Discussing conflicts between programmers and customers. A discussion of ambiguous situations between the programmer and the client, and a rating of the most conflicted programmer performers. - page 30
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Where is it?
To summarize - I'm for the "doer-customer" relationship must always be based on the principle "The Client is Always Right! (If the client is ready to confirm his rightness with money, ie understands that for a good job you must pay). The programmer, if he takes the job, must be aware that he is not doing a favor, but is doing what he takes the money for - doing it to "make the client satisfied".
Every conflict starts with the words "You owe me" and "I am always right". These words are not spoken by two parties at the same time. One of the parties says them first. And then there are two outcomes: 1) concede; 2) conflict. In any conflict, both sides are 50% guilty. One because it was the first to take a stand, and the other because it didn't want to be clever. It's easy to posture, but it's hard to posture because smart people don't posture. Conflicts are always solved by the side that decided to get smarter. Unfortunately, the other side never comes out of the position. That's why branches like this one appear.
In order to understand who is in the position and who is a fool, one must familiarise oneself with the history of the relationship. Branches like this one, where there is no specifics, are pointless. Because it's impossible to make sense of the situation. The only thing that can be done is to stop drooling.
We must understand that the thesis that the "customer is always right" is just as wrong as the "programmer is always right". They are wrong only because only the customer fully understands what needs to be done, and if he is not able to convey that, his task will not be done. Therefore "The customer is always right" is wrong a priori. If his task was not done, then he made a mistake, at the very least by choosing the wrong contractor and wanting his task done for inadequate payment. "The programmer is always right" is also wrong a priori. If the programmer can not perform the task, he or she overestimated their strengths and capabilities (that is, their ability to do the task in this situation for the agreed upon money).
.... (If the client is ready to confirm that he is right with money, i.e. understands that you have to pay for good work). And the programmer, if he takes the job, should be aware that he is not doing a favor, but is doing what he takes the money for - doing it to "Customer Satisfaction".
I support.
I can recommend to ordering service providers to define a personal price for services (including revision of TOR), so that the customer has a clear idea of the cost and guaranteed timing of the final product. This will help weed out stupid first-time customers or make up the TOR in a hurry. Or, in order not to praise all in a row / a horse on 4 legs and then stumbles / just raise the lower bar on the codes in 5 times, but do not treat the work callously, and test yourself, check your work, point out the shortcomings of TK nubami.
Good answer. Do you know how to make links?
Oh yes, I'm sorry. I forgot you're a typical customer.
In your right hand, you take the mouse. Not that one. The computer mouse. Let that one go. Keep it running.
Go to the profile of the topicstarter, then in the left column jobs, then choose - Completed New
In New, there are terms of reference, download and read.
If it is unclear, call one of the parents
You're not reading carefully. There is a hint - just in the direction of the customer. I won't poke my nose in, sorry.
I want to sum it up - I'm for the "doer-customer" relationship to always be based on the principle "The Client is Always Right!(if the client is ready to confirm his rightness with money, i.e. understands that you have to pay for good work). A programmer, if he takes the job, must realize that he is not doing a favour, but is doing what he takes the money for - making sure that "the client was satisfied".
I highlighted the blue one. You are right. The rest of the above is a lot of words, but I got it all. It's hard for you.
"The customer is always right!" - Wrong. Only an adequate customer is right.
In general, I have the impression that soon I will be able to more or less accurately determine who can be a customer and who the doer :) Nothing personal.
P.S. Looked at the TOR topikstarter. I do not envy the performer. A sad, hopeless grider. Not without a half-liter can not understand. And in a day just do not, so the price is inadequate.
Bormotun, please note that the job was ready to take not the top performers: rating on the "Work" none of them does not exceed 15.
The main reason is that you can't make such an order in the rhythm of the flow. It is extremely "non-technological". That is, it is unique in some way (not the idea is unique, but the order). And for unique things, you have to pay accordingly.
... Customers learn and if they need codes ... they learn and get results. Programmers learn and if they need orders, they compete and work. ...
Would you post it here - so that coders could slightly analyze it for accuracy? Or is it a terrible secret?
I already wrote to trotiloff about it. The way of choosing is wrong. The criterion for selection is the coder's ability to handle such tasks.
Yes, you are not the only one who is "white, fluffy and innocent".
The coder has taken on a task that does not match his level of competence. Graders are serious. Full stop.
A thought occurred to me...
Why not just raise the lower limit for the cost of the work - just make it impossible for the cost of "From" to be lower than, for example, 50 credits...
Then the performer won't have to take an order (just from the compulsion to do it - at least for the sake of their own statistics) for a pittance. There will be at least a little protection for performers from unreasonably low cost of work, and weed out those customers who need everything, a lot, at once, and preferably for a penny.
The service is very good, but you have to work for next to nothing. And I want it to be a permanent, stable income. And to earn not quantity but quality.
I wonder how it will look at both sides - customers and performers, well, and the powers that be - the administration of the resource ...
A thought occurred to me...
Why not just raise the lower limit of the cost of the work - just make it impossible for the cost of "From" to be lower than, for example, 50 credits...
Then the performer won't have to take an order (just from the compulsion to do it - at least for the sake of their own statistics) for a pittance. There will be at least a little protection for performers from unreasonably low cost of work, and weed out those customers who need everything, a lot, at once, and preferably for a penny.
The service is very good, but you have to work for next to nothing. And I want it to be a permanent, stable income. And earn not quantity but quality.
I wonder how it would look at both sides - customers and performers, well, and the powers that be - the administration of the resource ...
Contractors will earn less, part of the customers will leave without implementation, and some will simply leave with 10-dollar orders from the zone of service.
The market can not be cheated.