Client came back :)

[fonthaunt]

I am sorry to hear about this. I have an idea for consideration that I noticed works on a trading site.

Established sellers there have the option to set a minimum amount of previous purchases history and also a minimum number of transactions as a filter in their settings to screen out newer customers with no site history who could be viewed as higher risk than established customers. This could work similarly to the way buyers can select only Level 2 sellers to filter their gig searches.

Perhaps this feature/option could be provided by the Fiverr development team if not already available.

Another option established sellers have is to require buyer verification. They can set their own “terms.”

Three approaches I saw sellers using that seemed to be fairly effective are:

1. Request a mobile picture taken of the prospective buyer holding a valid form of identification (ie., Driver License, Passport, etc.)

2. Require screenshots of their Paypal account profile settings with a matching email address to their account

and

3. A mobile picture of the prospective buyer holding a piece of paper on which they have written “I understand this is a service that is non-refundable and I will not file a refund request or chargeback.”

   They must sign that piece of paper with their signature that matches their valid ID card and they write the Fiverr order number on the sign with it so that there can be no mistake verifying that they agreed to these terms.

This offers the seller more protection and potential scammers may not be willing to go to such lengths to verify their identity and agree in writing that they will not request a refund.

I hope this solution may be submitted for consideration via the proper channels by those willing to do so if it seems that it could be effective here. Even if this proposed solution does not completely eliminate the problem, perhaps it will at least reduce the probability of these events to the point that it significantly reduces the number of them. Once implemented, this seller protection should be positive for the overall market because of increased confidence that allows sellers to provide their highest quality work without fear that they may not be compensated for it.

If not, then maybe it will at least spark some further thought on ways the sellers may be better protected on higher value transactions.

Request a mobile picture taken of the prospective buyer holding a valid form of identification (ie., Driver License, Passport, etc.)

and

3. A mobile picture of the prospective buyer holding a piece of paper on which they have written “I understand this is a service that is non-refundable

These two steps could potentially reduce sales by 50% overnight if not much more. I don’t know if sellers or staff would ever risk such risks.

[businesslegend]

Request a mobile picture taken of the prospective buyer holding a valid form of identification (ie., Driver License, Passport, etc.)

and

3. A mobile picture of the prospective buyer holding a piece of paper on which they have written “I understand this is a service that is non-refundable

These two steps could potentially reduce sales by 50% overnight if not much more. I don’t know if sellers or staff would ever risk such risks.

Right. There is almost always a tradeoff involved when offering a real world practical solution to a pressing problem. The two you mentioned, of course, are only two of the solutions that have worked, so hopefully you wouldn’t hone in on the two you didn’t like and fail to comment on the other one as that would be akin to throwing out the baby with the bath water or burning a bridge without offering a detour. The post was clear in its scope to only submit a proposal you believe would be effective, so if those two approaches aren’t ones you feel would be effective, then those wouldn’t be the ones to discuss for consideration.

What is your proposed solution that would provide increased seller protection with no dip in sales as the trade off?

I look forward to your contribution that I am sure will be just as speedily forthcoming as your critique of mine already contributed! Thank you in advance on behalf of the community.

[Guest offlinehelpers]

Right. There is almost always a tradeoff involved when offering a real world practical solution to a pressing problem. The two you mentioned, of course, are only two of the solutions that have worked, so hopefully you wouldn’t hone in on the two you didn’t like and fail to comment on the other one as that would be akin to throwing out the baby with the bath water or burning a bridge without offering a detour. The post was clear in its scope to only submit a proposal you believe would be effective, so if those two approaches aren’t ones you feel would be effective, then those wouldn’t be the ones to discuss for consideration.

What is your proposed solution that would provide increased seller protection with no dip in sales as the trade off?

I look forward to your contribution that I am sure will be just as speedily forthcoming as your critique of mine already contributed! Thank you in advance on behalf of the community.

Fiverr could ask for whatever they liked - it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference as the buyer can ask for their money back through PayPal for 6 months - this is what’s causing the problem - Fiverr can’t go against PayPal’s ToS otherwise they wouldn’t be able ot use them as a payment processor at all.

[businesslegend]

Fiverr could ask for whatever they liked - it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference as the buyer can ask for their money back through PayPal for 6 months - this is what’s causing the problem - Fiverr can’t go against PayPal’s ToS otherwise they wouldn’t be able ot use them as a payment processor at all.

