newsmike

How much are you paying respondents to participate?

Wait, the BS gets better.

Please look up the definition of the word "inappropriate," because you are using it inappropriately.

Go with something low competition, like offshore oil rig repair.

Illegal, no. Pathologically strange, yes. However, I was pointing out that you first claimed to be a new seller, then claimed to be a seller for 4 years, in another thread and then reverted back to a new seller in this thread. Very odd.

And then there's this.

Faced with the choice of getting a low rating or being blackmailed into working for a jerk at below rate is an easy choice. I would just say no. You could also cancel, but I would just say no. People have to stop treating the idea that they may bet a bad review with terminal cancer. It happens. Don't let it force you to be a doormat.

We'd probably be shocked if we did an actual audit.

There is only 1 way to "rank gig," outsell the people who are already "ranked."

Your gig only "ranks" as you post more sales.

And the same lousy algos are calculating your commission and payments.

It is funny to watch you guys blatantly copy and paste each other's replies, but it becomes especially entertaining when you don't even take time to search for a useful comment to steal. If you're gonna plagiarize, why not steal something useful, which makes you appear intelligent?

Not my decision, but I don't think it is realistic to return to a system that was terrible. If you like UW, why not go there? Then you have everything you want. Isn't it easier to order vanilla ice cream as opposed to ordering chocolate and then asking to have it made to taste more like vanilla?

I don't think they have any plans to bring it back.

This was my original point. We're talking about people who are scamming by their very method of posting, they are cheating to "rank gig", so why all the commotion if we add a silly AI detector to tell us what we already know?

🙃

1. You will not move my opinion on this should you write another 300,000 words on the topic. 2. You may believe what you like, I don't care. Be happy. 3. I feel no need to justify what I believe to you. I'm happy. 4. It feels as if @vickiespencer is correct, that you really like to argue for the sake of arguing. 5. It is a lovely Saturday afternoon, and I am going to do the following. Make an espresso. Listen to Duke Ellington's orchestra. Respond to any further discussion of this with only emojis. 🙂

That is not what (WE) know. It is what you believe.

I'm not trying to catch someone "breaking rules" but merely flagging obvious fakery when I see it. Just like the "English Fluent" nonsense we flag daily, the sad truth is that there may be rules, but there is absolutely no enforcement here. I'm merely pointing it our so the OP knows that we are aware of their chicanery. Nothing more. I've been at this long enough to not expect anything official to happen. And to expect a few to always come to the defense of the fraudsters.

Actually, I've had my fill of "trick the AI engine." But feel free to keep going. Bottom line is that even without that AI checker we know dead certain that the person who posted the content did not write it.

Nope. But without proper supervision and rigid monitoring by a tribunal of international scientists, I cannot comment on what went on in UK's lab tests. I believe his test came from Wuhan.

Yep.

see above, edited to answer.

Are you seriously suggesting that that was written by the person who posted it? I use https://copyleaks.com/ which is standard for among others: