Unfortunately their platform has all the commoditization pressures as things like elance. Looking around at projects, it looks like you're be competing against 18-30 other people on any particular project.
Their standard contract also forbids you from engaging in further projects with the same client for 2-3 years unless done via the platform, specifying pretty hefty fines. It's a pretty good deal for the clients, but not ideal for the providers.
Does anyone know if this could potentially be nullified by states with non-compete clauses? What happens if someone is working for a company that works on a project with a previous?
It does seem like this would be difficult to enforce in practice, except in cases where a relationship with a client sours and they report the worker. Otherwise, two parties engaging in a mutually beneficial economic transaction don't want to sabotage that.
I'm based in Australia, and I did only one project through the platform where the client was in Hong Kong. In practice, I doubt they can enforce much, which makes the harsh terms of the contract unnecessarily off-putting. In my case, the potential fines specified in the standard contract were higher than the value of the project, but I figured it was unlikely to be an issue.
You guys can work for a consulting company like Accenture, get the same non-compete clause and only get 10% of what they are billing the customer. Having done a dozen projects on Experfy, it is the best platform available if you want to do serious consulting work. My average bill rate is $210 per hour and I am not even trying hard to get the work. Trying getting that kind of billing on Upwork.
Fines, hah. They aren't government. They will have to sue, and damages will be decided by the court. No fines. I'm sure suing their consultants would be fantastic PR.
This entire post/thread appears questionable. From what I can tell there appears to be 5-6 accounts in coordination (2 are easily identified).
What's even funnier is that, while I don't disagree with Alec's statements, he doesn't appear to be the most qualified person to be speaking on the subject.
You're being downvoted but I do agree with the overall sentiment, people do underestimate data science not realising you have to be an expert of the field (statistics, ML, etc) in order to truly be a "scientist" otherwise, you'll get stuck on the first non-traditional problem you face.
One thing I would take issue with that was mentioned in the article is that I don't think 'data analyst' is a very good title for getting a next job. I was a 'data analyst' (though it was really a software engineering position) for a year and a half and got very little interest in my resume until I got 2 more years of software engineering experience and changed the job title on LinkedIn to be Software Engineer (Data Analyst).
Recruiters rely on keywords extensively, and hiring managers do, too, to an extent. "Data analyst" is not a keyword that opens doors. Use "software engineer" or "data scientist" if they are applicable.
24 comments
[ 6.6 ms ] story [ 113 ms ] thread1. The emphasis on the importance of general problem solving
2. The clarity concerning various slippery definitions. ("Scientist," "Big Data," etc)
3. The high-quality links and citations
No thanks.
Screw the skills business, I'm setting up a general store on the frontier.
It does seem like this would be difficult to enforce in practice, except in cases where a relationship with a client sours and they report the worker. Otherwise, two parties engaging in a mutually beneficial economic transaction don't want to sabotage that.
I question your bias.
What's even funnier is that, while I don't disagree with Alec's statements, he doesn't appear to be the most qualified person to be speaking on the subject.
Recruiters rely on keywords extensively, and hiring managers do, too, to an extent. "Data analyst" is not a keyword that opens doors. Use "software engineer" or "data scientist" if they are applicable.
and the discussion of that post is available on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12243377.