visualstudios

I very rarely report people, that's not something I like to do, but take a look. Never addressing me directly, the entire thread, but always jamming it in, and insinuating less than pleasant things.

@cre8iveartwork good a mod is here btw. Would you mind reading the entire thread and see if a certain user isn't out of line in insulting others?

Yep, that's the way. Also, request to order on everything.

Yes, but for me that's not the meksells, that's lower priced video editors (compared to me, they're still high priced for the platform) that are actually at least somewhat serious as well, and would probably not be deterred by the paywall.

This is a factor, yes. This, not so much. I'd rather avoid price sensitive buyers, actually. I want the buyers who want to spend X, and that X is inline with my prices, and that will distrust anything that is cheaper. There are more of those than one would think.

I'm all for it, as long as that doesn't cost me more. Yes, it would get rid of a ton of low quality sellers... the thing is, those sellers don't make any difference in my business (other than platform reputation, I suppose). They aren't competition.

Sure. But it was also objectively easier before, first mover advantage is a very real thing. Getting early on a market is a huge advantage.

That's an issue with every single category. I don't see any steps being taken to mitigate that, however. Yes, they try this and that with the new review system, identity confirmation, etc. but that has little to no effect. The amount of spam I've been getting lately is crazy, much worse than the previous years.

Of course, I didn't say the opposite. It's not about the perks, I have nothing against the perks. I'm for the perks, actually - the level system, Pro, etc. I'm for all that. That's not unfair. That's earned. What's unfair is, for example, if a seller does great work, and a buyer cancels, and fiverr tells them to kick rocks because they are nobodies, whereas with me they'd refund me for the work, because I'm someone. That's unfair. They also earned the right to get paid, as much as I did, by doing great work.

Btw, I'm not even talking about pricing, or earnings here. I'm talking about rules, mostly.

Of course not, because they aren't selling the same thing. One thing is better than the other (by a number of different metrics), therefore it fetches a different price.

No, it doesn't, but that goes without saying.

Exactly. That does not mean everyone gets to sell the same, or for the same price.

That's not what fair means. Fair does not mean everyone makes the same (obviously).

Of course. But that's different form being able to s**t all over a seller with no consequence just because he doesn't have a standing in the platform. I'm not defending meksells here. Pricing is one of those things where obviously the more reviews, portfolio, etc. you have, the more you can charge. That's not even a perk, that's just how business works. That's not what I'm talking about. That's not unfair.

Exactly my point. As long as the opportunities are equal, I'm good with it.

Of course not, that's not what I said. Things like reviews, levels, portfolio, etc. are all earned with time. That can't be "given away". But having a fair platform has nothing to do with perks. Truth is, if I face situation X, and I'm right, I'll probably get it solved through CS easily. If a low level seller, as talented as me, that faces the same problem, and says exactly the same things, is far more likely to be screwed. That's not fair.

That's fine, I'm not against having extra perks for a price. But it doesn't sit right with me that systems can be unfair for those who don't have it. There are a lot of bad sellers starting out, but there are a lot of talented people who have a very tough time just because they're new. We were all new at some point.

That's a big deal, yes, but of course not everyone has it. Unlike some people who were calling me selfish in this thread, I care about the way the platform works for everyone.

I would prefer a system that allows sellers to rate buyers as well, honestly, so we can have an idea of who we're dealing with. But if that can't work, yes, removing the buyer reviews would be better. At least it wouldn't be misleading.

Yes, in this particular case, it may be different. I'm referring to the fact that if a buyer can change their review just because of my review because "that's part of the experience", that means my review is completely coerced. By that logic, the review the buyer leaves me is also part of my experience with them. Should I also be able to change my review afterwards? No, I can't - that's why they implemented the blind review system in the first place.

Of course. And for me, the responsible thing, for the platform as a whole, would be for sellers to feel free to accurately review their buyers. That was the entire point behind the blind review system. But if a buyer can then change their review in retaliation, it defeats the system entirely. That's the problem.

Some things can change, if people make a good case and talk about it. Top Clients has changed, apparently. I think having honest seller and buyer reviews is worthwhile.

Will roll out? I'm mainly talking about the buyer review system, which has been in place for years. I'm not talking about the new cancelled order reviews thing.

There's a difference there though - a buyer can close their account and start from scratch any time they want. A seller can't do that, as it's very disadvantageous. But yes, that can be a factor.