the professionals here will overcome this just because they are professionals but the only side here who stands to lose big time is guru ... who now risks to become a very low quality and risky site for employers just like get-a-freelancer or rent-a-coder where bids are low and the employer is more likely to make a wrong choice wich will cost him and may cause that employer to not come back. In short: employers are more likely to get burned by this ... please talk with them, see what they say - sounds good ???
Thanks, Dorin.

Stephanie_H
08:44 AM on 10-May-2010 		This is a bad move. A ranking based on earnings doesn't provide any insight into the quality provided by the professional. I agree with many of the other comments, that this will make it even harder to distinguish between high-quality professionals and those who are not.

There must be a way to create a distinction between those two groups of people. Earnings is certainly not it. There are lots of low-paying (per project and per word) jobs on this site that higher quality writers simply aren't going to take. A ranking based on earnings rewards lower quality writers who aim for quantity instead.

You've not only blurred the line between pro and not-pro, you've utterly removed it. As someone who works very hard to keep her quality of writing high, I don't appreciate being thrown into the pool with people who don't.

Harrison Enterprises
08:50 AM on 10-May-2010 		I still see ranks on profiles and bids. What gives?

Infinity Mark - Drupal Excellence!
11:22 AM on 10-May-2010 		The title on the news teaser says "Freelancer Rank to End - Website Outage Alert" it should say "Freelancer Rank to End - Website OUTRAGE Alert!"

EXIDESIGN - Global Sources Agency
11:28 AM on 10-May-2010 		WELCOME THIS CHANGES, BUT WE NEED MORE FOR CALL EMPLOYERS AND MORE PROJECTS... BUT THE OLD RANK SYSTEM ARE PERFECT FOR THE FREELANCERS, FEEDBACK, REVIEWS AND PROJECT PROPOSAL PRICES...

Infinity Mark - Drupal Excellence!
11:29 AM on 10-May-2010 		999dev has it all wrong. New "boys" as he says it - assuming he is referring to new professionals - had a possibility of rising to a top ranking with the old system, a fact which inherently instills solid competitiveness that is fair. We joined Guru.com middle of last year and fought hard to rise to the top and achieved a #1 ranking in Websites & Ecommerce within only six months, and we have maintained that position since January 1 of this year. We did so by being committed to Guru and to our clients equally. Now the only "gurus" who will get recognition are those with high revenue volumes, which will force masses of high-quality people away from this site.

This is such a blunder of massive proportions!!
Matt

Infinity Mark - Drupal Excellence!
12:12 PM on 10-May-2010 		I've been giving some thought to why the ranking system is better than this new model. With the ranking system Guru's were encouraged to build solid relationships with their clients who would reward them with high feedback ratings. More consistent relationships equated to higher rankings as a direct correlation, which inherently directly translated to maximum employer satisfaction.

This was a well-rounded model that fostered strong relationships and rewarded Guru's for building those relationships. If you aren't good at building relationships and consistently delivering quality work then you could not rise to the top. Isn't that a GOOD thing?

We were able to join guru and achieve a #1 ranking with over 42,000 other Guru's in our category WITHING six months and maintain that #1 ranking for over four months straight. That doesn't sound like a system that makes it difficult for the little guy coming in and establishing themselves. It is PROOF that the system was working!

With this current model there is NO incentive for someone new to come into the Guru community - ZERO!

Chris Herrick illustrations
01:58 PM on 10-May-2010 		Please go back to the ranking system.
The reason I came to guru was because of the ranking system, it encouraged hard work and persistence, and you saw the hard work pay off once once your rank went up.
I have been a member for years and through hard work i moved up to the second page of the freelance illustrators, thus receiving more invites. Now with the new money earning ranking, I am on the fifth page, while the top ten are all illustration agencies with many illustrators. Of course they can make more money they can take on more jobs at one time. The system is now flawed.
My next step is to move on to another sight, and start from scratch and hope in the meantime, guru will listen to it's long time members and make some changes back, so that i can go back to what once was my favorite freelance website.
I understand the new system makes it fair for new freelancers, but while you get new costumers, you are loosing the old ones, its just bad business.

Michele Wiedemer
02:31 PM on 10-May-2010 		I'll just add that like others, I've worked hard over the last 3 years to improve my rank. However, I think it is obvious in my proposals that I specialize in certain types of projects, and that I will continue to look good to potential employers based on the new system. The difference in search capabilities might change who contacts me directly, but I think I'd rather work off of proposals anyway. I think the earnings sort will show who is a big company, who is just starting out, and who, like me, does a modest amount of work on a regular basis. I'm not encouraged by this change to do any extra proposals or change my membership level. I think this change will probably work out fine, and it's not worth getting too upset about.

Infinity Mark - Drupal Excellence!
02:48 PM on 10-May-2010 		Michele,
The reason this new model is flawed is that it will not attract or sustain large numbers of professionals, which will ultimately have a major impact on the value of projects being listed here. Certainly for those of you who HAVE been here for years you will appear high enough in the proposal listings that you will be able to get jobs. For those of us who have been here less than a year that will not be the case.

Even though my hard work has gotten us to a #1 ranking out of over 42,000 web developers, without ranking we will have no way to obtain work through Guru.

Again, you have to look at the long-term and bigger picture rather than just looking at the short-term impact to you personally. Ultimately this WILL have a largely negative impact on the quality of jobs posted on Guru.com, which WILL have a direct impact on you.

Get Your Words' Worth
05:04 PM on 10-May-2010 		It seems that those who are against this change are far more vocal than those who are for it. Now of course Guru is a privately owned company and the owner may do whatever he likes with his company, but Guru actually has a very good reputation that will be tarnished by this system. It sounds like a lot of good people will leave. At least now employers can, through careful screening, find good people. But it sounds like it is going to be far more difficult. I know now now that some people bid on any and all projects and you have to weed out them out if you want your project done right.
Anyway, as both an employer and a freelancer I can't emphasize enough how this new system is going to downgrade Guru. No the old system wasn't perfect, but the new system makes no sense at all.