Yes, so if the seller has documentation from the buyer stating they agree to the terms in advance, then it could be submitted to Paypal as proof upon escalation of the resolution/complaint in the Paypal process. Perhaps it would only discourage a percentage of the scammers, but it would surely dent the number who currently do it without going against Paypal’s ToS.

We’re all well aware of what currently doesn’t work. Let’s hear more ideas about how to solve the problem.

[Guest offlinehelpers]

Yes, so if the seller has documentation from the buyer stating they agree to the terms in advance, then it could be submitted to Paypal as proof upon escalation of the resolution/complaint in the Paypal process. Perhaps it would only discourage a percentage of the scammers, but it would surely dent the number who currently do it without going against Paypal’s ToS.

We’re all well aware of what currently doesn’t work. Let’s hear more ideas about how to solve the problem.

submitted to Paypal as proof upon escalation of the resolution/complaint in the Paypal process.

It would just be proof that Fiverr had broken PayPal’s ToS. 😉

Let’s hear more ideas about how to solve the problem.

While Fiverr uses PayPal and sticks to their ToS, which they have to, there are no solutions from Fiverr’s end.

[fonthaunt]

Right. There is almost always a tradeoff involved when offering a real world practical solution to a pressing problem. The two you mentioned, of course, are only two of the solutions that have worked, so hopefully you wouldn’t hone in on the two you didn’t like and fail to comment on the other one as that would be akin to throwing out the baby with the bath water or burning a bridge without offering a detour. The post was clear in its scope to only submit a proposal you believe would be effective, so if those two approaches aren’t ones you feel would be effective, then those wouldn’t be the ones to discuss for consideration.

What is your proposed solution that would provide increased seller protection with no dip in sales as the trade off?

I look forward to your contribution that I am sure will be just as speedily forthcoming as your critique of mine already contributed! Thank you in advance on behalf of the community.

The two you mentioned, of course, are only two of the solutions that have worked, so hopefully you wouldn’t hone in on the two you didn’t like and fail to comment on the other one

Ok, then, here:

Require screenshots of their Paypal account profile settings with a matching email address to their account

I don’t think this step would do much good at all and I still think it would stop from buyers from even bothering to stick around.

What is your proposed solution that would provide increased seller protection with no dip in sales

If staff was interested in what I had to say, my proposal would be for Fiverr to come up with its own direct payment solution instead of using PayPal. PayPal should still be accepted too, but sellers could have settings to make their own choices. Fiverr might or might not ever do this, but if they do, it won’t be because I suggested it. They’ve already received tons of suggestions. Note - I didn’t tell you not to send your ideas to staff if you wanted to, I just discussed them since this is a discussion forum.

[businesslegend]

submitted to Paypal as proof upon escalation of the resolution/complaint in the Paypal process.

It would just be proof that Fiverr had broken PayPal’s ToS. 😉

Let’s hear more ideas about how to solve the problem.

While Fiverr uses PayPal and sticks to their ToS, which they have to, there are no solutions from Fiverr’s end.

So solving the problem without violating Paypal’s ToS would prove a violation of Paypal’s ToS? That conclusion doesn’t follow logically from its premise.

[Guest offlinehelpers]

So solving the problem without violating Paypal’s ToS would prove a violation of Paypal’s ToS? That conclusion doesn’t follow logically from its premise.

By asking a buyer to waive their rights through PayPal you’d be breaking PayPal’s ToS.

Perfectly logical.

[businesslegend]

At one time, all the seller had to do was say, “It was a service and not a physical product or good” and the dispute would automatically be resolved in favor of the seller because the buyer protection did not apply to services or digital items. This was years ago. Has this policy changed?

[Guest offlinehelpers]

At one time, all the seller had to do was say, “It was a service and not a physical product or good” and the dispute would automatically be resolved in favor of the seller because the buyer protection did not apply to services or digital items. This was years ago. Has this policy changed?

Has this policy changed?

Yes - it certainly has. Buyer protection is for virtually all goods and services now.

https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mpp/paypal-safety-and-security

[cyaxrex]

Fiverr could ask for whatever they liked - it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference as the buyer can ask for their money back through PayPal for 6 months - this is what’s causing the problem - Fiverr can’t go against PayPal’s ToS otherwise they wouldn’t be able ot use them as a payment processor at all.

