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 6
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
How so? Each achievement has a detailed explanation specifically for quick use.
There is a suggestion - to put on the left side of the menu (you can immediately under the achievements) items: Codes, Articles, Forum Topics.
Otherwise, now you have to go to a search engine and enter the required author's login. But not every customer would guess to do such a sequence of actions.
Of course, everyone can remove themselves from the 'top'. But the distribution of places in the top should be objective and in line with reality. At the moment, the top is "bloated".
In this situation, it's easier to rename the used word "Top" in a more objective, what that number specifically means - "The number of completed jobs".
You just put a slightly different meaning in the concept of Top than the forum webdesigner.
You just put a slightly different meaning in the notion of Top than the forum web designer.
The problem is that the existing list under the current name "Top" - materialised in orders, quality, arbitrage situations, reviews and squabbling over $10.
Changing the name won't do anything.
The list itself, the consistency itself, should be as objective as possible.
We will add links to the lists of articles, codes and products directly under the relevant indicators. We will not make separate tabs.
I'm sorry, but the meaning of the word "TOP" in the section of the job must meet the expectations of the customer and not the performer or web developer.
In fact, most likely the average customer the number of articles up to rubbish. Speed, price, conflict, experience. That is the objectivity for the customer.
And giving the customer non-existent in fact the qualities, you can only confuse. The customer who will review all the profiles and reviews and the number of articles and works in the code base, hangs out somewhere in the amount of 5-10% of the total.
I'm begging you, if a "geek" takes a job for 30-50 credits, it must be an hour and a half of work, otherwise he's not a "geek" at all.
...Speed, price, conflict, experience
And if this work is not the first, but, for example, the seventh or ninth, and they are at different stages, one stuck on the understanding of terms of reference, another no way not tested, bugs climb, and all this is discussed with the customer, and if it's not the main work, and from work to do a lot? So our "koryphaeus" is already spreading a thin layer on a big fat slab that he can't even swallow. Then we'll have to merge with the magic button.
No. If this button is to be used, it will only be used in one case - when the customer is too stupid, so stupid that it is impossible to find out anything, there is a category that believes that if it pays money, the contractor must work (in the sense of being a slave on a plantation).
ps: A button with a great message (you can combine it with automatic blacklisting).
What if this is for example the seventh or ninth job and they are at different stages, one is stuck in understanding the terms of reference, another is not being tested in any way, bugs are creeping in, and all this is discussed with the customer.
Are you talking about all of your terms of reference, or are you describing the contractor's working day as you imagine it?