Infinity Mark - Drupal Excellence!
11:18 PM on 10-May-2010 		The problem is that there are hundreds of thousands (if you believe the published numbers) of guru's on this site yet only a small handful have expressed dissatisfaction with this change. I think that is because the large majority of those who have created accounts don't actually use the site. Those of us who DO use this site faithfully have been sucker punched.

Tina Birkley
11:43 PM on 10-May-2010 		Well, so much for quality, eh? Guru had a winning formula for ranking freelancers based on quality factors such as acquisition (ability to bid on jobs they were qualified for -- and get those jobs), retention (ability to keep clients), and other aspects. Now, whoever makes the most wins? I know freelancers who take TOO many jobs at once, give bad service, and deliver mediocre work. They make a lot of money, but they're not the best of the best on Guru.

I guess freelancers and employers who value quality will move to Elance.

DLC Software Solutions
01:39 AM on 11-May-2010 		I am one of the people who is totally discouraged and upset by this move. To me, this is the whole point of Guru. I have worked very hard, on many small projects (none more than $10k) and I am in the top 50 in my category. It was the accountability that made Guru safe for employers and worthwhile for quality freelancers.
I hope Guru intends on doing something to maintain this accountability, or else I really don't understand what their position becomes in this market.
I have been very very proud of my rankings and I know it has helped me earn a lot of my business. It took me years to get to where I am at on Guru. I am really shocked to see this move and I think it is a very bad decision on Guru;s part. If they wanted to refine their ranking algorithm, i could understand that. But REMOVING the rankings? That is CRAZY. That would be like Ebay removing the seller rating system. It defeats the entire purpose of the service.

Infinity Mark - Drupal Excellence!
04:01 AM on 11-May-2010 		It is fairly clear to me that this move is NOT for the stated reasons of Guru ownership. They are saying one thing - that this move is because the ranking system made it too difficult for new or smaller "freelancers" (that's the biggest joke of all really) to earn a high ranking - and doing another, which is bowing to the pressure of their largest revenue producers who are clearly penalized by the ranking system.

These large earners submit hundreds of bids per month and were clearly penalized for doing so under the ranking system because they lost visibility the more bids they submitted. Now they are still at the top of the listings regardless. Notice how even the reviews sort is not sorted by the average score but rather by the number of reviews. If you're doing hundreds of jobs you are rewarded. This clearly is the exact opposite of what Guru ownership is stating.

They think we're just a bunch of ignorant fools who will fall for their stated reasoning. Notice that NONE of the highest revenue earners are here voicing concern? What does that tell you?

Also - do you think that those of us who ARE smart enough to see through their BS and DO leave because of it will have any impact on Guru's business model? No - you know why? Because 90% of listed vendors are fake accounts anyway and listed only to bolster the facade that there are tens of thousands of "freelancers" from which employers may choose.

In the end even if there are really only a few hundred LARGE companies left on Guru.com - what does Guru care? They don't TRULY care about the "little guy" what they TRULY care about is the thickness of their wallets.

That much is VERY clear at this point.

Infinity Mark - Drupal Excellence!
04:09 AM on 11-May-2010 		"Guru.com genuinely wants every Freelancer to have an opportunity to be a winner - not just a select few." Again - their words ring HOLLOW.

My situation clearly demonstrates that the ranking system WORKED for ANYONE who chose to aggressively pursue a high ranking by building solid relationships rather than simply spamming employers and earning the most.

I was able to go from UNRANKED newbie to #1 ranking in Guru's largest category (over 42,000 listed guru's) in only 90 days! Do you think THAT could EVER happen without ranking? NEVER - now only the big guys - the big revenue producers who care little about the quality but much about volume - will have high visibility here.

Disgusting! I only wish employers could read this discussion board!

Writing, well done.
05:56 AM on 11-May-2010 		While I did (and do) applaud the change, I hope this is truly a "first step," as it says in the announcement, towards a more accurate ranking system. I wish more of you had known about the Guru Facebook page where some of this discussion went on prior to this rather abrupt announcement.

I will reiterate that the existing ranking system is pretty awful, and that's what Guru is reacting to.

I think 99% on here agree with the premise that "freelancers should be ranked." Unfortunately, consensus breaks apart after that point.

The best ranking system would probably be a sophisticated formula taking half a dozen or more factors into account, anything from total earnings to feedback average to activity level to bid success, etc etc. If I were Guru, I'd make the employer feedback form much more robust. "Did they complete the task on time? On budget? Did they communicate in a timely manner? Did they provide all deliverables according to the project plan? etc etc," instead of this 5 star silliness that can be easily abused and which doesn't really illuminate much. Make it almost like an online restaurant survey and give a tiny incentive for employers to actually fill them out. Parse those answers up, and incorporate it into the overall ranking formula somehow. Asking specific questions like that would also help prevent employers 'screwing over' freelancers with bad feedback, which I think is why they stopped using feedback rankings years ago.

drdezign
08:28 AM on 11-May-2010 		I also agree that this new system is bad. Bad for professionals and bad also for Guru.

I am a member since 2003, but in recent years I find myself complaining about all these changes being made every six months. Drastic changes, frequently and without consultation. Why can not respect the system that has worked well here and get to work on improving what is not working properly?

I sincerely believe that these changes will make Guru a "cheap" marketplace.

The site today is full of employers looking for great work for less than 250. If possible for 25. And this will get worse. This is going to become a race to see who makes it for less money.

I don't want my real name appears in the listings. I don't want the link to my profile to appear in the listings. These should be visible only to the employer that consider my offer, not the entire world.

Stop hurting the professionals who made grow this site with your time and work.

Abakus
09:01 AM on 11-May-2010 		I have the feeling that Guru's management got a strong case of what I call the New Coke syndrome" (no disrespect meant!).
In the 1980s Coca Cola thought it "had to do something" to counter competition and thought of "relaunching Coca cola" with a new taste.... Well it is ranked as marketing flop #1. The taste was not "broken"..why "fix it"?

