visualstudios

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.

Well, if this were the case (and also if they didn't apply to maintaining seller levels), that would be a different discussion entirely. Everything I said so far is about the system as it is, if it were different we would be having a different discussion.

But you do understand that if leaving a bad review can affect you negatively, sellers will not give bad reviews in a lot of cases where they would like to. So it's not an honest review, by design. Personally, I feel like the review system should be honest for both sides, otherwise I don't see the point in having it. Also, if a seller giving a buyer a bad review is "venting", is a buyer giving a seller a bad review also "venting"?

Don't take what I said out of context, please. I said "In certain situations..." That's not an attitude, it's a fact. If a client can choose to never close an order, and CS will never force an order to close, the client is always right if they choose to not close it. That's not a defeatist attitude, or a choice, that's just how things work.

Additionally, what about buyers modifying the review for factors besides the review you leave them yourself? What if a buyer leaves you a 5 star review, and comes back a week later, asks for a revision that is outside the scope, for free, and changes your review to 1 star when your refuse. Should that be allowed?

I agree with what you said. But given that that is the case, do buyer reviews make any sense? Will they ever accurately reflect the sellers experience with buyers, if they can't be honest about it? If they can't, why even have buyer reviews? They will just be misleading by design.

This can happen, but it depends on what it is about. I've had refunds done by CS for canceled orders, for example. However, I've never had CS close an order - if a buyer refuses to accept it forever, that's it, you're never getting paid for it. Even if you delivered exactly what you promised. So, in certain situations, the client is always right indeed.

I'm actually talking about the opposite, as in buyers who misbehave not getting the proper reviews. That's the problem with a system that incentivises giving buyers 5 star reviews or nothing. So it's kind of the other way around. Personally, it's not something I really face, as I vet my buyers, etc. But for the platform as a whole, I think it would be positive to have a robust review system for buyers, as well as for sellers. And yes, of course there are bigger problems out there. But if we're talking about problems we can do something about, they aren't the influx of bad sellers either...

I'm not talking about you, personally. If you think about the generality of users, you can understand what I mean, I'm sure.

I would highly suggest you tone done the insults. I didn't insult anyone. I'm talking about the way systems are designed, and what kind of behaviours they incentivise. Besides, what you said is factually incorrect. This doesn't affect me personally that much, as I've said plenty of times. This has very little to do with the new update either. I have no cancelations, so that also doesn't affect me. I'm talking about the fairness of the buyer review system. You are out of line.