Minimum Requirements on Review Copies for both sides.

Hi this is a suggestion only as I feel this could help both parties, generate more sales and help buyers make informed decisions:

For guest posts/niche edits:

There should be a minimum dr of 20+ and minimum traffic of 1000 verifiable by ahrefs.

Da is worthless and if a site doesn’t have traffic then it’s pbn so a very helpful change.

Blogger Outreach:

Here seller should state will he be specifically reaching out fresh or from a maintained list will be targeting it. Reason if it’s prior it’s more like he studies the url, sees competition and tries to get similar links, latter he’s choosing a link which he feels is most relevant and when people see blogger outreach they feel it’s the former at times.

Not to use same site for review copies:

These kind of sites are harmful irrespective of their metrics, so seller should ensure he will be using different sites so a more broader review of his inventory can be done.

For content:

Minimum 700 - 1000+ words should be given to understand quality, seller gets more constructive reviews, buyers understand well if that’s the seller they want.

Scrap Copyscape and make Quetext or 1text mandatory: i felt copyscape was doing decent job, but lately realising free tools are doing a better job, and since so much content is ordered here this change will help all parties, more original content, more happy buyers win win.

SMM panels:

They should only give non droppable review copies, because too many complaints of it not working this way review copy takers can test their claims and put more detailed reviews.

For buyers:

Make it mandatory for them to leave a review within 48 hours of receiving the report, it’s sad to see so many sellers chasing review takers for the review.

This is a rough draft of rules needed, it’s not perfect I know but leaving it here in case mods feel some can be used.

Yes that's right
I'm with you on this

This does sound promising, but there are a lot of moving parts. And with a ton of work already on the moderators shoulders, this isn't looking very practical.

I mean, can't that be just basic understanding for everyone to apply, and do we really need a system to be in place for that?

Just my 2 cents

Mostly agree but DR is almost as useless as DA. I couldn't care less, I just want sites from real ppl who care about their own page. I don't want to see inflated links and traffic from 1 max 2 KWs. I think we should stop idolizing stats like DR or DA or TF or CF or PR (which apparently still exist on some freelancing gigs lol....)

Mr Positive said:

They should only give non droppable review copies, because too many complaints of it not working this way review copy takers can test their claims and put more detailed reviews.

Click to expand...

Has this happened or is this a hypothetical situation? If someone’s offering views that drop after x days, you should post a follow up review reflecting this.

Yes said:

Has this happened or is this a hypothetical situation? If someone’s offering views that drop after x days, you should post a follow up review reflecting this.

Click to expand...

I rarely use SMM panel tried one review copy it worked for Twitter, but see around SMM panels have the highest complaints so added it.

RealDaddy said:

This does sound promising, but there are a lot of moving parts. And with a ton of work already on the moderators shoulders, this isn't looking very practical.

I mean, can't that be just basic understanding for everyone to apply, and do we really need a system to be in place for that?

Just my 2 cents

Click to expand...

It kinda does but in the long run it makes the market place even better but as I said just suggestions from my time here.

Hi this is an interesting point.

We review each marketplace thread to ensure they can deliver as advertised.

If you want something specific then it’s best to use the forum functionality and post in the marketplace thread to see if the seller can deliver as per your request.



Reducing choice by limiting options won’t help. If you would like something specific as you suggest above then by all means ask for it but we don’t believe limiting choice is the correct option here.

If a seller doesn’t deliver as advertised then that’s a different issue and that what we have the shit list for but we’d like to think you can sort it out between buyer and seller before escalating.

taking this to review copies. When offering a review copy and a criteria of acceptance is that a public review is placed on BHW then this can also be used from existing functionality. Before giving the review copy out as a seller ask the reviewer to provide you with review posts of other services that they have made before. As a buyer review what you’re given, how does it compare to what’s advertised. Etc etc.

TLDR - we don’t put limitations on sales threads and by virtue of that there are no limitations on review copies. If a seller is advertising DA 10 and I want DA 30 then I don’t buy. Or even I believe DA isn’t a relevant metric for me I’ll buy from another seller who’s products fit more with my needs. We look to provide as many options with as much data available as possible and don’t forget if it’s not right for you post publicly in the sellers thread to see if they can deliver to your requirements. If they can’t then move onto the next seller who has a product listed that meets your specific requirements.

Forcing people to comply with an arbitrary set of rules reduces choice and value this isn’t something that we want to do on BHW. We want to make sure that all users have choice and are free to pick whichever service they want based on their requirements with enough data to justify their choices. We’re not just a marketplace we’re an engaged and dynamic forum first and fairly unique in that regard.

I hope that makes our position clear. I’ll be leaving this thread open for a few days to make sure I’ve understood the issue here.

Mr Positive said:

I rarely use SMM panel tried one review copy it worked for Twitter, but see around SMM panels have the highest complaints so added it.



It kinda does but in the long run it makes the market place even better but as I said just suggestions from my time here.

Click to expand...

There should be a replacement guarantee minimum period.

I laugh when I see people charging crazy high money for links such as Wikipedia and for $95 offer a 60 days replacement promise. Especially when you can get these for $10 elsewhere with a 30 day replacement

I raised the Quetext issue before as a suggestion for content.

It would be nice to see the resellers removed though, as they're not offering any value to what they're reselling. 5 or 6 were removed around 18 months ago after admitting they were reselling and the seller admitted the same, but they were unbanned and now active (re)selling.

Diamond Damien said:

Hi this is an interesting point.

We review each marketplace thread to ensure they can deliver as advertised.

If you want something specific then it’s best to use the forum functionality and post in the marketplace thread to see if the seller can deliver as per your request.



