Update: Changes to the Value For Money question

[Kesha]

Following the recent updates to our ratings and reviews system, we want you to know that we value your input and have been working to actively address your questions and concerns. While our analysis has shown that value for money remains stable and is not influenced by pricing or service category, we’ve taken your concerns seriously and have explored alternative approaches to this key question. 

Through both your feedback and extensive user testing, we've found an alternative question that is just as effective in reflecting client satisfaction. As a result, we've made a change to the Value For Money question that clients see when reviewing their orders.

Here's what's changing:

• The question has been refined to "How would you rate the value of this delivery," reflecting our commitment to a more nuanced assessment of your delivery’s value.

• The rating breakdown will also display this change as "Value of delivery." 

In addition to these adjustments, our efforts to enhance Fiverr’s ratings & reviews system are ongoing. As previously mentioned, we're currently testing adjustments to the public rating score calculation, which may impact your public rating score in the coming weeks. Here's a recap of why these changes are happening and what they entail:

• We're adjusting the benchmark to ensure ratings better reflect performance, set clearer client expectations, and provide transparency for freelancers like you.
• Your scores will now take into account ratings from the last 2 years, offering a more up-to-date view of your performance and service.
• The new public score calculation incorporates historical private feedback, aiming to reflect client feedback more holistically and enhance the reliability of ratings as a decision-making tool.
• These changes are occurring platform-wide, ensuring fairness across the marketplace.

These adjustments are designed to create a more nuanced rating range, which is proven to assist clients in making more informed decisions. We're optimizing ratings to accurately reflect the quality of service you provide, ultimately increasing your chances of converting new clients.

We’re committed to your success and we’re working diligently to ensure your experience on Fiverr remains rewarding and equitable. We believe these adjustments will allow for a more accurate assessment of your deliveries and projects. We appreciate your dedication and cooperation as we work to make Fiverr better for all.

- The Fiverr Team
 

[antonnzuev]

Am I alone in thinking that the seller's pricing clause should not be in any version at all. 
The buyer himself chooses and agrees to the price he sees and for which he places an order.
And then it all depends on the quality of the terms of reference and understanding of the overall picture of the work. Also this estimate may depend on the mood of the buyer. It can be so biased that it can not reflect the real quality and effort spent on the final and completed work. 
But it can very much spoil the statistics of the seller.

SHOCK
 

[uk1000]

Shouldn't the cost shown mention that it includes the Fiverr charges (eg. service charges and any other Fiverr charges), since that seems included in the "$9.10" price shown (that isn't what the seller was charging)?

eg

"This project took 1 day and cost $9.10 in total (the $x gig price (or gig package price) + Fiverr's $x service fee + Fiverr's $x minimum charge service fee).",

since the seller has no control over Fiverr's service fees so it's probably worth showing what they are there.

Edited February 28 by uk1000

[marinanp86]

My question is: why have they incorporated a private survey? Has no sense. The customer is not afraid to lie or give his honest opinion in a public rating. Why do they decide to bother the client with a private test-type survey, which contributes nothing, does not make us improve as sellers and wastes the client's time.

Is all this just to shorten human work and use AI?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand 🥴

[vibronx]

11 minutes ago, marinanp86 said:

The customer is not afraid to lie or give his honest opinion in a public rating.

Well, I can tell you that I'm afraid to give my honest opinion in a public review if it's negative because of the way some sellers react.

And I like the new "value of delivery" more than "value for money."

Edited February 28 by vibronx

[talogmd]

This is even more confusing and vague than the initial version.

From the perspective of a buyer, what does "Value of Delivery" even mean?

To some, it could mean "How expensive was this?"

To others, it could mean "Did you want to pay less for this?"

There are several other interpretations. It's Fiverr's responsibility to make these feedback questions as clear as possible. Instead, you make them even worse. 

Everyone on the forum has been telling you that the Value for Money metric is extremely subjective, confusing, and irrelevant. Just remove it already. 

