Talk:Fiverr/Archive 1

Date

"Launched April 2011" "The website was launched on February 2010"

Which one is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherouvim (talk • contribs) 10:56, 29 July 2011‎

Not encyclopedic

This article reads like a brochure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.99.60.148 (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

Currently, Fiverr lists more than 1.3 million services on the site that range between $5 and $500.

Gig Extras which enable sellers to add-on services to their gig at an additional cost (up to $100).

So is the maximum $100 or $500? -79.179.217.246 (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Copy cat?

Hey any point of view on the copycat website? Called FFiver.com? It's double F instead of double R. --172.251.204.186 (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Offering to Create Paid Wikipedia Articles

Hi am not getting how this website can allow people to create Wikipedia page when this is The Free Encyclopedia and no one can charge to create an Article. I have seen many ads on this website offering Wikipedia Articles. To check it yourself please visit fiverr.com and type Wikipedia in the search bar on the top you'll see many results. Its also seems that people creating Wikipedia article from so long throw this Website.

Even some of the creator claims they have the administration on Wikipedia to approve the article. We should stop all this. Regards Gurvinder | Talk 05:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately this problem is seen outside of Wikipedia too. For example people offer paid services for social media likes, and also for reviews on the web safety website WOT/mywot.com; it is so bad on WOT that there is a dedicated forum thread to catching this as it is a violation of their Terms of Service; the thread is at https://www.mywot.com/en/forum/45396-fiverr-com-site-owners-other-wot-members-buying-selling-reviews. Would this be notable in the Criticism section? BFeely (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Creating a paid article is not against the rules if the proper policy is followed, see Wikipedia:PAID. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Seller bias

It seems that Fiverr sellers can game the rating system. If the seller provides a product that is rated poorly, the seller can cancel the order and refund the price of purchase, thus removing the bad review. This would seem to provide more influence for the seller and more control on his/her rating destiny. Is this worthy of some sort of entry edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.168.232.52 (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If a buyer asks for and receives a refund, the buyer is not allowed to leave a review or rating. I would assume all unsatisfied buyers would ask for a refund. Fiverr does not allow cash refunds and only provides website credits. 2601:647:C801:4023:C138:8526:75A6:C00 (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Fiverr Protects Sellers Not Buyers

It is strange to me to see a company that will defend its sellers beyond reproach rather than the buyer if there is good reason. But from experience despite any reason whatsoever being 100% valid and verifiable, Fiverr supports the seller or if this is not the case, then does not want to bother with the buyer. I find this completely short sighted and strange indeed. Lodge a complaint with Fiverr and you will see instantly what I mean. The attitude toward the buyer is terrible.

Further, this allows the seller to make any kind of far fetched statement in selling that they could never live up to and then perform little or nothing and be protected.

I think some body, organization, board or government needs to look into this. Imagine that Fiverr overselling services coming from foreign lands, taking money from buyers and not protecting them. And causing local sellers a loss and buyers.

There needs to be an over-body regulatory body for this kind of business. Right now I think it is unregulated and running without concern of rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.182.226 (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Biased sources

Some of the sources cited in the article don't seem to be neutral. The sources are often blogs to which the post has been submitted by Fiverr itself.

I have found:

• reference 2 https://techcrunch.com/2012/05/03/task-based-marketplace-fiverr-raises-15m-from-accel-and-bessemer/ appears to be based on a press release by Fiverr.
• reference 3 from http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/05/03/fiverr-helps-get-things-done-for-as-little-as-5-raises-15m-from-accel-and-bessemer/ appears to be based on that same press release.
• reference 5 from https://www.wired.com/insights/2013/09/the-gig-economy-the-force-that-could-save-the-american-worker/ was written by the CEO of Fiverr
• reference 13 from http://thenextweb.com/apps/2015/11/12/fiverr-will-soon-let-you-set-any-price-for-your-services/ seems to have been submitted by Fiverr to that blog.
• reference 24 from http://www.blogging-tools.com/best-fiverr-gigs/ seems to have been submitted by Fiverr to that blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swierdo (talk • contribs) 08:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Fiverr appears to be a for-profit spam distribution web presence as well.

I receive daily emails from 'e.fiverr.com on behalf of e.qvcemail.com', as well as multiple other spam emails with headers invariably beginning 'e.fiverr.com on behalf of <spam source>'. Clicking on the provided Unsubscribe link brings the user to a fairly sparce web page with a single input field and a statement that the user should enter their email address to be unsubscribed. Doing so (which is not recommended) has no apparent effect on the sending of further spam emails from the e.fiverr.com domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.81.138.65 (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)