I am sure many pros have complained about many things on Guru which they would like to see changed, essentially to favor them. To be ranked among the first, you need to work hard....I guess some don't want to!

S & J
01:15 PM on 11-May-2010 		My guess is that the purpose of this new system is to give pros more reason not to take their clients over to Paypal (whose fees are minuscule compared to Guru's). Personally, I've been working through Guru consistently for about a year now, and I've already seen the tremendous benefits of working hard and rising in rank. But with these new changes, which I consider to be a slap in the face of loyal providers, I now feel we have all the more reason to take our clients off of Guru.

I'm hoping that someday somebody will come up with a freelancing marketplace that doesn't cater to employers seeking to pay slave wages. Guru has been great for me, but this change is unfortunate.

marilynr
01:16 PM on 11-May-2010 		I'm fine with the new system including the ranking issue - I was never a fan of that "new" system anyway but tolerated it. Regardless I have been very near the top of that system after much hard work...just like I was at the top of the system you had before that, which I liked much better. (Sorry but the whole formula with the customer retention rate etc and so on was horribly flawed so I for one am happy to see that go.)

DiddySinatra
02:03 PM on 11-May-2010 		Its true, humans are terrible with numbers. Everyone citing the reasoning that "90%" or "Most" of the responses here are against the change as a valid reason to undo the change are not taking the key rules of reaction and proportion into consideration. First, who is more likely to decide to react/post in response to a change? A person for or against it? AGAINST of course, as those who are for it have nothing to say about it. Therefore, nearly all the responses you see will be negative no matter what, as those who have a negative attitude towards it are "90%" or "Most"/more likely to care enough to reply in the first place. So you can't consider the ratio of positive versus negative responses at all. Second, there may be quite the number of responses to read on this wall, I'll be generous and earmark it at 100, but there are how many active providers on Guru? Thousands maybe? Tens of thousands? I'm not even sure as it isn't listed somewhere I care to find. Even at minimum, say there are only 1000 active freelancers on Guru, the largest freelance site, this is still the angry minority. This wouldn't change even if you tacked on a couple hundred more responses from pros and "newbs" alike. THEREFORE, it seems like more people are in favor or neutral than against. The numbers nor the proportions are on the angry minority's side here. Find a different arguing angle.

Cenergy Media Group
02:31 PM on 11-May-2010 		I believe from a professional stand point that rankings should be on professionalism not dollars earned.

DiddySinatra
02:35 PM on 11-May-2010 		I just saw the count, 121 responses, I was off by 20 at the time of my post :/ The listings can still be sorted by that though. It seems that no one posting negatively here has faith in the employers to want to sort by ratings and "professionalism" on their own and in addition to by monies earned. Does no one believe that the employers are smart enough to consider multiple sorts or smart enough to care? I'd be insulted by all this as an employer at the poor opinion generated here about how able they are to use the tools given to them.

ELECTROHERMIT
10:28 PM on 11-May-2010 		The ranking system was more than flawed, it was vile. It is one of the reasons I have not spent time with Guru the last few years. I'm glad to see a change, it's promising and keep listening to your clients (us, that can never be a bad way to run a business. I see lot's of grumbling above from the fat cats that were sitting on momentum and now are irritable because the playing field has been leveled. Predictable.

Betsy R
12:23 AM on 12-May-2010 		If rank was eliminated, why does it still show up on the bids we place?

Fronsee Technology Solutions
02:03 AM on 12-May-2010 		Just throwing my 2 cents out: DO NOT IMPLEMENT THIS NEW PLAN!! I have worked hard for my rankings!

Infinity Mark - Drupal Excellence!
05:59 AM on 12-May-2010 		"The ranking system was more than flawed, it was vile. It is one of the reasons I have not spent time with Guru the last few years. I'm glad to see a change, it's promising and keep listening to your clients (us, that can never be a bad way to run a business. I see lot's of grumbling above from the fat cats that were sitting on momentum and now are irritable because the playing field has been leveled. Predictable."

Wow - where to start with this statement by ElectroHermit?

First of all, without a ranking system the ONLY guru's who will get any visibility in the search results are the TRUE "fat cats" he/she accuses those of us who are complaining to be. Without this ranking system - SOME ranking system - in place the only way to obtain visibility is to BE a "fat cat"! I am a SLIM cat who fought my way from NO ranking to a #1 spot last year. I did so by COMMITTING to my customers that NOTHING less than five-star service was acceptable to me. I told them to let me know if they felt that I was providing anything less - and they did when they did - and I responded accordingly.

Without a ranking system why would anyone even bother? The way the new search sorts are set up there is no possibility of being seen unless you do a large volume of business that is simply not possible for those of us who are NOT the "fat cat" companies who have tens and hundreds of employees. Creating a system where only those such companies get visibility is diametrically opposed to the entire concept of Guru.com, which is SUPPOSED to be a marketplace that caters to the individual freelancer - unless I'm wrong and they really want to only cater to large companies. In that case this entire dialogue is futile.

What IS predictable is that people can be so short sited as to think that this can be good for the overall Guru.com community long-term.

The ONLY reason I am even giving this a chance is because ranking will still exist in some level for the sorting of bids. Sans that - I'm gone.

Abakus
06:56 AM on 12-May-2010 		I think most of us agree that there must be a ranking system as there should be a guide for employers wishing to select a pro. The question is, what to factor into it? How should it be created? Amount earned alone is misleading, because there are some pros who will bid on almost every and any project as long as it pays more than the minimum $25....

In my judgment, rank should be made of:

- Amount earned. 20% weight. After all, it does tell something about the pros' success.

- Project size completed. 40% weight. This is important as an employer, I would be more willing to award my large project to someone who has charged a few thousands for a project, than to a pro who routinely does all the "Less than $250" deals...

- Rating. 40% weight. While I agree that there may be some manipulating going on, a five star is better than a three star rating, no matter how you cut it.