Fiverr could ask for whatever they liked - it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference as the buyer can ask for their money back through PayPal for 6 months - this is what’s causing the problem - Fiverr can’t go against PayPal’s ToS otherwise they wouldn’t be able ot use them as a payment processor at all.

This is what I (and I think a few other sellers) simply don’t understand, though. I’ve had cases where I have bought something in error using PayPal and I have not been able to get a refund.

From what I understand about the charge back procedure, it is not possible to simply say you don’t like that new TV you just bought from X place online. You have to say that you do not recognize the transaction. - The implication there being that your card details have been compromised.

That charge backs are used by scammers repeatedly, would imply that no one is saying: “Er excuse me PayPal, could you just see how many payments this user has reversed lately?” Because if it is more than 1 using the same card, PayPal would have grounds to refuse and/or ban the user for breaching their own TOS.

I’ve had my identity stolen in the past and it was a nightmare trying to prove I was the real me and I still didn’t succeed in recouping all my losses. It just really seems like Fiverr lets charge backs fly for the sake of convenience.

[businesslegend]

Has this policy changed?

Yes - it certainly has. Buyer protection is for virtually all goods and services now.

https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mpp/paypal-safety-and-security

Good to know. Thank you for supplying a link for additional info. I’ll read up on it.

[Guest offlinehelpers]

Fiverr could ask for whatever they liked - it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference as the buyer can ask for their money back through PayPal for 6 months - this is what’s causing the problem - Fiverr can’t go against PayPal’s ToS otherwise they wouldn’t be able ot use them as a payment processor at all.

This is what I (and I think a few other sellers) simply don’t understand, though. I’ve had cases where I have bought something in error using PayPal and I have not been able to get a refund.

From what I understand about the charge back procedure, it is not possible to simply say you don’t like that new TV you just bought from X place online. You have to say that you do not recognize the transaction. - The implication there being that your card details have been compromised.

That charge backs are used by scammers repeatedly, would imply that no one is saying: “Er excuse me PayPal, could you just see how many payments this user has reversed lately?” Because if it is more than 1 using the same card, PayPal would have grounds to refuse and/or ban the user for breaching their own TOS.

I’ve had my identity stolen in the past and it was a nightmare trying to prove I was the real me and I still didn’t succeed in recouping all my losses. It just really seems like Fiverr lets charge backs fly for the sake of convenience.

Think they might be using this clause as it seems a bit open ended:

If an order doesn’t arrive or match the description, we’ll reimburse the full cost of eligible purchases and paid delivery costs (where applicable).

[businesslegend]

Think they might be using this clause as it seems a bit open ended:

If an order doesn’t arrive or match the description, we’ll reimburse the full cost of eligible purchases and paid delivery costs (where applicable).

I wonder if the seller could then provide proof that the order delivered matches the description to good effect?

[microscopetrans]

Sorry to hear this and agree with everyone above that we as sellers need to do something to make Fiverr aware of this and eventually introduce some new rules. It is crazy you have to experience stuff like this. 😤

[Guest offlinehelpers]

I wonder if the seller could then provide proof that the order delivered matches the description to good effect?

Fiverr is the seller in this case, not individual sellers if you get what I mean, so as individuals we don’t get to play a role in it. I haven’t had to deal with one myself, but from what I can gather, the cancellation just happens and the balance becomes negative to cover the lost revenue.

[temptedvoices]

Wow ive never had that happen yet, but ive def had the client from hell lol

[businesslegend]

The two you mentioned, of course, are only two of the solutions that have worked, so hopefully you wouldn’t hone in on the two you didn’t like and fail to comment on the other one

Ok, then, here:

Require screenshots of their Paypal account profile settings with a matching email address to their account

I don’t think this step would do much good at all and I still think it would stop from buyers from even bothering to stick around.

What is your proposed solution that would provide increased seller protection with no dip in sales

If staff was interested in what I had to say, my proposal would be for Fiverr to come up with its own direct payment solution instead of using PayPal. PayPal should still be accepted too, but sellers could have settings to make their own choices. Fiverr might or might not ever do this, but if they do, it won’t be because I suggested it. They’ve already received tons of suggestions. Note - I didn’t tell you not to send your ideas to staff if you wanted to, I just discussed them since this is a discussion forum.

Something like PowerPay (dot) Biz or 1ShoppingCart?

