Talk:Freelancer.com

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The opening line “Freelancer is an Australian freelance marketplace website” should be changed to “Freelancer is a global freelance marketplace website”. The current way it reads leads you to think it is just for Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.146.17 (talk) 08:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inflated user numbers[edit]

I'm unable to remove my account from the service. There's no option to remove the account on their website, you need to open a support ticket in their system. They stall and persistently deny you to remove your account. There are countless websites repeating bad experiences from the service. If what has been discussed below is true and this wiki article has been "captured" by their PR folk is there anything we can do to make this article more reflective to reality?

The user numbers they advertise are patently false. People can't leave the site even if they wanted to.

80.222.36.59 (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freelancer.com has plenty of room for press releases and marketing material on their own website. The page is way too long, and combines meaningless marketing claims (Alexa rank is not web site 'size', whatever that means), pointless storytelling (who cares what the logo symbolizes?) and excessive detail about the mechanics of the site. The wikipedia page should describe freelancer.com to a general audience, not provide an introductory manual to exactly how the site works or repeat claims about why freelancer.com is so great.

Response to the above
As the commissioned author of this page, I tried to be very careful to keep the page as unbiased as possible and I disagree with the anonymous commenter above that any part of the Wiki page "repeats claims about why Freelancer.com is so great". If there are genuine concerns about the bias of the piece, please do point out the specific sentences/paragraphs and suggest improvements but remember that a Wiki page simply describing a service or product does not break Wiki rules if done properly. The lack of variety in citations is perhaps a limitation, but I have tried to include as many different sources as possible and if anyone can add to the references then I would welcome such useful additions. As for the comment about Alexa rankings, I'm no expert, but as I understand it, Alexa provides data on site usage and popularity - if so then it is verifiable that Freelancer.com is the most heavily visited site owned by an Australian company, and in that respect, is in fact the "biggest". I thought the symbolism of the Freelancer logo was actually quite nice and disagree with the anonymous commenter that this is not interesting and meaningless - the "Who cares?" argument could be used on a million Wiki pages but actually, I thought this was an interesting insight into the company and its culture of user-defined development. I welcome any constructive criticism and suggestions as to how to improve the Wiki page, rather than the unsigned negativity posted above that offers little insight into how the page can be improved. By the by, I notice that edits have already been made to the page - please be polite to the author (me!) by adding a note to the discussion page to say what you have changed and why you have done it. The edits made in the "Financing" section, for example, just seem to have reworded what was already there without adding any extra value!(Missylisa153 (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Response to the response
Given that you've been hired by Freelancer to write this page, your position should be cautious and minimalistic. If your sole support for a claim you don't understand comes from Freelancer PR, you shouldn't use it (Alexa rank means 'biggest website', the Freelancer API being the 'first of its kind'). The notability of this company certainly doesn't at this stage justify detailed storytelling about a 6 month old logo, nor a blow-by-blow account of the exact mechanics of how the site operates (although this seemed a fairly objective account, so I left it alone).
The page is worrisomely shallow, with the main criteria for notability of this company being the fact that it's a popular-according-to-Alexa website run by Australians, or Swedes, or something. Who are its competitors (Craigslist, Elance, Guru, oDesk, ...) and how do its offerings differ? Does it have revenues? How many employees does it have - 3? 300?

Jackinfinite (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A bit more constructive at least. I did originally put in a bit about competitors, but someone has taken it out...probably Freelancer staff! Sigh... (Missylisa153 (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

How Freelancer works[edit]

I think the whole section should go, it is promotional in tone and reads like an instruction manual.TeapotgeorgeTalk 12:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was about to remove this section yesterday but I thought it might be best not to trim any of it until I decide whether or not to send this to AfD. ThemFromSpace 12:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If any body knows the more details about the how it works , please share; sameway if anybody having having experiences of the previous works, please share... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.17.173.4 (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Competitors[edit]

There should be a section about competitors. I don't think I'm qualified enough to write it, perhaps someone else could help? After I do more research I might come back and create the section. Mrmister107 (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

Removed this section because footnotes direct to speculative/dubious content from anonymous sources which violates Wikipedia terms that prohibit "engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud Intentionally or knowingly posting content that constitutes libel or defamation; With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate; Attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the username of another user with the intent to deceive; and Engaging in fraud." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlosyrastorza (talk • contribs) 05:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-addition[edit]

The edit history of the Freelancer.com page is a mess: it is full of edit wars. If you look at it deeply, you'll probably make the following out of it (as far as I can tell):

  • At one point, certain users of Freelancer.com got "unhappy" with the service, and started adding deflammatory comments about the site ("THIS IS SCAM! AVOID!").
  • It appears that Freelancer.com employees are patrolling the Internet regularly. They are the ones who remove sections of critics, calling the critics "vandalism".
  • Edit wars happened due to the conflict between the two said sides, but also in some cases when other users recognised the removal of whole sections.
  • At one point, one of the "other" users changed the tone of the statements to be (to my surprise) very concise, withdrawn, and almost neutral, while retaining facts:
Some reviewers have classified the site as a (partial) scam.[refs]
Some users also report that they do not receive remuneration as agreed.[refs]
Freelancer.com is rated as Not Recommended on sitejabber.com.[refs]
  • Freelancer.com employees keep on removing even these statements.