Such a composite index should work for all.

M Alan Roberts
10:35 AM on 12-May-2010 		I'll say it again - no matter how the primary employer search parameters are set, your business will always increase if you just focus on quality and customer service.

ElfProductions
11:05 AM on 12-May-2010 		This is an interesting discussion.
What I would like to add to this is feedback seems a very important part of the process, although it can be arbitrarily given. Nonetheless, if a professional gets consistently 5 stars you can trust that over one with numerous low ratings.

If new hierarchy of "ranking" is done solely on earnings, what it fails to acknowledge is quality.

That has what I had mentioned before.

Quality particularly in artistic fields is the differentiating factor.

Clients from Guru.com have told me time and time again that quality is what they are looking for and they are so relieved when they talk to me and the current system does not accurately reflect that.

If a professional/company reaps in a lot of earnings, that is great. They attract a lot of business. But that is not the only thing.

It has to be the quality of work they deliver.

Otherwise, like Peter Rodrick says, there are far too many amateurs with professional aspirations at the top. That is not rewarding high quality work and that is a deterrent to attracting top quality professionals to your freelance arena.

I think feedback and earnings are both relevant.

As an employer, I am more likely to hire someone I feel that is reputable, has actual earnings posted, and shows actual feedback from a variety of clients.

It should take some time to establish yourself. That shows your seriousness in doing so.

Guru.com should think about what you represent in terms of freelance work.

Maximum earnings?
Maximum clients/freelancers?
Variety?

Professional atmosphere with an accurate representation of work, clients, and freelancers?

I think the last is most appealing to both employers and employees.

Thanks. Hope you find this helpful.

ASPkey
12:13 PM on 12-May-2010 		I think sorting by earnings makes it impossible for new-comers to enter into the market; they'll never catch up.

It would be better to leave the rankings as is and focus on weeding out employers who never hire.

TheSmallBusinessOffice.com
12:18 PM on 12-May-2010 		NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! No No No!!
I'm not liking this change.

I worked hard to raise my ranking (not only working hard to impress employers, but also telling them they now HAVE to pay me via Guru & HAVE to leave me fdbk AND upgrading my membership to Guru Vendor - all to build my ranking)... and now you're taking all that away?!?! Why did i even bother?

So, the people that charge the most for their services will be ranked first (not fair to the lower paid employees or the employers seeking them)?? Even if they get the majority of their payments from one employer?? Even if their services suck & their feedback says so?? Hmmm??? This will be a critical change that will determine if I stick with Guru after all these years!! I better still be in the top 20% or better in the default-ordered list of job bidders (but I doubt my $150 in pmnts recd will get me there)... or I'll find another jobs' site to pay a membership fee to.

Come on Guru.com... please don't take away our hard-earned rankings!!! I had just made it into the top 100!! Grrr!!!

~Vickie
www.TheSmallBusinessOffice.com

TheSmallBusinessOffice.com
12:28 PM on 12-May-2010 		Sorry, forgot to say (yet wanted to emphasise)... I agree with the majority... you should focus on quality over quantity... ranking by earnings can only have more flaws (& be further away from what employers are truly interested in) than ranking by feedback. Feedback rankings matter most!!!

TheSmallBusinessOffice.com
12:30 PM on 12-May-2010 		Unless you're Guru.com... then monies paid therough Guru's system matter most. (Good job looking out for yourselves Guru!!)

writer33
02:50 PM on 12-May-2010 		Why does rank still show up in the bids if it was "eliminated"?

Shirt Illo King
05:34 PM on 12-May-2010 		This is GURU, OK? Not the Ladders. You are bidding against freelancers WORLDWIDE. Is there really a reliable ranking system? Nope. 250 dollar and below is what makes this whole thing go round. Quick, cheap, and flexible. Sad, but true. It's a reflection of the world economy. And if you're lucky enough to get a big baller, great for you! Do outstanding work! But most employers go to GURU because they know it's cheap. If you don't like the water, stop swimming in it. Take your towel, and go home crying. But please, don't pretend you are the pinnacle of your services just because you ranked on GURU LOLZ! They run this site, and they can do whatevs. Don't like it??? BOUNCE and try your luck elsewhere. You're soooo talented, you'll get mad clients regardless of where you go, right?

BTW shooting to the top rank of anything in just a year or less is warm butter (not a real challenge). I've been doing this for a decade and I accept without complaints the fact that my line of work is competitive, and has its downside, and yes it's global.

Keep it real, people. We're all just freelancers fighting over the same meat. It is what it is. Don't like it?

GET A JOB.

Justine Elliott - Book Design
08:10 PM on 12-May-2010 		Folks, we are just going to have to bid Premium to stand out, but if we all do that... I guess that won't work either. :/

Infinity Mark - Drupal Excellence!
06:43 AM on 13-May-2010 		**THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN EDITED.**

I've gotten several $20k + jobs here and one has just started to generate $180k per month in business. You think small = you BE small.

ABCWriters
07:08 AM on 13-May-2010 		Wow. You finally got this right. The rating system was fundamentally flawed.

SFD
12:10 PM on 13-May-2010 		Worked so hard to get my rank high and now you remove it entirely!!!! Horrible move

Shirt Illo King
03:11 PM on 13-May-2010 		**THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN EDITED.**

If it no longer works for you, focus on getting your own clients through your own site. The old system worked great for some freelancers. Leave it alone, give it a chance, and try to add more to the convo. No one here is supposed to be "working so hard to get their rank high" they are here to work hard for the clients, and for money. I bring my own clients to GURU especially my new ones because of the services GURU offers freelancers like me. I am not here to play digital Pokemon with scores and ratings.

Also, don't misinterpret my cheap and flexible comment. That's what brings in the most traffic. Once a client looks around, they see freelancers of ALL LEVELS. Rule number one, PEOPLE ATTRACT PEOPLE. GURU knows exactly what they are doing.

