Look a reviews policy under the TOS

[miroslavglavic]

There IS in fact a policy that deals with reviews. Look what I found.

[experthq]

Hello Miroslavglavic

I already knew this.

[taverr]

You might have missed reading the TOS while signing up.
As far as I remember, this section has always been there since I joined Fiverr.

[miroslavglavic]

You might have missed reading the TOS while signing up.

As far as I remember, this section has always been there since I joined Fiverr.

I read everything that needs reading. This is more for someone that said there isn’t a review policy. I found it.😁

I also want to share it with everyone on the forum in case they think the same.

[glitchfool]

I read everything that needs reading. This is more for someone that said there isn’t a review policy. I found it.😁

I also want to share it with everyone on the forum in case they think the same.

Is this for @emmaki ?

[emmaki]

I read everything that needs reading. This is more for someone that said there isn’t a review policy. I found it.😁

I also want to share it with everyone on the forum in case they think the same.

Great, now find their FEEDBACK POLICY

I am that “someone” by the way everyone else. Nice to meet you. Let’s cut the crap here, because

This is more for someone that said there isn’t a review policy

is ******. I said feedback policy, not review policy. The feedback policy is not the same as the TOS review policy. I explained this Kafkaesque mess elsewhere, and you are just muddying the waters even further by bleep-blooping your amazing detective skills. Do you really think I didn’t contest this particular stretch? That is not Fiverr’s feedback policy. It doesn’t count as their feedback policy.

Nice try, *******************, but you won’t win this argument. You didn’t even use the right terminology so you’ve already proudly barked up one wrong tree. Now find the one that’s in the forest and not signposted.

---

Mod Note: All users can discuss issues on the forum as long as their is no violation of the forum rules. Debate is fine, but it must be within the community guidelines.

➡️See Forum Rules and a summary of Community Guidelines .

[Anna]

Great, now find their FEEDBACK POLICY

I am that “someone” by the way everyone else. Nice to meet you. Let’s cut the crap here, because

This is more for someone that said there isn’t a review policy

is ******. I said feedback policy, not review policy. The feedback policy is not the same as the TOS review policy. I explained this Kafkaesque mess elsewhere, and you are just muddying the waters even further by bleep-blooping your amazing detective skills. Do you really think I didn’t contest this particular stretch? That is not Fiverr’s feedback policy. It doesn’t count as their feedback policy.

Nice try, *******************, but you won’t win this argument. You didn’t even use the right terminology so you’ve already proudly barked up one wrong tree. Now find the one that’s in the forest and not signposted.

---

Mod Note: All users can discuss issues on the forum as long as their is no violation of the forum rules. Debate is fine, but it must be within the community guidelines.

➡️See Forum Rules and a summary of Community Guidelines .

Geez Emma. I think you need some fresh air or something. I can tell you are clearly upset but going on a rampage isn’t going to help either.

Go for a walk, grab a cocktail whatever helps you clear your head. ☀️

Overall we didn’t start the fire 😉

[emmaki]

Not a rampage.

Do I really need to say anything else? Anyone can see that this is ludicrous.(the second image needs to be enlarged for the full text, btw)

[misscrystal]

Not a rampage.

Kafka Lives.png717×162 18.5 KB

Feedback Policy.png704×1367 138 KB

Do I really need to say anything else? Anyone can see that this is ludicrous.(the second image needs to be enlarged for the full text, btw)

I agree the buyer violated the TOS when he threatened to leave negative feedback and therefore it should be removed.

**

“Cancellation of an order does not remove feedback unless mutually agreed.”

**

[emmaki]

I agree the buyer violated the TOS when he threatened to leave negative feedback and therefore it should be removed.

**

“Cancellation of an order does not remove feedback unless mutually agreed.”

**

I also see in those review TOS that it says that a review will not be removed unless it is mutually agreed.

That part is in case of cancellations. It’s mentioned in the fourth and final bulletpoint.

[misscrystal]

I also see in those review TOS that it says that a review will not be removed unless it is mutually agreed.

That part is in case of cancellations. It’s mentioned in the fourth and final bulletpoint.

So that last bullet point contradicts the other.

It sounds like as long as the buyer offers to remove the feedback in exchange for a refund it’s ok, but not if the seller requests that.

[emmaki]

So that last bullet point contradicts the other.

It sounds like as long as the buyer offers to remove the feedback in exchange for a refund it’s ok, but not if the seller requests that.

Fourth:

Feedback comments given by buyers are publicly displayed on a seller’s Gig page. Buyers have the option not to include a comment, but still rate the service. Cancellation of an order does not remove feedback unless mutually agreed.

Final:

Sellers may not solicit the removal of feedback reviews from their buyers through mutual cancellations.

