Data scientists shouldn't use Upwork • Hacker News Board

Re: Data scientists shouldn't use Upwork

#91

Post by Kadin » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 6:52 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #64

jammygit wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any tips for freelancers who are recent engineering grads? I have some portfolio items, but I still can’t claim more than 1 year experience

Spend a year working for a consulting company, to learn the ropes. If I were a business looking to have a freelancer build something for me, 'a fresh grad, with less than a year work experience, who has never done this sort of thing before' is not who I'd hire. I have 9 years experience, and if I were to to go into freelancing (The kind where you solve problems for businesses, as opposed to the kind where you're a 9-…

Very solid advice.

Working as a consultant will also let you build a network that you can use when you want to go independent. Obviously you have to be careful not to poach from your old company, but often there are side projects and jobs too small for a large consultancy that are a good fit for an independent contractor.

When I was a consultant I considered it a slight failure if I didn't get a job offer from the client at the conclusion of each engagement. I never took any of them up on it, but if I'd been in the market it would have been a hell of a way to basically get paid for an extended job interview... and lots of people I know who decided to get out of consulting went over to the client side. That's a pretty standard path, really.

Re: Data scientists shouldn't use Upwork

#92

Post by oh_sigh » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 7:01 PM UTC

3131s wrote: post #67

opwieurposiu wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think it is not possible for race be related to job performance you must not have watched much NBA basketball.

The best athletes are extremely intelligent and driven people. The over-representation of black people in athletics is most definitely related to their under-representation in other fields.

Or it might just be because basketball is the preferred sport of a lot of black people in the US, so they are more likely to play it and become good at it.

If you look at hockey, it is mostly white. That doesn't mean being white gives you an advantage in playing hockey. It just means way more white people enjoy hockey compared to black people.

Re: Data scientists shouldn't use Upwork

#93

Post by zzaacchh » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 7:02 PM UTC

Nextgrid wrote: post #78

zzaacchh wrote: post #76

My company uses Upwork (as a services buyers) for hundreds of contracted hours per week, and have been for many years. We’ve never required any contractor to use screen recording for hourly work — that is optional — and have never heard of anyone using a webcam. We’ve also never disputed a single hour of work that a contractor has billed, nor have we heard any of the dozens of contractors we’ve hired mention this as…

While I appreciate your perspective, I can imagine there’s a lot of people hiring that have zero idea how developers & data scientists work and think screen recording is a brilliant idea and thus insist on it. I’ve seen a lot of really shit job postings on Upwork & similar freelancing platforms that confirm the person posting the job has no idea of what they’re doing.

I imagine there could be employers who insist on this sort of thing screen monitoring (which sounds crazy to me) -- but the good thing about this marketplace is that contractors aren't forced into any particular contracts. If they don't like the terms with one buyer, they could "vote with their dollars" and work for another.

Re: Data scientists shouldn't use Upwork

#94

Post by komali2 » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 7:07 PM UTC

cambalache wrote: post #89

komali2 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, happy to explore this. First, what do you mean by "black people?"

In America?, any person self described as one, or with a significant (25%+) component of the Niger-Condorfanian cluster as per [1]. I agree the definition is arbitrary but all definitions are. The same with "tall" people. We could discuss all day long who is or isnt tall, or we could define tall as being at least 6ft 2in or whatever. [1] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/324/5930/1035

This is a good faith attempt and I appreciate that.

First, from your link:

>Our data also provide evidence for shared ancestry among geographically diverse hunter-gatherer populations (Khoesan speakers and Pygmies).

Would we say that pygmies, being considered black, would be likely to make it into the NBA?

Second, can we guarantee that people who self identify black, would agree that the definition of someone else's "blackness" is legitimate? Whose definition do we "choose" to then move ahead with "and these sorts of black people are more likely to get into the NBA?" Given that it's not well agreed upon (is Obama black? Steph Curry? Not as cut and dry as you might assume. Are they "black enough" to have NBA advantage?)

Third, based on your tallness: why draw the line as 6'2"? There are shorter players that were Great. So, how do you deal with (relatively frequent) exceptions? "Tall people are more likely to get into the NBA, except when theyre short but grew up next to a court" ? And the tall People that aren't good at basketball? "Tall People are good at basketball except when they're not" ? And when they're too tall to the point that it's detrimental to their health and can't even play basketball?

Fourth, arbitrary. Exactly. It is arbitrary, and thus I argue scientifically impossible to have a rational discussion about blackness and its influence on likelihood to enter the NBA. Or, rather, develop an effective predictor algorithm based on genes alone.

We could have interesting sociological conversations about basketball courts in predominantly black neighborhoods, black NBA stars inspiring black kids, self-propagating cultural memes about blackness and basketball skills, etc. But we won't get any really good information that allows us to say something like "black people are better at basketball" to where it will be true.

Re: Data scientists shouldn't use Upwork

#95

Post by Briel » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 7:10 PM UTC

With Upwork, since they're an intermediary and marketplace and hirers are the ones who are paying and providing supply, it's in their interest to offer services that cater to them like time logging and charging connection fees, even if it's unfriendly for freelancers.

Your best best is to take matters in your own hands, and proactively email people you know you can help with your services. This way, there's no intermediary controlling your relationship with your client and you don't have to play the waiting game either (waiting for referrals or networking to pay off, waiting for people to find your website, etc.)

This may seem hard at first glance but let's the take the example of data science work. You can reach out to startups who recently raised a sizable investment round (sign they have the budget and bigger growth goals) and share a few interesting ways you can help them uncover user behavior patterns that would them hit their next milestones.

Re: Data scientists shouldn't use Upwork

#96

Post by numakerg » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 7:12 PM UTC

caiocaiocaio wrote: post #21

I freelanced on Upwork for a bit. It was all the worst aspects of having an abusive boss (the platform itself), and all of the worst aspects of freelancing (unpredictability, getting ripped off by shifty clients). "Creepiest shit ever" is a pretty accurate description of Upwork. If Upwork's attitudes and policies were described to me in the 90s, I would have said it was lame, unrealistic science fiction with an over-…

This kind of makes sense in the same way that AirBnb does. There are more users looking for work than employers looking to hire, just like there are more tourists looking for cheap accommodations than landlords willing to rent their space. The platform will cater to the group with the higher bargaining power.

However, the surveillance just seems like an absurd waste of resources. The author quotes $400 for the job, why does it matter how many hours it takes them? If you think $400 is too much, then bid on the project.

Re: Data scientists shouldn't use Upwork

#97

Post by atlasunshrugged » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 7:20 PM UTC

Nextgrid wrote: post #78

zzaacchh wrote: post #76

My company uses Upwork (as a services buyers) for hundreds of contracted hours per week, and have been for many years. We’ve never required any contractor to use screen recording for hourly work — that is optional — and have never heard of anyone using a webcam. We’ve also never disputed a single hour of work that a contractor has billed, nor have we heard any of the dozens of contractors we’ve hired mention this as…

While I appreciate your perspective, I can imagine there’s a lot of people hiring that have zero idea how developers & data scientists work and think screen recording is a brilliant idea and thus insist on it. I’ve seen a lot of really shit job postings on Upwork & similar freelancing platforms that confirm the person posting the job has no idea of what they’re doing.

Second this, I've been both a nontechnical and a somewhat less nontechnical buyer on Upwork. When I was more nontechnical before working for Gigster (freelance software dev marketplace), I would have said that screen recording is brilliant. After all, how could I trust someone who is doing work I don't understand? At least I can look at their screen and make sure they weren't on HN when they were billing me :)

Somewhat less nontechnical me knows better now, but if I didn't have any idea how to hire still, there's a good chance I would be one of those bad buyers.

Re: Data scientists shouldn't use Upwork

#98

Post by cweagans » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 7:28 PM UTC

_Nobody_ should use Upwork. You won't get paid what you're worth, and it's the worst of both worlds when you compare it with normal freelancing or working in a regular job.

Re: Data scientists shouldn't use Upwork

#99

Post by vlokshin » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 7:31 PM UTC

fourstar wrote: post #86

vlokshin wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Aside from 3/4 of your post being a gigantic ad about your own platform I mention what I think is necessary for a platform in any vertical to work. We just happen to already be doing it for our vertical. > how is it really a race to the bottom? - Just about everyone has a 4.5+ star review, so the cheapest 4.5+ star review looks objectively better to a Co trying to cut costs. Just like any review system, it can be g…

When I vet candidates I do an image search on their profile photo, look at their resume (and other projects they’ve done on the platform), along with the number of hours worked on the platform. Focusing only on a rating system is short-sighted. Re: it being an imbalanced marketplace in favor of customers, I guess you’d also say the same about eBay? I understand your motive is driven to compete with Upwork, but it’s t…

I agree that if everyone vetted as extensively as you did, UpWork experiences would be more successful. But people don't, and it's unreasonable to assume the same vetting processes for 10 hours of work vs 10+ year careers (FT hires). The platform should be vetting both sides, and they don't really.

I would say the same about eBay. Would you rather bet on eBay or Amazon today?

> given their size, I trust them over some smaller operation

Fair enough, but "trust the biggest fish" is a dangerous assumption.

> P.S.: I read the OP’s naive writeup. He didn’t follow the platform rules and was surprised that it went against him. Shocking. $400 is a lesson to do more research next time. Maybe the platform rules suck?

Any self-respecting professional would think the random screenshots thing is creepy. If talent is vetted and to be trusted, the screenshots/camera thing should be unnecessary.

Re: Data scientists shouldn't use Upwork

#100

Post by wolco » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 7:32 PM UTC

Anyone using upwork knows you need to have the software running when you have an hourly contract. Fix contracts are different and upworks judgements can be awful but for hourly as long as you have the software running you will be paid.

Data scientist doesn't read agreement.