BTW Electrohermit is spot on. The ranking system is why so many truly talented freelancers moved on. That system was unintentionally rigged and now they have made moves to fix it.

Infinity Mark - Drupal Excellence!
12:31 AM on 14-May-2010 		**THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN EDITED.**

The ranking system is slanted toward people like me - those of us committed to building high quality relationships with our clients. It rewarded developers for repeat business and several other factors which are indicative of the developer having delivered a high level of value to our clients. And InfinityMark is excellent at building those quality relationships because we consistently deliver beyond the expectations of our clients. That was rewarded in the ranking system. A system that simply sorts developers by volume of business is not conducive to creating a quality environment, and I am confident that this will translate to a lower quality environment in the long term.

GravityStation
01:43 AM on 14-May-2010 		Not thrilled about this move. I have kept my membership going NON-STOP since I was a member of Creative Moonlighter (which is the site Guru.com purchased.) I have fought to keep a good rank, and for all that money I've blown, it's gone!

Shirt Illo King
01:45 AM on 14-May-2010 		**THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN EDITED.**

GURU drags you into the age of true competition. Change is here, and you are going to have to deal with it. When that system exposed itself to the developers and team at GURU for being what it was, they decided to correct it. Before then, many of us left GURU, and did our own thing because we disagreed with the ranking system. The vast majority of us have no problem with the latest changes. Everybody complained about the old ranking system while some ran off with the benefits. Of course you want it back.

I left this place long ago, I focused more on other sites and face to face meetings. One thing is to disagree because you honestly want to keep an unfair advantage, but another is to try and pretend you are looking out for everybody else by looking out for yourself. I'm telling you and everybody else who relied too heavily on the ranking system: go get a job- you'll feel safer. Either that, or hustle! You claim to have done it before, and so easily, do it again.

GravityStation
01:52 AM on 14-May-2010 		Agree, the old ranking system stunk anyway, but being that as it was, I still kept my account going, because it seemed to be the way Guru was headed (and I had no intention of losing all that stuff I worked for, rank, feedback, etc.) And even though my earnings were listed on my account, it wasn't that apparent. Honestly, doing away with it doesn't bother me but using my yearly earnings in a table below all my bids is really annoying...

If they start showing my bid amounts, I'm outa here. (no offense to those that don't mind - but that's the main reason I don't bother with other freelance sites).

Kristen - Guru.com Team
12:20 PM on 14-May-2010 		Folks - I am sorry to have had to edit some of your comments above. Please remember to keep the conversation clean. It's okay if you have different opinions, but we do not need to resort to attacking each other on a personal level. Thank you.

Betsy R
12:54 PM on 14-May-2010 		Thank you Kristen!

Infinity Mark - Drupal Excellence!
01:19 PM on 14-May-2010 		I was actually going to ask you to edit some of mine! :) It is easy to get heated in a discussion that is so important, particularly when you are attacked for taking a stance.

Thanks Kristen

JV Media Design
01:21 PM on 14-May-2010 		I understand why guru is going to use earnings - because like it or not some individuals are going to circumvent the payment system, so this way those people might be more inclined to bill through the system in order to rack up earnings.

However, I also think that this could be calculated "behind the scenes" and not shown publicly on the site. In other words, yeah use total earnings to rank, but don't show those earnings on your public profile.

I've noticed a drastic decline in the amount of quality jobs over the years (we've also been with it since Creative Moonlighter) and honestly months will go by and I don't bother even looking here (we get most of our leads via organic search engine listings and word of mouth). When people are expecting an ecommerce, Flash or custom-programmed website for anything less than a few thousand dollars (which is still bargain basement rates) for instance, I won't even bother to look at the listing. I understand this site reaches a world market and that acceptable pricing for quality work is different in different areas but completing a website for "under $250" only perpetuates client-notions that the work is not that valuable. (sorry, tangent!)

So we don't have the $100k in earnings that some company who uses the system as their main source of income might. Does this mean we're not a quality company worthy of awarding a project to? Absolutely not. But some potential clients may get the impression (ones who might not bother to view every portfolio while they're searching) that we can't land a lot of jobs because our earnings are not as high as some.

I just think it's a lot more professional to NOT show grand totals of earnings to the general public. It makes it more competitive in my opinion because people actually have to look at our portfolios and read our proposals.

M Alan Roberts
02:03 PM on 14-May-2010 		I agree with the comments made by JV Media Design. There are benefits to basing the primary search parameter on earnings, but there's no real need to specifically state the exact amount of earnings. Also, it is true that an individual or company's earnings are private matters. Perhaps there's a way to represent top earners without explicitly stating what they earn.

On a different note, change always excites me. Because I do realize that, in every situation, there are pros and cons. I'm scanning this new system for its pros and I know that I will deal with its cons. In the end, I'll still be a top performer. And hopefully, the employers can be counted on to be able to discern between interior, average and excellent service provision standards.

Peace - you freelancing madmen and women!

GravityStation
02:33 PM on 14-May-2010 		I completely agree with JV Media! That ol' "Less than $250" is unrealistic and does send a message to Employers that web design work is "easy" and cheap, or as some Employers post: "Easy for someone who knows what they're doing" - what a deterrent!

Anyway, as a Guru Vendor, I've been contributing my ongoing payments since Guru started charging fees, and I had no idea this change was coming, wasn't actually notified and asked for my opinion. I should have had a say in what changes were to take place with my personal information, and those things that directly effect my business... It may have been posted, but I would have missed that, because like JV Media, I don't regularly bid on projects anymore because of the decline in project quality that's been going on over the past year. I have to agree with several of the bloggers out there that have mentioned Guru's declining quality in available projects and increase in low quality Employers that have been migrating here from Elance (just a guess!) to post projects with little or NO detail at all, and asking for websites that are clearly out of their budget range. There are too many reasons that we should have had a say in the changes to the site, because these changes directly effect our businesses (for instance, payment terms), the way we do business, and the type of clientelle we deal with. Sending the message to Employers that a yearly earning is the way to determine who's better and who's not so great, just sends a message that those just starting out with lower earnings are the ones to go for because they must charge less. The amount of earnings that a Vendor shows in a year, determines the quality of their work somehow?