Slightly different cases, but I don’t see a contradiction myself: the final one deals with sellers who use cancellation to get rid of a shit review. The first is more of a general principle. That said, there’s a lot of leeway for interpretation between the two.

Not that it matters, as

buyer’s threat to place a negative review is a violation of our Terms of Service indeed - and for this the buyer is being reviewed with our Trust & Safety team.

However, the feedback itself doesn’t violate our Terms of Service".

I ain’t gonna go through the argument again–I exhausted it pretty much in the images above. But as I’ve been saying, there is no Feedback Policy extant that outlines this, and the Reviews section is wholly inadequate, as it has a larger focus on poor seller behavior–poor buyer behavior is outlined in cancellations written materials. Obviously, this will affect interpretation. Look, this doesn’t affect me that much: 95.24% of my reviews are 5-star reviews. Only 88 are not.

The issue I have is that this is wide open to abuse, and there is no documentation. I did tell Dan at some point that it would be wise to put something in the Help Center. It was there before: where is its replacement? I know the twinkle toes Fiverr lover club can’t bear to talk about this, but quite frankly, I’ll be laughing out the other side of my mouth when they get the wrong end of this stick.

[misscrystal]

Fourth:

Feedback comments given by buyers are publicly displayed on a seller’s Gig page. Buyers have the option not to include a comment, but still rate the service. Cancellation of an order does not remove feedback unless mutually agreed.

Final:

Sellers may not solicit the removal of feedback reviews from their buyers through mutual cancellations.

Slightly different cases, but I don’t see a contradiction myself: the final one deals with sellers who use cancellation to get rid of a shit review. The first is more of a general principle. That said, there’s a lot of leeway for interpretation between the two.

Not that it matters, as

buyer’s threat to place a negative review is a violation of our Terms of Service indeed - and for this the buyer is being reviewed with our Trust & Safety team.

However, the feedback itself doesn’t violate our Terms of Service".

I ain’t gonna go through the argument again–I exhausted it pretty much in the images above. But as I’ve been saying, there is no Feedback Policy extant that outlines this, and the Reviews section is wholly inadequate, as it has a larger focus on poor seller behavior–poor buyer behavior is outlined in cancellations written materials. Obviously, this will affect interpretation. Look, this doesn’t affect me that much: 95.24% of my reviews are 5-star reviews. Only 88 are not.

The issue I have is that this is wide open to abuse, and there is no documentation. I did tell Dan at some point that it would be wise to put something in the Help Center. It was there before: where is its replacement? I know the twinkle toes Fiverr lover club can’t bear to talk about this, but quite frankly, I’ll be laughing out the other side of my mouth when they get the wrong end of this stick.

I don’t see why, when it states that a buyer threatening to leave bad feedback unless you give him a refund is a TOS violation, they would not then go ahead and remove your bad review. It states that they will do that.

[emmaki]

I don’t see why, when it states that a buyer threatening to leave bad feedback unless you give him a refund is a TOS violation, they would not then go ahead and remove your bad review. It states that they will do that.

Yes, but the review did not break the Feedback Policy. That is, according to CS, the only policy that matters.

That is the crux of this issue, rather than my review, which is just a symptom of this absolutely bizarre situation.

They do not have a feedback policy. No users can know what constitutes a violation of a policy that is not recorded. The TOS may say what it says, but as Dan said, it’s a separate bad behavior issue being investigated on its own demerits. It does not affect the legitimacy of the buyer’s right to “share their experience”–even if it is a review that has come about as a result of TOS-breaking threatening behavior.

[misscrystal]

Yes, but the review did not break the Feedback Policy. That is, according to CS, the only policy that matters.

That is the crux of this issue, rather than my review, which is just a symptom of this absolutely bizarre situation.

They do not have a feedback policy. No users can know what constitutes a violation of a policy that is not recorded. The TOS may say what it says, but as Dan said, it’s a separate bad behavior issue being investigated on its own demerits. It does not affect the legitimacy of the buyer’s right to “share their experience”–even if it is a review that has come about as a result of TOS-breaking threatening behavior.

Reviews will not be removed unless there are clear violations of our TOS.

I don’t know how much more clear it can be.

[emmaki]

Reviews will not be removed unless there are clear violations of our TOS.

I don’t know how much more clear it can be.

CS says it doesn’t matter. The violations of TOS are being dealt with by the Trust & Safety team for threatening behavior.

What that snippet really means is

Reviews will not be removed unless there are clear violations of our Feedback Policy.

That is what the actual policy is now.

[misscrystal]

CS says it doesn’t matter. The violations of TOS are being dealt with by the Trust & Safety team for threatening behavior.

What that snippet really means is

Reviews will not be removed unless there are clear violations of our Feedback Policy.

