Marketplace rules for unrealistic claims

I see new and old ORM services popping up with unrealistic claims that promise 100% non-drop reviews on different platforms.

This is something that no service provider could ever guarantee.

It doesn't only happen in HAF threads but with actual approved BSTs.

Just like nobody could guarantee the #1 spot in Google via selling links, they can't guarantee that the reviews won't drop at some point.

So this should be applied to HAF and Marketplace threads both, as a matter of fact, the marketplace rules clearly state this is not allowed but these threads still somehow get approved:

Don't post fraudulent claims or anything that can't be verified.

• Claims need to be realistic and accurate; "best", "safe", "100%", "#1", "approved by Google", "Panda/Penguin safe", etc cannot be verified.

100% agree with that, I wanted to suggest it myself.
I would also suggest to apply the same standard to signatures that promote BSTs

Yeah, or atleast they should be able to provide proof for the claims they make, during the review process.

e.g.: non drop reviews? Provide 1000 reviews to the mod who is testing, and atleast 99.99% of them shouldn’t drop.

If more reviews drop even after the bst gets live, close it.

INCC said:

as a matter of fact, the marketplace rules clearly state this is not allowed but these threads still somehow get approved:

Click to expand...

Zwielicht said:

2.1: '100%' Claims

You cannot guarantee "100%" of metrics such as safety or satisfaction as these are not possible to guarantee.

Click to expand...

That's correct! In the Content Standards, we clearly mention that it's not allowed in the MP.

It comes to show that the Marketplace is not handled by AI or bots, as some people think, but actual people that are not perfect. We all make mistakes. It's inevitable with humans.

Feel free to Contact Support with links that you've seen that claim and we'll look into it. As for HAF/WTB rules and being added there, I'll raise this in a meeting with the team and update this thread. Thank you for the suggestion.

roydan said:

I would also suggest to apply the same standard to signatures that promote BSTs

Click to expand...

This is already in place. It's under TOS - Section 5:

Your banner should not contain claims which are false, misleading, non-quantifiable or passing off such as "Position 1 guarantee" or “Approved by Google” in circumstances when they have not been so approved by Google or any other third party.

Click to expand...

Gogol said:

e.g.: non drop reviews? Provide 1000 reviews to the mod who is testing, and atleast 99.99% of them shouldn’t drop.

If more reviews drop even after the bst gets live, close it.

Click to expand...

That's quite unrealistic, as it's really time consuming and expensive for sellers Better stick to non "100%" claims

UPDATE: @INCC As mentioned yesterday, I did bring up the HAF/WTB part of this suggestion in our team's meeting. The team agreed that it is a good idea, however, we have plenty more important tasks on our agenda right now. The idea evolves around active monitoring and Moderation of HAF/WTB (meaning, each thread) and we currently cannot do that as actively as we wish we could as it's very time consuming (in order to make MP rules are followed by sellers in those sections if we were to impose that). For now, we'll leave this as it is but we might revisit this idea in the future, when we have more Moderators to handle that kind of a task on a daily basis.

Once again, thank you for your suggestion.

Asked - Answered - Closed.