I'm imagining that to make such service profitable, offering something like $699
per developer per month, you are not hiring reviewers from USA, right?
> Reviewers earn anywhere between $50 and over $3,000/week. Earnings are based largely on the amount of time spent reviewing on the platform and the type of code being reviewed. PullRequest’s payment rates are comparable to those of a senior-level engineer based in the US.
> PullRequest issues weekly payments based on review activity during the preceding week. The time that you spend reviewing is tracked through our platform; reviewers are not required to log hours or invoice.
Let me try: This looks way too cheap to be able to afford good enough reviewers to be worth using; if someone is good enough to be able to pick up a new codebase and usefully review changes that quickly, they'd get a better paying job.
I've read a bunch of the reviews and they seem kinda sketchy - no one will say how much they actually make in an hour and it's a lot of general "no trust us it's good". I can't find anyone saying "I'm making X per hour reviewing Y", if they pay over $30/hr I'm interested but really for less.
The pricing on the site is also super confusing - it's $200 for one hour of reviewing, but $700 for a month? In a typical month at my job I'm doing way more than 3.5 hours of review and also doing a bunch of other stuff on the side. Then if the $700 rate is supposed to be ~120 hours then that's only $5.83/hr which isn't even minimum wage where I am. It is however on par with a lot of gig-work jobs, which makes this even more concerning.
If anyone can say what they made I think that would do a lot to quell all the people that don't trust this. I'm also sure some people must have had a bad experience on the site and I haven't seen that yet which is suspicious.
If anyone from the site happens to see this then I think you should add a breakdown of the percentage of pay going to the reviewers, or just some examples like "For C++ you can expect $40-30/hr, JS is $35-25/hr, etc"
This is always the stat I want from gig-work jobs and never the one they want to show. For example Uber will often tout paying upwards of $25-30/hr, but the actual average is closer to $11/hr, which is below minimum wage in many places, doesn't include any benefits/sick days/etc, and also doesn't include expenses from car insurance/gas/maintenance.
I'd really appreciate if all companies were required to report some basics stats on pay - total employees, min/max, average, and mean would be great
Quit perpetuating the tying of these basic things to the standard employment model. Get 'employers' out of the business of managing access to health care for employees.
Let people 'pay' for their own vacation.
You can provide 'profit sharing' to non-employees.
Give me $3k/week and let me manage this myself vs giving me $2.5k/week and telling me how awesome my 'health insurance' is. I want my access to health care impacted by as few third parties as possible - adding in employers to the mix is completely the wrong direction.
I'd agree with the "pay your own vacation" thing as long as there is profit sharing to ensure people are still getting the income they deserve from the work they already put it to build the company.
But with healthcare, at least in the US, the big issue with pricing is within the healthcare system - not employers paying for it. It certainly doesn't help to have healthcare tied to employment but having people pay high prices themselves instead of a company paying it doesn't really solve an issue it just moves it somewhere else.
It seems like the most proven solution is to socialize medical costs more, but that seems like a long-shot if we continue to insist that healthcare has to be profitable in the short-term. It's like saying "no we won't build this road because we can't charge the drivers tomorrow to make a profit on it", totally overlooking that it's an infrastructure investment and not a purchase
That would be lovely, but pelasco's point is still a good one. If PullRequest _only_ pays "rates[...]comparable to those of a senior-level engineer", without those extra perks (and, to be clear, I agree with you that in an ideal world those perks would not related to employment), then PR's actual total comp is actually effectively much less than for senior-level positions.
So, we can infer that higher-skilled individuals will take the more highly-paying positions, and that the folks working at PR will be less-skilled or juniors. That's a gross over-simplification, of course, but it probably bears consideration.
This tells me that the pricing model is likely based on a previous usage study. They must have found that the average user requests less than 2.5hrs of code reviews per month. Otherwise, the pricing doesn’t make sense to me.
For many of us who work for pullrequest.com, it's a side gig. Some are full-time, but I have a day job. I like to do 1-2 PRs per day, and it pays for my iPhone and MacBook habit.