That is what the actual policy is now.

So you are saying that it is not to be taken literally. Terms of Service is simply a figure of speech that is open to interpretation in any given instance.

[emmaki]

So you are saying that it is not to be taken literally. Terms of Service is simply a figure of speech that is open to interpretation in any given instance.

Refer to the second image. That is literally (lol) what CS said.

Ultimately, the buyers now have a divine right to say whatever they want after behaving however they want–so long as the review doesn’t violate some nebulous and undefined policy. Sellers have no recourse but to offer the cancellation, but in such a way that it does not violate the TOS (the regular TOS).

he threatened to leave bad feedback unless he got a refund, so he is carrying out that threat.

That was a TOS violation, not a feedback violation.

[misscrystal]

Refer to the second image. That is literally (lol) what CS said.

Ultimately, the buyers now have a divine right to say whatever they want after behaving however they want–so long as the review doesn’t violate some nebulous and undefined policy. Sellers have no recourse but to offer the cancellation, but in such a way that it does not violate the TOS (the regular TOS).

he threatened to leave bad feedback unless he got a refund, so he is carrying out that threat.

That was a TOS violation, not a feedback violation.

My interpretation is that the feedback itself DOES violate the TOS due to the fact that first he threatened to leave bad feedback unless he got a refund, so he is carrying out that threat.

So what will his punishment be for his TOS violation? Probably nothing, or maybe a warning of some kind.

[emmaki]

My interpretation is that the feedback itself DOES violate the TOS due to the fact that first he threatened to leave bad feedback unless he got a refund, so he is carrying out that threat.

So what will his punishment be for his TOS violation? Probably nothing, or maybe a warning of some kind.

So what will his punishment be for his TOS violation

“Due to reasons of privacy…” probably a note on his account or something. Who knows how that works out. Three strikes and you’re out? A tutting email reminding you of the behavioral standards expected on Fiverr?

I believe this policy and intransigence are likely related to the various efforts being made to get rid of bad sellers while also addressing the general image issue that Fiverr deletes bad reviews, ergo Fiverr is a platform full of scammers and cheats (see TrustPilot and other review sites): it’s only natural that there are going to be some mistakes–but I was surprised to see that the policy is 100%. A total swing of the pendulum from being overly lax to… hm… Godwin’s Law prevents me from finishing that sentence 😉

[misscrystal]

So what will his punishment be for his TOS violation

“Due to reasons of privacy…” probably a note on his account or something. Who knows how that works out. Three strikes and you’re out? A tutting email reminding you of the behavioral standards expected on Fiverr?

I believe this policy and intransigence are likely related to the various efforts being made to get rid of bad sellers while also addressing the general image issue that Fiverr deletes bad reviews, ergo Fiverr is a platform full of scammers and cheats (see TrustPilot and other review sites): it’s only natural that there are going to be some mistakes–but I was surprised to see that the policy is 100%. A total swing of the pendulum from being overly lax to… hm… Godwin’s Law prevents me from finishing that sentence 😉

I never thought the policy was overly lax. Surely there must be a way to differentiate the bad sellers from the good ones rather than penalize all sellers unfairly.

Bad cheating sellers routinely give refunds as a normal business policy and simply hope there are a few buyers who never complain so they can make a few bucks.

I never cancel after a delivery.

[psychicbunny]

So after reading the policy, a mutual cancellation can technically remove a buyer’s feedback. The question is where is the mutual agreement button at?

[emmaki]

I never thought the policy was overly lax. Surely there must be a way to differentiate the bad sellers from the good ones rather than penalize all sellers unfairly.

Bad cheating sellers routinely give refunds as a normal business policy and simply hope there are a few buyers who never complain so they can make a few bucks.

I never cancel after a delivery.

Bad buyers are also aware of this loophole–mine “offered” to refund with an assurance that the “weird” copy would be removed, or to try again, using language that heavily indicated that one option was preferred. I was left in no doubt when I innocently took that offer at face value and the threats and lies came out.

Under the old system, this would have been more than enough along with the threats to remove the review. I beat the buyer at their own game of manipulation, they’re a sore loser and no soliciting or any other TOS-violating behavior required. I consider that to be lax 🙂 but it is a matter of perception. It is certainly comparably laxer.

never cancel after a delivery.

This is my policy too, and TOS backs me up on it. I offer rewrites, revisions or whatever to fix the situation. Very few buyers request a revision, and most are trivial, trivial issues (or simply to say thanks–you know that kind of buyer, the one who doesn’t need a revision). It’s very easy for me to spot a bad buyer. They act atypically.

