visualstudios

And sellers would refuse, because they have no guarantee of getting paid. Buyers would promise tips, then leave sellers hanging.

You can't eliminate those people. You can decrease the quantity, but I've found people like that at $1000+.

@Shiran.M Since you are relaying feedback, what about this idea: We have a problem, currently, with sellers cancelling too much to distort their public metrics (and apparently the private completed orders stat is not enough to fix that), and that's why this new feature is being implemented. What if on every gig / seller profile Fiverr showed the amount/% of canceled/completed orders? That would also let the buyers know if they were abusing the system, while not allowing a single disgruntled buyer to badmouth the seller publicly just because, and for an order that was cancelled for good reason. Make the number of canceled orders public information - I don't think there would be any backlash against that from serious sellers, and it would also punish the people using cancelations to game the system.

Yeah, that's a load of bull. Communication is vital for everything.

And I bet this system would have far less backlash from the seller community, while providing the same benefit to buyers. Something to think about.

Exactly. I think this would be a much more elegant solution, actually. The buyer couldn't badmouth a seller just because, demoting him, etc. And there would be a clear distinction between sellers canceling a lot (so, if you are serious and want your order to be delivered on time, probably you won't risk it with them), and sellers that cancel very little. It's a better solution imo. And it shouldn't be a number either, it should be a %, naturally. "This seller completes XX% of their orders", written on the gig near the reviews. Simple.

Sure, so the actual fix for this would be for Fiverr to show the number of canceled orders on a seller's profile/gig. No need for reviews at all.

We can't assume all buyer reviews left on a cancelation are "the truth".

My point was the just paying for the sinner. From a utilitarian perspective, it may well be worth to jail the innocent, if that means you catch all the criminals. Crime will go down. From a personal liberty perspective... that's problematic. There's no good, definitive answer.

You're talking to me lol, you seriously think I don't acknowledge that? That's a given. This boils down to an ethics issue, in the end. Is it worth to jail an innocent if that means 99 criminals go to jail? Or is it better to keep the 99 criminals out, if that means the innocent is also free? There's no good answer to this. People have argued back and forth on this point for millennia. And this is the same. Almost surely some people will be negatively impacted and didn't deserve to, even if the vast majority are, indeed, bad sellers.

Because in that case it's warranted, and nobody has a problem with it. Of course people will focus on the system's downsides, nobody is gonna complain about the upside.

There's no problem with using technology. The problem is that on a forum I want to talk to real people using their own words, and speaking their own thoughts. If I wanted to speak to chat gpt, that's what I'd do. It's actually disrespectful for everyone who takes the time to actually write their own posts to get a reply that was written by a bot. Also, if you admit that your post was indeed written using chat gpt (and it obviously was, given the structure - that 4 point list alone is evident, not to mention the formula of "I understand your perspective, but... etc.", that's chatgpt for you), then there was no disrespect in what I said, it was factual. If you don't... I'll find that very hard to believe.

Don't argue with chat gpt, mike...

I have request to order, and turn them down at any red flag. My pricing also turns many away. If the question is how many bad contacts are interested in buying, and would buy, but end up not buying, I'd say around 50%. If the question is how many end up being actual buyers after my selection, nearly zero. But my case is not typical.

But that's the best case scenario. In that case, of course it's good. But theoretically we already had the cancelation rate metric to deal with sellers doing that excessively. What I'm worried about are buyers canceling and leaving bad reviews that are completely unwarranted (because they changed their mind after delivery, because they want more services and not pay for them, because they want something different that the seller doesn't offer, because they "don't like it" and are, quite frankly, wrong, or simply on purpose). All these things can happen. On a low volume seller, that does a couple orders per month, that can be catastrophic, and there's very little they can do.

Overall, combined with the reduced threshold for level metrics, and if it's well implemented, it's probably good. We will have to wait and see how they deal with cases of buyers acting in bad faith though, that can make or break a system like this. A good point mentioned above is that sellers should also rate the buyers in the case of cancelations, I don't see why it should be one way only. Of course that's if the buyer ratings are a system that Fiverr wants to keep, given the way it works now it's not particularly useful and could probably be removed.

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.