Edited February 28 by talogmd

[marinanp86]

10 minutes ago, vibronx said:

Well, I can tell you that I'm afraid to give my honest opinion in a public review if it's negative because of the way some sellers react.

And I like the new "value of delivery" more than "value for money."

This would be solved by having control of the communication protocol. It's simple, if a salesperson threatens or treats the customer unprofessionally, they are punished.
The customer must file a complaint if a salesperson mistreats them.

Customers should be able to have the confidence and freedom to express their opinion without fear of retaliation.

[andywarburton]

1 hour ago, Kesha said:

Your scores will now take into account ratings from the last 2 years, offering a more up-to-date view of your performance and service.

Can you please explain how having two years of ratings is “more up to date”? Before was it “all time”? Two years still seems like a very long period that could potentially punish long serving freelancers compared to newbies. I almost feel like each statistic should have a long-term and short-term version so clients can see if our service has improved or degraded over time.

[tro2789]

Kesha,

This is not a solution to the problem. If anything it's making it worse. Throw the new system in the bin where it belongs. What problem is this even solving for Fiverr? You have so much data on customers already. Why include these vague questions that are proven to confuse buyers. I've had multiple reviews left where buyers have followed up with me stating they were confused by the review system and meant to leave something different than what appeared. How can you trust review data that comes from it if buyers themselves don't even understand the ratings they are giving? This is truly asinine and not indicative of nuanced and effective data analysis by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Edit: To add to this, I've even had repeat customers give me lower ratings on these questions multiple times. This is to the point where I have stopped working with them because I need to put food on the table, and repeatedly low reviews out of confusion is just going to tank my score. Surely having to refuse repeat customers that indicate satisfaction with their buying behavior, despite the review system, is not actually serving them well if I have to protect my own rating and success score instead of serving them.

Edited February 28 by tro2789

[donnovan86]

6 minutes ago, tro2789 said:

Throw the new system in the bin where it belongs.

Clearly they won't, since they are doubling down on it.

 

The new public score calculation incorporates historical private feedback, aiming to reflect client feedback more holistically and enhance the reliability of ratings as a decision-making tool. - now I can only imagine how many topics/posts we will have on the forum saying they had perfect reviews and yet their success score is low. At least we can point them to Kesha's post. 

1 hour ago, Kesha said:

Through both your feedback and extensive user testing, we've found an alternative question that is just as effective in reflecting client satisfaction. As a result, we've made a change to the Value For Money question that clients see when reviewing their orders.

 

@Kesha, is this change already made, buyers can already see the modified rating system? Or will it appear starting with March 15th?

[visualstudios]

The value for money is a minor issue.

The major issue is that the emoji scale is skewed. No scale goes from average to very good, and no scale has very good as 4 stars. This scale is designed to have the buyers rate 4 stars - as a buyer, I never find anything I buy "exceptional", because I know what I'm buying and what to expect. If I get exactly what i expected, that shouldn't be 4 stars. Like my latest review, for example.

This was a perfect order - client got exactly what they needed, sooner than the delivery date, and it was perfect the first time around, no revision needed. He left a tip. 4 stars on every field. Why? Because it's the way the system is designed. Half the reviews we got under this new system ended up with the buyer having to go to CS to change them, since they were not what they felt about the work.

This is not ok. This system means buyers will need to have extra work and CS will have to spend more resources, and will mean sellers will refuse to work with more buyers - they'll only feel comfortable working with long time clients that get how the system works.

[tro2789]

Just now, donnovan86 said:

Clearly they won't, since they are doubling down on it.

Even if they won't, at least I can express the sentiment that many of us feel. And this is coming from a Top Rated and Pro seller with a 10 success score. The system is objectively flawed.

[visualstudios]

Just now, tro2789 said:

And this is coming from a Top Rated and Pro seller with a 10 success score. The system is objectively flawed.

