Freelancer.com

**Brian07002** · 09:18 PM

Hi,

I don't know any other way to describe this but as an issue that I would like some advice on.

I posted an ad to do custom work on my site a few days ago, and had few replies. I did make a mistake by awarding the project to all the developers that replied to my one ad I posted on that site. Here's why I awarded the ad to all developers who replied. I wanted to get a 'mockup' of the design to make sure it was what I wanted ( that is normal right? )...How come people wanted me to send them escrow (money) before the project started? I told them I wanted a mockup first. So what I did was create a mock up of my own, and sent it to the developers. I have to check my messages which I am going to do now.

So, my point is: Should I take these developers lightly or should I consider hiring them? I don't know why I would give them any money before I knew what their abilities were. Oh, one last thing, I know some have portfolios to show, however, how do I know their portfolios are actually their work or someone elses? That * could * be the case you know.

Oh, also, I did get an invoice from Freelancer.com before I hired someone to do the job.

Thank you!
Brian

**StartWaves** · 09-06-2011, 01:52 PM

It's all about trust. People use mockups etc. where the mockup can be created with little effort, where the provider is able to control the use of the mockup (or has faith in the purchaser) and where the purchaser feels they are in a position to be able to choose the quality of the work based on the mockup. Mockups work well in the world of graphic design for example in no small part because people can rapidly judge the mockups.

Who pays who first is also about trust and about risk. There are risks for both of you of course. In general if you don't know somebody and they are not established then don't pay them first. The problem isn't new. In 400 BCE Plato proposed that any stranger who had a transaction of over 50 dinars should have to remain in town for ten days. Now we try do understand how established somebody is by looking at their transaction history etc. or use credit ratings and even letters of credit for industrial scale projects.

With complex expensive software ($50,000+) the purchaser reasonably expects a response to their RFP (Request for Proposal) and some simple written proposal is common in projects of all sizes. A proposal being more detailed than a simple quote. Assuming this is a typical website some written message saying what they expect to be able to do, what frameworks they will use and setting some limits to the functionality is reasonable.

The provider's portfolio is very useful in establishing an understanding of their range of ability but it is very important to understand if the involvement was related to the visual style, the user experience or the technical infrastructure. Their ability to discuss the project is a good indication of what they actually did but it is all about establishing trust you can't prove what they did even if you have references. It's about trust and if the project is small then you may have to take this on trust. If it is extensive you might want to interview them. All of this setup of the trust costs you both money which is why multi-transaction methods like portfolios are so useful. They reduce the cost of establishing trust.

Likewise the vendor wants to know what involvement you want of them. If you aren't in a position to define this and articulate it to the developers in a way which gives them some confidence that expectations are inline then experienced providers won't respond and you need a product/project manager to assist you. Without this ability your transactions will be very risky. It's like somebody who has never sailed buying a yacht and it just leads to disappointment. The vendor is judging how well you will be able to define the work and know what the outcomes are going to be. Disputes arise from the expectations having been out of line.

If you are able to define the work vaguely but not the extent of it, then you need to make sure that you are offering an hourly rate and not expecting a fixed price bid. If the definition is poor then the provider will want to protect themselves with an hourly rate and if they have other offers would prefer to work in a less risky situation.

Extensions of an existing site are a particular problem for the provider to bid on as they can not use their favored solutions and must spend time interpreting your current solution and integrating with it. The majority of effort on most used IT development is in the ongoing changes and the willingness of the two parties to define and quote effectively is a common issue. It's a similar issue to why construction companies prefer green field sites to brown fields. Demolition and integrating to existing infrastructure result in unknowns which are difficult to accurately quote for.

Communicating more and asking for more communication, without extensive work, will help build trust without expecting heavy sunk effort on either side.

**Brian07002** · 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StartWaves

It's all about trust. People use mockups etc. where the mockup can be created with little effort, where the provider is able to control the use of the mockup (or has faith in the purchaser) and where the purchaser feels they are in a position to be able to choose the quality of the work based on the mockup. Mockups work well in the world of graphic design for example in no small part because people can rapidly judge the mockups.

Who pays who first is also about trust and about risk. There are risks for both of you of course. In general if you don't know somebody and they are not established then don't pay them first. The problem isn't new. In 400 BCE Plato proposed that any stranger who had a transaction of over 50 dinars should have to remain in town for ten days. Now we try do understand how established somebody is by looking at their transaction history etc. or use credit ratings and even letters of credit for industrial scale projects.

With complex expensive software ($50,000+) the purchaser reasonably expects a response to their RFP (Request for Proposal) and some simple written proposal is common in projects of all sizes. A proposal being more detailed than a simple quote. Assuming this is a typical website some written message saying what they expect to be able to do, what frameworks they will use and setting some limits to the functionality is reasonable.

The provider's portfolio is very useful in establishing an understanding of their range of ability but it is very important to understand if the involvement was related to the visual style, the user experience or the technical infrastructure. Their ability to discuss the project is a good indication of what they actually did but it is all about establishing trust you can't prove what they did even if you have references. It's about trust and if the project is small then you may have to take this on trust. If it is extensive you might want to interview them. All of this setup of the trust costs you both money which is why multi-transaction methods like portfolios are so useful. They reduce the cost of establishing trust.

Likewise the vendor wants to know what involvement you want of them. If you aren't in a position to define this and articulate it to the developers in a way which gives them some confidence that expectations are inline then experienced providers won't respond and you need a product/project manager to assist you. Without this ability your transactions will be very risky. It's like somebody who has never sailed buying a yacht and it just leads to disappointment. The vendor is judging how well you will be able to define the work and know what the outcomes are going to be. Disputes arise from the expectations having been out of line.

If you are able to define the work vaguely but not the extent of it, then you need to make sure that you are offering an hourly rate and not expecting a fixed price bid. If the definition is poor then the provider will want to protect themselves with an hourly rate and if they have other offers would prefer to work in a less risky situation.

Extensions of an existing site are a particular problem for the provider to bid on as they can not use their favored solutions and must spend time interpreting your current solution and integrating with it. The majority of effort on most used IT development is in the ongoing changes and the willingness of the two parties to define and quote effectively is a common issue. It's a similar issue to why construction companies prefer green field sites to brown fields. Demolition and integrating to existing infrastructure result in unknowns which are difficult to accurately quote for.

Communicating more and asking for more communication, without extensive work, will help build trust without expecting heavy sunk effort on either side.

I am sorry, but when it comes to what people are asking for money / time to do a website, I would expect nothing less than the best. I've done my own site in the past, and I know the time/effort it takes, but for this project, I was asking for some coding and most design work. I couldn't see people charging more than $250 for the entire project. People are asking 3, 4 and $500 which is way to much to pay if you don't at least have a mock up of what they can do first. I don't mean to say this, but I had someone a few years ago do a splash page done in flash ( a $5000.00 value was well worth that idea, even though I couldn't afford it

) and he sent me the complete flash page design with a watermark. That's was more than I expected. What happened to where developers do that kind of work to show there abilities, mock ups anyone?

Side note: Would you pay for something online for a suspicious source? Ok then.

Hey at least that is my honest] opinion...I do respect the good developers, but most are copying the work of other developers anyway. I hate to put my money on the line without having an idea of what I am going to get.

That's all.

**Shey** · 02:42 AM