As a Vendor, I would have liked to see Guru spend more time on making sure Employers learn how to post realistic projects, rather than gearing the site toward Employers best interests. Employers don't pay Guru for anything, WE DO... So why are Employers being catered to, when it's the Freelancers that pay the bills and keep Guru.com going? It's the Freelancers here on Guru.com that have brought the site so much more credibility and reputation - yet we're always the ones that are given less advantage. We are bidding our hearts out here, while Employers don't pay a dime. I'm sorry but more attention should have been geared toward educating Employers on how to post realistic projects within realistic budget ranges. Full Ecommerce sites using Escrow are showing budgets of "Less Than $250" while Freelancers not only have to lowball their bids (if they choose to bid at all) but Employers don't care that WE have to pay Guru a percentage, and an annual fee to bid on their projects. That is ridiculous. Maybe focus on adding an additional "Guru Fee" box to all projects would be appropriate, where we could bid normally, than an automatic calculation for the additional fees would be added in plain site so Employers would be reminded that they need to take that into account when posting their project budgets. OR even better, lose the "Less than $250" option completely in some categories, making it more worth our while... Just a suggestion...

GravityStation
02:35 PM on 14-May-2010 		HAHA!!! PEACE to U too, M ALAN! :)

Shirt Illo King
10:48 AM on 17-May-2010 		Thanks, Kristen. I didn't like some of that dudes' comments and that kinda set me off independently of the validity of his points. GURU needs defenders of change, not just those who want to keep the status quo. GURU would never be what it is today without evolution. Some people have problems with that, for many reasons, some of which are valid, but they have no right to attack people like me for standing up for what I know is fair and actually a step in the right direction.

I don't think any of us freelancers rely 100% on GURU for survival. I am actually a very light user and I like GURU because I can steer new clients to the site to educate them on rates, quality, and the sheer volume of activity. They come back with a better perspective of the marketplace and I get a more informed client. Sometimes they go with another freelancer, and I don't mind, there's plenty to go around, and sometimes they like the escrow process because they feel they are protected while we try each other out.

We freelancers are a wily bunch, but we need to stick together, not tear each other down, and definitely keep things professional especially on a public message board that any client can visit with minimal effort.

We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. Voicing opinions is one thing, calling the CEO of the very company you eat from a liar, in front of everybody on the board, is something entirely different. That's not called taking a stand, that's called smearing Let's all play nice here.

Remember,change is a process, not an end-all be-all.

gerda.lydia
11:58 AM on 17-May-2010 		Regarding the elimination of Rankings: Sadly forums like this create more weight toward ending rankings, because the higher-ranked Gurus are busy working on projects. I never even noticed this change was coming until today.

Like many here, I bid for over 6 months prior to getting my first project, and then they were few and far between. I watched my 5-star feedbacks disappear from my rating because they were suddenly over a year old. We all have had to compete with low-ball multi-VA bids from companies in the developing world; their dollar totals will now list them first, above the single, personal touch worker.

Before you throw away "Rank," punishing those of us who have worked hard to get good ranks, at a minimum, Guru should create a "sort by" option on the bidders page, allowing one of the sorts to be "rank." My guess is that if the two options are "$" and "Rank," many employers will want to see that "Rank." Guru benefits Employers by charging all fees to the Workers. I believe Employers will not like having to "look up" the stats of someone in consideration. Why Guru wants to be more like GAF/Freelancer or Elance makes no sense to me.

After years of hard work, our success is to be ignored in order to make it easier for the less skilled to get listed on top -- Kind of like grading on a curve. Right now, only 15 of my 62 ratings show up, all 5-stars. But a one-timer with 5 stars will be listed near me. Let's face it, the votes of the bottom 1,800 workers will, of course, outweigh the top 200.

But I would recommend Guru total the dollars they make from those top 200, versus the other 1,800 -- It's nice to be nice, but I find this method a real slap to those who have worked inside the created system to move up, just to now have the rug pulled out from under them.

Starlight Design
12:20 PM on 17-May-2010 		If I understand this correctly, we now have no rank?... and our "quality score" stats will be removed from our profile yet STILL USED to sort our bids? So it's not really being done away with, we just don't see it? Isn't the whole purpose of removing rank to get RID of the CAR, CER and RR whatever?

Honestly, every time I read the explanations of those, I think I understand them, and yet the next time I think about it, I'm confused again. Why do I supposedly have a 7-month relationship with someone I did some site work for, last year? The relationship hasn't lasted 7 months... it lasted about 2 weeks, I got paid, and that was the end of it. So that number itself doesn't have any connection to real life, and then guru is dividing my earnings by that and dividing that by my total earnings to get a percentage, then deciding I still have a 7-month relationship and, in the last column, coming up with a number not correlated to any of the previous numbers as my "Retention Rate"? I mean none of that is even necessary. Yes, I know it's being *patented,* but nobody likes it, and it doesn't even make any sense.

I have to say that I haven't really fussed too much over the current ranking system. I realized that if I got more work, I'd increase my stats one way or another, and I am able to find work here when I need to. My overall "rank" number has moved around a bit, but not so drastically as to cause me stress. The only thing that I think is unfair to everyone is that we are being penalized for using bids while trying to get work at a site WHERE WE PAY TO BID ON JOBS IN ORDER TO FIND WORK. If someone is really spamming that hard, guess what - their bids can be deleted and they can use up all their bids and buy bid pax from guru. ok? It is simply ::too bad:: that the employer actually has to read the replies that he has asked for. Maybe he should get his towel. I have read countless amounts of worthless project postings, and none of those employers were penalized in any way nor did they have to PAY to post those projects or any further nonsense that they decided consisted of a decent project for another human being who is simply trying to survive on this beautiful planet. That being said, I find a lot of worthwhile projects here and could easily write 10 proposals per day, spending hours doing the research and crafting a plan that corresponds to the unique details of the project. I might be able to do that for 3 days straight, if I really needed to find work. And that is nobody's business but MY OWN. If guru wants to show the number of proposals submitted in the last 30 days, as they already do, then that's fine, but reducing my rank for bidding, when I'm spending my time and money doing so (in the midst of fierce competition, I might add), is just plain BS.