Same.

[newsmike]

6 minutes ago, donnovan86 said:

Clearly they won't, since they are doubling down on it.

I think they agreed to reword the 1 question of value for the money as a demonstration that they are listening, for the optics of it.  The rest will steamroll as planned.  The giveaway was the first line that touted. "we want you to know that we value your input and have been working to actively address your questions and concerns"

[visualstudios]

What's the solution? 

Have every delivery message say "Please let me know how I can make this EXCEPTIONAL, I really want your experience to be EXCEPTIONAL, it's very important for me that you feel my work is EXCEPTIONAL, thank you!" to try to prime the buyer for the insane review scale?

Edited February 28 by visualstudios

[tro2789]

Just now, newsmike said:

I think they agreed to reword the 1 question of value for the money as a demonstration that they are listening, for the optics of it.  The rest will steamroll as planned.  The giveaway was the first line that touted. "we want you to know that we value your input and have been working to actively address your questions and concerns"

Also known as "it likes the new review system on its orders or it gets the hose again"

[visualstudios]

The fix is trivial, obvious, and takes 10 seconds to implement.

A fair scale is:

Very Bad - Bad - Average - Good - Very Good.

That's it. Done. Fixed. You can even leave the emojis. This is evident.

[emmaki]

I don't like it. 

What on earth does "value of delivery" mean anyway? It's just a rewrite of "value for money" only with enhanced vagueness. Quite frankly, I think encourages delivery "value stuffing" with IM tricks in which a mind map, a cheat sheet, a PDF, and some other random piece of 💩is added onto the order, each valued at ludicrous prices so the marketer can claim that all these valuable bonuses - worth a collective $1,767, - are now absolutely free if you order today (on a $17 piece of junk advice copied from another place). 

Doesn't exactly scream "professional business services" to me, but then again, neither do emoji reviews. 

I rate this update as 🩹

Very poor effort - whoever was listening may as well be deaf. 

Edited February 28 by emmaki

[emmaki]

Anyway, it doesn't really matter what we think, does it? At best, Fiverr will come back with another rewrite and the good news that it has listened and tested everything before creating "valuable product nexus" 

[emmaki]

18 minutes ago, visualstudios said:

A fair scale is:

Very Bad - Bad - Average - Good - Very Good.

How about...

Unexceptional - Ceptional - Exceptional - Very Exceptional

Edited February 28 by emmaki
I know, I know, I completely flubbed the spelling. Never mind. I was distracted by my own ceptionalism.

[visualstudios]

3 minutes ago, emmaki said:

Unexceptional - Ceptional - Exceptional - Very Exceptional

That's a 4 point scale, very weak. Low value for money.

[nadiappp]

4 minutes ago, visualstudios said:

That's a 4 point scale, very weak. Low value for money.

Very perceptional!

[emmaki]

Sometimes, smaller is better. 

How much longer is this list going to get? And why is Recommend to a Friend back? I thought it was getting dumped in the shiny new update? That might have just been a rumor, though.

[charlsmcfarlane]

I think that, while this question is worded slightly better, there’s still a fundamental issue with asking buyers to rate the delivery while also considering price. They are two different variables. However, as the question itself focuses more on the delivery, I think it’s an improvement.

I can understand why the private ratings will start to contribute towards the overall rating, but I don’t see how this benefits sellers – they still will not know how they could have improved. With the value for money question moving to the new public ratings, is there an intention to retire private reviews entirely? It could be frustrating for a seller to see their ratings/success score drop and have absolutely no idea why.

[mandyzines]

1 hour ago, marinanp86 said:

Customers should be able to have the confidence and freedom to express their opinion without fear of retaliation.

Sellers can and have stalked clients elsewhere, outside of Fiverr, in retaliation. Coming unhinged and trying to ruin people based on what they think is a general 'thing' online. 

Edited February 28 by mandyzines