Verified Consultants

Needs to be much better structured, and regulated, thus will have to cost money. This will be fully integrated with the Guild project as well.

Just to spitball here, I’m thinking a GLGc consultant / advisor would have a certain aptitude test, with specialty options, required to be current annually. They would also need to provide 2 references to even apply, and renewal requires at least 2 more references from jobs you worked

Would also consider an open rating system, which has its own intricacies afa keeping it from devolving into a flame pile of shit.

@sidco once the GLGc is all locked down I’ll figure out how to transition the Verified Slangers into a different program as well


Like it :+1:

1 Like

Would aptitude test results be public?


Ratings should be done by clients only, that way randoms can’t affect it.


Should just be a pass / fail type thing imo

Trust, but verify.


I think it might be more in the spirit of the site to be transparent about test results.

Maybe add the option of “IDK” on the test questions?

Maybe i didn’t see the update, but what’s GLGc?


It’s glg’s Chad portal


Definitely should be a consultant and transaction feedback and rating system.

1 Like

Would one need a GLG membership to become GLGc?

1 Like

Could assign each individual consultant a randomaly generated 10 digit passphrase that clients would need to provide when they submit a consultation review to ensure that the review comes from someone who used that persons services.

Like a weak PGP key.


That’s a good idea

To keep people from saving your key code and sending it out to other folks, you could make it so the consultant needs to generate a new key code everytime they start work on a new consultation. That way the same key is never used twice.


Have the consultant send a list of 10 codes to be used before he does any consulting

1 Like

Isnt this the weed industry? You guys are making this too complicated for stoners to follow :rofl: :joy: :rofl:


The whole verified consultant thing should just stay removed IMO. It’s probably going to be an unpopular opinion but this forum is not the proper medium for that anyway. The forum should stay a place to exchange ideas and ask questions rather than be a place for advertising a pay to play engagement.

I dont do it often anymore but I’ve been consulting for years and I do it by having a service that’s backed by my own business and if I do someone wrong then my business takes the hit. I’ve never had any trouble getting gigs without an online forum and they’re mostly local to the northeast.

If there are people on the forum looking for a consultant and they see major contributors on here then they can DM them and verify it themselves. I dont believe that the forum should be a moderator or approval for such services. We could have a sub forum for complaints it that’s it IMO.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, “consultant” is a watered down term in this industry these days and so many people use the term for covering up that they’re just SOP resellers. I know this new platform for verification should filter out the Chad’s but I still dont think it belongs on this particular forum.

The best consultations I received in my early days were either word of mouth BM guys or they were engineers off linkedin who had 10+ years experience with thermodynamics and biotech who could actually explain in detail how to improve a process, not some dude like summit who gives half ass pseudo-science explanations of basic chemistry and engineering for the sake of sales.

I know theres consultants on here that are worth their salt, and I mean no offense to them, but I also bet they would have no problem getting gigs without having a tag on a mostly anonymous internet forum.

Just saying…


I agree with this as well. Keep the non-profit , non-profit.

Glg should maybe offer consultations through a different medium?

That would be much better IMO, like a listing on the GLG site

1 Like