We DO need some sort of rank, but didn't guru already have a system in place?

• I thought we used to be ranked based on feedback, and feedback for higher paid projects was counted more than for lower paid project.

This seemed like a fair way to do it. Is it still that way when sorting by feedback?

If only 1 statistic were used, wouldn't feedback be a more accurate and fair way of ranking than earnings?

I like what Abakus says: rate by earnings, feedback and projects completed.

• I was going to suggest instead of earnings, since some are so upset about it being made public, to simply have a number/type of projects completed. If a project is $25, that's small, 26-250 is med, etc... or guru could break it down to <100, <500, <1k, <10k, 10k+. Create the levels and make cool little pokemon icons (heh jk), put stats next to them, and then just show that instead of earnings. That way someone can tell if you're getting higher-paid projects, but the exact amount you've earned is a bit vague. Maybe an option could be added to hide earnings, if someone feels it's that important.

• Also, number of clients is another good stat that employers might want to see and pros might want to show.

• If it's so important to show long-term clients, which it might be, then do that in a simple way related to showing the number of clients.

• Better yet, I find it odd that nobody can see our endorsements. I'd like those to be public, because I think it's a big reflection on what type of work ethic you have and how happy your clients are. They don't *have to* endorse you. It's a totally optional extra thing that they do, and it should be shown.

@Shirt Illo King - ROFL mad clients - I have some of those! :Þ

(wow no preview)

Scopic Software
12:49 AM on 18-May-2010 		This move makes zero sense. Its funny that just as Guru is going to abolish their ranking system Elance - who has been doing every right - is creating one. As usually Guru is going in the wrong direction.

So without a ranking system providers are encouraged to bid on every single project. So buyers should be prepared for a zillion bids on each job - 99% of them worthless.

Black Ice Designs
07:27 AM on 18-May-2010 		I dont like this..

Next Logic
07:36 AM on 18-May-2010 		im with Black Ice Designs on this one ... well said Black.

NAMHI
02:37 PM on 18-May-2010 		This move makes zero sense. Its funny that just as Guru is going to abolish their ranking system Elance - who has been doing every right - is creating one. As usually Guru is going in the wrong direction

TheSmallBusinessOffice.com
08:30 PM on 19-May-2010 		Thank you Gravity & JV!! I agree 100%!!

#1. Our earning should be kept confidential for MANY reasons and

#2. we should not be ranked lower just because we've accepted less money via the Guru system... no matter why our "annual earnings" may be low... and there are plenty of reasons for this other than because we are any less worthy of any job listed on Guru. I think ‘annual earnings’ (or at least those that Guru was able to collect a commission on) are the worst way of ranking a freelancer - who probably has other clients besides those found on Guru.com (who, yes, I’m sorry to say, get paid outside of Guru’s system). So let’s punish everyone who doesn’t use the Guru.com site exclusively for all jobs that they work (or those who charge less, those who work only part time, etc.)… right?!?! You’re making those of us who have lower earnings (at least as per the Guru system) look bad!!

In the end, ‘annual earnings’ found on the Guru site matter to only ONE party: those who run Guru.com and get to pocket the commissions on it!! Ohh, and maybe those looking to steal confidential information about me… like how much I make!! Employers care about rankings (or feedback, at least!) – I can’t imagine they are going to be happy about this change either!!

Come on Guru… please say you’re not going to go through with this!! Don’t share our confidential info and don’t rank us based on how much money we made for Guru.com over the past year!! At least leave the rankings so that employers can decide if they want to use that info (to sort freelancers’ proposals by & to view on their profiles).

I wish you would have at least taken a pole of all the paying Guru Vendors, etc. and see what they thought about it before you went and made changes to the site (and their paid memberships)… just days after I paid for another entire year’s membership!! When I agreed to pay for this year, I didn’t expect such rotten changes. Prior to this, upgrading to a Guru Vendor membership helped to get you ranked higher… now, without rankings, why did I bother? Not nice guys!! I sure hope all the comments here will open your eyes… ‘the people’ are not liking this change!! Did someone say the name was “ELance”?

RoFeld LLC
06:55 AM on 20-May-2010 		I have been member of original Guru and e-moonlighter since 2001 before Guru was purchased by e-moonlighter.

I think, it is a bad move. Every project I do work on, I always make sure I will receive high rating and great feedback and to stay in business I have to charge competitive $$$ for my work.
In my opinion Guru should treat their members as their employees, we are the once who make money for them. If they want to change search, it should not be based by amount earned and I agree with other posters, it should be private, but by number of years being Guru member and rating. Guru should benefit long time members who maintain 5 star rating and high score.

I also do think that moving forward, such move by Guru should be put for discussion and vote by Guru members and those decisions should not be made by Guru staff only.

Starlight Design
10:03 AM on 20-May-2010 		I like what RoFeld said - and is it just me or did guru delete the "Member Since xxxx" on our profiles? I think that's an important stat to show and I bet employers do, too. Voting isn't a bad idea; I wonder what guru's stance on this thread is.

Betsy R
12:39 PM on 21-May-2010 		I agree Starlight..I would like to see this put back on our profiles.

eugenus
06:58 PM on 21-May-2010 		Mark Weitzman Lets-Narrate YOU ARE SO RIGHT! So few of us can see so clearly. Why can't we just keep low-balling each other to get work and put aside all types of ranking?

Shackles Enterprises
01:36 AM on 22-May-2010 		I think this is a bad move and will no longer use Guru. The saturation of foreign freelancers drove me out of a competitive market, thanks Guru.

