Outsourcing webmaster work and my conundrum

[Jon12345]

I have a problem in my head that I am trying to solve. I want to outsource some work on a regular basis, but at low cost. They provider will need to update a css tableless website with content that will be provided, create a graphic header, update the navigation, create a sitemap and check that all links are working.

However, I only need this on an ad hoc basis as I create sites. Perhaps one site per week will be my output.

The issue I am working with in my head is that a) it might only take them an hour to do, and with such a small amount of work, I might not attract someone who is good, b) they might say the job takes 3 hours when its only a small update, c) their rate might be too high, because I might need them to do some css mods aswell as simple stuff like adding content.

Are my thoughts realistic or have I just created a problem for myself that doesn't really exist? Any advice?

Thanks,

Jon

[Paul Davidson]

You will just have to worrk out how long the job would take you to do, then offer a fare hourly rate for the work.

If you know a job will take a couople of hours then you wont want to be paying him for 4!


Good luck, i have found the people on scriptlance very good! As well as one chap who builds site for me on here the warrior forum

cheers

Paul

[DeadGuy]

Consider telling your prospective webmasters that you will be building a site a week. So there would be additional work for them as time goes on. Not the snazziest of approaches but it might work. (I'm assuming that you would be wanting the same service on all the sites you create.)

The core issue is always time. I assume you will be selling something on the sites you are creating so some of the revenue could be used to offset the cost of the work you need done. If you skill is marketing, focusing your attention on this would be a better use of your time than the niggling day-to-day mechanics.

[Niksanyl]

You might try Odesk as an outsource tool. You can set a budget, view screenshots of the outsourcers work etc. . . Outsourcer must be logged into odesk to log hours on your job, and random screenshots are taken of their work.

You can hire by the hour, or by the job. When you post jobs, you can select the number of hours a week your hire can work.

It's the best outsourcing platform I've used so far.

L.A.

[Johnathan]

Take a risk. Jump in. It sounds like you want something 100% guaranteed with absolutely no risk on your side. Unlikely to happen.

If you can't afford to pay for quality (nothing wrong with getting it at a good rate, but there is a difference from that and just being cheap), then do it yourself/make enough money until you can afford to pay for quality.

[Debbie Songster]

Perhaps I can address some of your headaches coming from the view of a webmaster.

Consider saving your tasks until you have a list of things that need to be done.

Personally I hate small jobs because it takes too much time. I know that sounds silly but if you want a small amount of code added to your site I have to -

• "put on my Jon's project" hat
• read your communications about the task
• go to your website and evaluate the task
• find the login info and login to the server
• download the file that needs to be changed
• change the file
• test the change
• upload the change
• communicate to you the job is done
• send you a bill

Now if you wait and send me a list of things to do then I do all of the above and the only thing that changes is the number of files edited.

I can see your point of "it might take only an hour of work" but you forget the ancillary components of the project as I described above. When you look at the supporting tasks then it adds up to more than an hour of work.

From a webmaster stand point I find it very disruptive to try to work on several different websites in one day. I can't do it. I can't work on 10 different "10 min" projects in one day. It will add up to more than 10 hrs of actual work. Whereas if I can split my day into 3 and happily work on 3 different sites, earn an amount appropriate for the day and not give my clients a huge bill I'll be more effective and efficient.

You might want to consider this when you are looking for someone to work on your sites. The most cost effective and efficient use of time is by giving a list of things that need to be done so your webmaster can work on your site in a block of time instead of an hour here and an hour there.

Because of this, a lot of webmasters charge a minimum amount - usually an hour even if your project is "only 10 mins". For example my tech will charge you a min $50 so get your list ready!

Personally I like to charge by the project not by time.

Doing it that way I'm not watching the clock and neither is my client.

A lot of times this works to the benefit of the client. The recent membership site I did this way worked out great for my client as it would have cost him at least double if he paid by the hour to get it done.


So, you might want to figure out in your own head how much the project is worth to you and hire it done based on the project not by the hour. Just remember if you do it that way, you need to outline all the tasks before getting bids. Sneaking extra tasks into the project will not win you any friends.

Simple vs complex - those are terms in your head you need to drop if you want to be on a good working realationship with your webmaster. It all equates to time spent. Just because you think a task is simple doen't mean it should be cheaper per hour than a task you feel is complex.

Your webmaster is working based on set number of hours in a day and needs to make $x amount in that work day.
If you have content that you feel is only worth $5 hr to insert then you need to hire someone at $5 hr to do the job.

I hope the points I brought up will help you sort out the questions in your mind.