[orcatek]

I had a charge back after a 5 star review. I had buyer company name and found the video being used on both youtube and facebook. Issued a DMCA takedown notice to both and in a few hours the work was gone from both sites. It sucks as there is no protection from this fraud.

[businesslegend]

I had a charge back after a 5 star review. I had buyer company name and found the video being used on both youtube and facebook. Issued a DMCA takedown notice to both and in a few hours the work was gone from both sites. It sucks as there is no protection from this fraud.

I have had a few experiences like the one you describe on other sites (before Fiverr launched) with writing work/content I provided to clients. In one case, the DMCA takedown notice sent to the hosting company where the stealer posted the content worked and another was resolved by the site itself.

[businesslegend]

How about the options for sellers to select a filter for their higher priced gigs to only appear to established buyers with x number of successful previous transactions, x dollar amount, and with less than x number of cancellations in their purchase history?

This, while potentially reducing sales, could virtually eliminate the fraud client problem overnight because those who were setting up “throwaway accounts” to use only for scamming would no longer be able to access those gigs of higher value due to the settings and it would not violate any of Paypal’s terms of service.

Thoughts? Opinions? Rotten tomatoes?

(Tall poppy ducks to the height of the rest of the crops)

[cyaxrex]

How about the options for sellers to select a filter for their higher priced gigs to only appear to established buyers with x number of successful previous transactions, x dollar amount, and with less than x number of cancellations in their purchase history?

This, while potentially reducing sales, could virtually eliminate the fraud client problem overnight because those who were setting up “throwaway accounts” to use only for scamming would no longer be able to access those gigs of higher value due to the settings and it would not violate any of Paypal’s terms of service.

Thoughts? Opinions? Rotten tomatoes?

(Tall poppy ducks to the height of the rest of the crops)

How about the options for sellers to select a filter for their higher priced gigs to only appear to established buyers with x number of successful previous transactions, x dollar amount, and with less than x number of cancellations in their purchase history?

I would be more than happy with this. As it stands, the chaos of this year and more buyer problems, are seeing me reduce my gigs and services on Fiverr, just to be done with stress of it all.

[businesslegend]

How about the options for sellers to select a filter for their higher priced gigs to only appear to established buyers with x number of successful previous transactions, x dollar amount, and with less than x number of cancellations in their purchase history?

I would be more than happy with this. As it stands, the chaos of this year and more buyer problems, are seeing me reduce my gigs and services on Fiverr, just to be done with stress of it all.

Just to get the idea across in terms of the programming logic (not actual usable code except for illustration purposes) something like,

highValueGigs = or > $15;

buyer.established = buyer.minimumTransactionNumber = or > 3 [buyer.transactionAmount = or > $15]

[buyer.cancellation = or < 10%];

If buyer.established

{

then highValueGigs.visible

}

{

else highValueGigs.hidden;

}

[cyaxrex]

Just to get the idea across in terms of the programming logic (not actual usable code except for illustration purposes) something like,

highValueGigs = or > $15;

buyer.established = buyer.minimumTransactionNumber = or > 3 [buyer.transactionAmount = or > $15]

[buyer.cancellation = or < 10%];

If buyer.established

{

then highValueGigs.visible

}

{

else highValueGigs.hidden;

}

Yes, but sadly it will never happen. 😦

[beenica]

Hey, I’m a relatively new seller on Fiverr and got notice of my FIRST order last Saturday.
Having received the notification late, because I was out, I worked feverishly to complete the
order and submit. I submitted about 15 minutes late and apologiesed to the buyer etc… all’s good.
The buyer comes back Sunday night and says one revision is requested. I offered to complete by Monday morning, buyer says no, they need it done by Monday morning, so I agree, the buyer says “thanks”. I complete and submit by Sunday night. no response from the buyer. I request feedback asap from buyer, still no response. It’s almost midnight Wednesday night and still no response from the buyer and My account continues to reflect $0.00 balances… Am I to believe that I have been conned on my VERY FIRST order?
Is there no protection for sellers on Fiverr? I was under the impression that buyers were charged upfront, I certainly was when i was a buyer. I was so excited with my first order that this experience has just turned it to crap, very disappointed… I have put a query through to Fiverr, buy they say it can take up to 48 hours to get a response… Does anyone have any advice on what if any recourse I have and how to avoid getting conned by other buyers on Fiverr? Thanks Beenica.