GravityStation
11:56 AM on 22-May-2010 		IDEAS:

1. Why not separate the low budget projects from the realistic ones? Allow Employers to select to post their project in:

a) "Low budget, not looking for quality"
b) "High quality, will pay realistically"

Keep all the low budget projects (less than $1000 for instance) separate from the projects $1000+ then allow Professionals to do some sorting of our own, based on $$$ while we try to select worthy Employers...

Since we are the ones forking out all the revenue we should be able to hold Employers to a rating system of our own, sorting them out by quality ranking, based on how much money they wish to spend...

Betsy R
12:12 PM on 22-May-2010 		Good idea Gravity Station- maybe put this in the Suggestions section, too?

GravityStation
05:51 PM on 22-May-2010 		Thanks Betsy, I posted a more elaborate version in the Suggestion Box - if anyone is interested in contributing ideas, or an idea redesign, go here: http://answers.guru.com/pro/Suggestions-Forum.aspx?forumid=21&threadid=4579&subscribeto=4579

borkd.systems
07:24 PM on 22-May-2010 		My company definitely falls under a "niche" umbrella, and a ridding of the old ranking systems definitely helps my chances. Developers who work a more general market may be unhappy with this change, as they truly are competing with many many more people - a rank for them makes sense in their eyes. My company as a systems engineering firm, competes with instead maybe a few hundred, and a ranking system is definitely detrimental if thousands of other generalized developers are including in our ranking pool. The solution is not perfect, and I hope it's a first step, but for firms like mine it's a godsend.

Infinity Mark - Drupal Excellence!
08:56 AM on 24-May-2010 		You already can sort projects by budget level.

BusinessWritingPlus
05:47 PM on 24-May-2010 		I have to say that Guru is looking more and more amatuerish all the time. It took me a year to build up my rank to the top ten in writing under the original star/feedback metric, followed by a year of turning down small projects to keep my rank respectable under the ridiculous alphebet soup metric of the last year or so. Now I have no idea what is coming, except that there is to be no rank whatsoever, and employers are to select their professionals by means of some magical never-never metric based on some metric so apparently complicated that it can't be explained to us. One hopes, at the very least, that it doesn't involve incantations over the bowels of sheep.

I don't pretend to know what the new Frankenstein monster is going to look like, but I do recognize what seems to be a major impulse behind it.

Inder, you seem obsessed with the idea that all professionals are "equal" and must be treated "fairly." We are not equal. Some of us are extremely good at what we do and some just aren't. Further, many alleged "professionals" are unemployed folks looking for a few bucks until they get their next "real" job, and have no intention of advancing a freelance career. Further yet, a number of folks from all over the world are barely able to write in English, yet advertise themselves as "professionals" in categories like writing. They should not have the unearned priviledge of standing beside people who CAN justify the label of "professional." All of this and more is self-evident, yet you still seem intent on flogging the impulse behind such bewildering euphemisms as "...confining structure of Rank that prevents the community from finding a shared sense of celebration in its similarities and in its differences...", whatever that's sposed to mean.

I don't come here to "celebrate similarities and differences"; I come here to make money. The only way I can do that is to be recognized for the quality and volume of the work I do.

Let me be the first to say that using volume of money is a good partial step - if I make more money than somebody with a steady highpaying single contract, that's better for you, a better indication of quality for the client, and better for me. The only person it's not good for is the fellow who wants to make a few bucks and who isn't willing to take his lumps to get there. I applaud your move one that score.

What I don't get is the abolition of rank. That's insane, with all due respect. Given the a priori assumption that any metric at all is going to be flawed in one way or another, why not go for the simplest and most obviously workable solutions of all - to return to the simple, effective metric of volume of earnings matched to employer feedback?

Ranking people according to how much they make and how satisfied their clients are may not be "fair" in the skewed world of socialism, but it's more than fair in the real world marketplace. Further, it's a proven motivator and business model, it satisfies the KISS rule, and best of all, it means you're making more money too.

Scott

Get Your Words' Worth
06:02 PM on 24-May-2010 		Bravo, Scott. I find it so frustrating when employers tell me that they can hire someone else, overseas, usually, for $20 a day. I say, "Go ahead and hire them, then". I am also a Guru employer and work for another Guru employer and am finding that I am flooded with cheap, low bids by people who can't do the work right. I have to really sift hard to get someone good.

prodigy india creatives
03:17 AM on 25-May-2010 		Guru's ranking system might have some flaws, however ranking is something freelancers would've worked hard to reach. Now completely abolishing the ranking system without giving a first thought about freelancers is a straight punch on their nose. Guru is excellent when we keep this issue out of square.

Subhash
02:02 PM on 25-May-2010 		Ranking system should not be scrapped. We have put in lot of efforts to reach this level. I will not mind if I have five different rankings for my five different sub-categories. GURU can move the ranking system from main category to sub-category level.

gerda.lydia
11:27 AM on 27-May-2010 		I'm still very disappointed with eliminating rank. I think employers should be able to sort by bidders by money, rank, or feedback, etc., their choice.

The sort by earnings will put the multi-worker accounts first as they can handle the larger projects, paying more money, because they have lots of workers.

Your site was a cut above the other work sites, getting annual fees from workers proves that. As you begin mirroring other sites, many may feel the fees aren't worth it.

Visual Content Communications
09:36 AM on 15-Jun-2010 		Thank you for eliminating Guru's rank system. I support a more neutral advertising platform.



Freelancer Tools
Search for Projects
Manage Profiles
Project Research Forums
Outsourcing Advice Forums
About Guru.com
Company
Press Room
Careers
Privacy Policy
Contact Us
Help Desk
Suggestions
Terms of Service
Freelancing with Guru
Subscribe now!
Follow @Guru_com
Like Guru on Facebook
I'm a fan of guru.  Your site is very well conceived and executed.

—   Alison Ford, AlisonFord
Browse the Freelancer Directory:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Numbers | Symbols
© Guru.com 2001-2010 All Rights Reserved   Verisign Secure Site   Acceptance Mark