Based on the amount of evidence cited, I am strongly on the side of retaining some criticism. So what would be an acceptable tone? How about retaining the first 2 sentences, and even merging them into 1 paragraph? That is:

Some reviewers have classified the site as a (partial) scam.[refs] Some users also report that they do not receive remuneration as agreed.[refs] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.18.43 (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of it is going to come down to what the reliable sources are saying, and making sure that using sources that meet Wikipedia's standard of reliability. It's best to start with those sources, and build the wording around them. Which ones are you proposing on using? Also, if you're going to use a term like "partial scam", you'd need to clearly define what that meants. I'm not entirely sure what that's supposed to mean, usually it is or it isn't a scam. Sergecross73 msg me 16:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the edits are coming from one individual who is using proxies to do the edits and heavily promoting vandalism of the page as a way to get back at the company on his blog (See post of Aug 2 on getahindu.blogspot.com). He is also the author of some of the links added or the primary poster (under a variety of pseudonyms including Karol Szczepanski/Charles/"Chaim S"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.126.93 (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what do we have besides your unproven accusation that what you are saying is true...you have to have sources for what you say here, period. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was admission at one point in the notes in the edit history but that has been purged as the admins deleted the person's name from the comments. 150.101.126.93 (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is because blogs are not reliable sources and you sourced a negative comment about a living person to it. Do you have any reliable sources that back your positions, a position that, by the way isn't exactly clear. If I am reading your comments correctly, it appears you may be in violation of WP:FORUM, which states talk pages are for the discussion of the article, NOT the subject of the article. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non notability[edit]

This article is self referenced, or referenced to sites that reprint press releases. It has supposedly been awarded a bunch of non notable awards, but for at least some the references do not lead to any information about said awards. I see absolutely nothing that indicates its notability. Keep in mind, notability has a specific meaning on Wikipedia; it means meeting the inclusion standard. The general inclusion standard is WP:GNG, the specific standard for websites is WP:WEB, and the specific standard for companies is WP:CORP. This page doesn't meet any of them. If there is something I am not seeing please enlighten me. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the removal of the criticism section a few minutes ago is proper. None of the sources there were reliable either. But if the people promoting this article can't come up with some reasonable references soon, I will send it to AfD. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The self references and reference to press releases from the current page have been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.126.93 (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That just makes it even less notable. Without secondary sources, this isn't notable. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by this is they have been changed to secondary sources as opposed to referencing the company itself or a press release issued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.126.93 (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are still no reliable secondary sources on this article. WP:RS requires that sources show some evidencing of fact-checking. BRW specifically says it doesn't [1]. Generally, reliable sources are newspapers, magazines, books, and radio and TV news websites. There are others, but for the most part, they need to be one of the aforementioned type sources. They are the only ones that categorically can be said to have fact-checking. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 7 March 2013[edit]

Reputation and Controversy[edit]

Freelancer.com is also widely contested for their customer service and business practices. There are numerous reports of Freelancer refusing to allow withdrawl of funds and suspending member accounts with little to no reason. Sample sources where complaints have been well documented include:

69.196.182.51 (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you have cited meet the requirements of WP:RS, so request denied. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Freelancer.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about removal of a section[edit]

The IP 164.127.1.227 has recently used a {{help me}} tag to ask for help about another IP 180.181.112.196 removing a section as "irrelevant" - the original request is here. I have asked both editors to come here to discuss this removal, citing WP:BRD. To the two IPs involved, please discuss this below, if you still have problems or issues with this edit. (Pinging other possibly interested editors: @BigbyWolf7, Bilby, and Erkanaz:).  Seagull123  Φ  16:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Echoed concerns about removal of a section[edit]

I think it is reasonable to conclude, that removing impartial yet obviously negative, and therefore undesirable statistics does not serve anyone but the company in question, let alone the readers of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkanaz (talk • contribs) 23:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC) We're seeing repeated and continous attempts by IP 180.181.112.196 to delete the stats, without any valid arguments. Is there a way to escallate this matter and have the IP in question banned? @BigbyWolf7, Bilby, Cyrus noto3at bulaga, and Seagull123: Do the sources for those given statistics meet the requirements of WP:RS? @Ad Orientem, John from Idegon, Bilby, Cyrus noto3at bulaga, and Seagull123:[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Freelancer.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2021[edit]

The opening line “Freelancer is an Australian freelance marketplace website” should be changed to “Freelancer is a global freelance marketplace website”. The current way it reads leads you to think it is just for Australia. Allanyz42 (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Allanyz42:, It is headquartered in Australia, so it is an Australian website, but in the infobox says it is available globally.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2023[edit]

It is a company where they can exploit you and you have no right to claim 1500 dollars were stolen from me and my membership filed a claim in freelancer. They simply deleted my account. I can't continue filing claims or find out the situation of the 1500 dollars so I communicate via Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram and email. The only thing they do in freelancer is block me and delete my comments, they also ignore my emails so I have been filing complaints for 5 months but freelancer is not interested, they are very well supported by a scam system, this is my support ticket https://cx. freelancer.com/tickets/1539872 2800:4B0:8430:BC82:B0EC:B539:1F3A:A569 (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freelancer.com&oldid=1206486542"