That said, CS doesn’t have the resources to mother every single order, and there is a lot of evidence towards automation and general streamlining. This is typical with all the freelance websites, so maybe this is just a cross we’re gonna have to bear, as the vast majority of freelancers on these sites don’t want to rock the boat.

This is just one aspect of the exploitative nature of the online freelance platform world. It might not be happening to everyone, and many are happy with the status quo. As the advice so typically goes “move on with it, it’s business, these things happen”. That’s good advice in general, but it also allows some broken things to remain broken, and even get wore.

All sellers now need to consider carefully next time they deliver and get this kind of bad buyer whether the $ is worth more than the ⭐. There is nothing in the way of support for feedback removal unless the feedback somehow violates a policy that nobody knows. New sellers should just cancel… but isn’t this the issue that one of the other recent changes tried to affect

There’s no clear direction here. Ultimately, we’re on our own, which is fair enough. But I would have liked to have known the reality: that the TOS doesn’t exactly cover the rights of the seller in case of a feedback removal.

[eoinfinnegan]

Bad buyers are also aware of this loophole–mine “offered” to refund with an assurance that the “weird” copy would be removed, or to try again, using language that heavily indicated that one option was preferred. I was left in no doubt when I innocently took that offer at face value and the threats and lies came out.

Under the old system, this would have been more than enough along with the threats to remove the review. I beat the buyer at their own game of manipulation, they’re a sore loser and no soliciting or any other TOS-violating behavior required. I consider that to be lax 🙂 but it is a matter of perception. It is certainly comparably laxer.

never cancel after a delivery.

This is my policy too, and TOS backs me up on it. I offer rewrites, revisions or whatever to fix the situation. Very few buyers request a revision, and most are trivial, trivial issues (or simply to say thanks–you know that kind of buyer, the one who doesn’t need a revision). It’s very easy for me to spot a bad buyer. They act atypically.

That said, CS doesn’t have the resources to mother every single order, and there is a lot of evidence towards automation and general streamlining. This is typical with all the freelance websites, so maybe this is just a cross we’re gonna have to bear, as the vast majority of freelancers on these sites don’t want to rock the boat.

This is just one aspect of the exploitative nature of the online freelance platform world. It might not be happening to everyone, and many are happy with the status quo. As the advice so typically goes “move on with it, it’s business, these things happen”. That’s good advice in general, but it also allows some broken things to remain broken, and even get wore.

All sellers now need to consider carefully next time they deliver and get this kind of bad buyer whether the $ is worth more than the ⭐. There is nothing in the way of support for feedback removal unless the feedback somehow violates a policy that nobody knows. New sellers should just cancel… but isn’t this the issue that one of the other recent changes tried to affect

There’s no clear direction here. Ultimately, we’re on our own, which is fair enough. But I would have liked to have known the reality: that the TOS doesn’t exactly cover the rights of the seller in case of a feedback removal.

My interpretation of the situation and the wording is this.

CS are separating the behavior before review and the review itself. The threatening behavior goes to Trust and Safety while CS themselves deal with the review - the actual wording of it.

The actual review without the threat would not really warrant removal, even if it is incorrect, it is a subjective gig that can mean different things to different people.

The thing is, other than removing the feedback, I don’t see what we could expect Trust and Safety to do here. Will it be a message saying “Don’t do that again”? They are hardly going to suspend or ban them for it.

TO ME, a fair resolution would be removing the review.

The reason being that I don’t believe reviews should be allowed to be a bargaining chip. Sellers know that buyers can review, those buyers who threaten a bad review while seeking cancellation should not be allowed to leave one IMO. But that is just my view and not how Fiverr seem to see it. I suppose as you mentioned somewhere, it does seem like a backwards step as it will likely make cancellation more attractive to sellers, especially those who have few reviews.

[misscrystal]

My interpretation of the situation and the wording is this.

CS are separating the behavior before review and the review itself. The threatening behavior goes to Trust and Safety while CS themselves deal with the review - the actual wording of it.

The actual review without the threat would not really warrant removal, even if it is incorrect, it is a subjective gig that can mean different things to different people.

The thing is, other than removing the feedback, I don’t see what we could expect Trust and Safety to do here. Will it be a message saying “Don’t do that again”? They are hardly going to suspend or ban them for it.

TO ME, a fair resolution would be removing the review.

The reason being that I don’t believe reviews should be allowed to be a bargaining chip. Sellers know that buyers can review, those buyers who threaten a bad review while seeking cancellation should not be allowed to leave one IMO. But that is just my view and not how Fiverr seem to see it. I suppose as you mentioned somewhere, it does seem like a backwards step as it will likely make cancellation more attractive to sellers, especially those who have few reviews.

buyers who threaten a bad review while seeking cancellation should not be allowed to leave one

They now can leave a bad review while Trust and Safety looks at them.👓