Reducing choice by limiting options won’t help. If you would like something specific as you suggest above then by all means ask for it but we don’t believe limiting choice is the correct option here.

If a seller doesn’t deliver as advertised then that’s a different issue and that what we have the shit list for but we’d like to think you can sort it out between buyer and seller before escalating.

taking this to review copies. When offering a review copy and a criteria of acceptance is that a public review is placed on BHW then this can also be used from existing functionality. Before giving the review copy out as a seller ask the reviewer to provide you with review posts of other services that they have made before. As a buyer review what you’re given, how does it compare to what’s advertised. Etc etc.

Click to expand...

Yea just some suggestions on my mind, it’s not easy yes but just thought to share In case in long run one or two could be implemented.

MisterF said:

There should be a replacement guarantee minimum period.

I laugh when I see people charging crazy high money for links such as Wikipedia and for $95 offer a 60 days replacement promise. Especially when you can get these for $10 elsewhere with a 30 day replacement

I raised the Quetext issue before as a suggestion for content.

It would be nice to see the resellers removed though, as they're not offering any value to what they're reselling. 5 or 6 were removed around 18 months ago after admitting they were reselling and the seller admitted the same, but they were unbanned and now active (re)selling.

Click to expand...

Yes I remember I wanted to use your word crappyscape but then I thought you would report it for plagrism, hopefully sellers will switch to quetext on their own.

Mr Positive said:

Yea just some suggestions on my mind, it’s not easy yes but just thought to share In case in long run one or two could be implemented.



Yes I remember I wanted to use your word crappyscape but then I thought you would report it for plagrism, hopefully sellers will switch to quetext on their own.

Click to expand...

Sadly, most sellers won't because it means they can pass crap off as unique. The same with sellers who use DA metrics for SEO. It's the newbies who buy on price who don't realise the garbage they're buying.

MisterF said:

There should be a replacement guarantee minimum period.

I laugh when I see people charging crazy high money for links such as Wikipedia and for $95 offer a 60 days replacement promise. Especially when you can get these for $10 elsewhere with a 30 day replacement

I raised the Quetext issue before as a suggestion for content.

It would be nice to see the resellers removed though, as they're not offering any value to what they're reselling. 5 or 6 were removed around 18 months ago after admitting they were reselling and the seller admitted the same, but they were unbanned and now active (re)selling.

Click to expand...

If that’s something that you desire as a buyer ie a “replacement guarantee” then you should look for a seller that offers what you want, cheapest isn’t always the most effective, but sometimes it does what you need for your desired outcome. We don’t all want the same thing, or think in the same way, the serps aren’t an open book so there is value in every service.

The basic rule on resellers is no reselling unless you’re adding value, be that better customer support through to cheaper prices. BUT you must control the account, so if you get a rush of orders asking for refunds (for example) you can handle this. We don’t just ban resellers as that wouldn’t make any sense.

MisterF said:

There should be a replacement guarantee minimum period.

I laugh when I see people charging crazy high money for links such as Wikipedia and for $95 offer a 60 days replacement promise. Especially when you can get these for $10 elsewhere with a 30 day replacement

I raised the Quetext issue before as a suggestion for content.

It would be nice to see the resellers removed though, as they're not offering any value to what they're reselling. 5 or 6 were removed around 18 months ago after admitting they were reselling and the seller admitted the same, but they were unbanned and now active (re)selling.

Click to expand...

That means they are reselling links on the forum wtf

Ive said this before but I think having an official group to handle reviews is more efficient than allowing to be a 'free market'.

99% of the people writing reviews write about 20 words and they consider it to be a review of the service. Have to actual dig down to see a proper review.

Having an official group committed to do proper extensive reviews and going through each point and actually being honest and explaining any issues & flaws they found qould be far more valuable for the whole forum than the current free market system.

spectrejoe said:

Ive said this before but I think having an official group to handle reviews is more efficient than allowing to be a 'free market'.

99% of the people writing reviews write about 20 words and they consider it to be a review of the service. Have to actual dig down to see a proper review.

Having an official group committed to do proper extensive reviews and going through each point and actually being honest and explaining any issues & flaws they found qould be far more valuable for the whole forum than the current free market system.

Click to expand...

That would put 70% of sellers out of business though.

paraztos said:

That would put 70% of sellers out of business though.

Click to expand...

As it should. I know that people paying for threads is the forums main source of income but a lot of them leave a lot to be desired.

Can remember hundreds of pbns that were already penalized upon delivery.
Can remember over optimized articles being charged extremely high prices, being over optimized would do more harm than good

You can make the rules but hard to apply practically. Like the rule of person getting review to leave review after 48 hours. What if he does not leave a review? What will be done ? He cannot be banned for this.

seomaster5 said:

You can make the rules but hard to apply practically. Like the rule of person getting review to leave review after 48 hours. What if he does not leave a review? What will be done ? He cannot be banned for this.

Click to expand...

Are you sure?
He could be shitlisted or even could be banned.
They are getting paid copies of a product and if they're not leaving a feedback either in private or public, then it could be construed as theft.

You would be surprised how many people have said to me over the years they gave review copies out and never had feedback.

MisterF said:

Are you sure?
He could be shitlisted or even could be banned.
They are getting paid copies of a product and if they're not leaving a feedback either in private or public, then it could be construed as theft.

You would be surprised how many people have said to me over the years they gave review copies out and never had feedback.

Click to expand...

It is very common. Someone can have genuine reason also for being late to post review in 48 hours. If all such members are banned, forum will loose some good members also.

spectrejoe said:

Ive said this before but I think having an official group to handle reviews is more efficient than allowing to be a 'free market'.

99% of the people writing reviews write about 20 words and they consider it to be a review of the service. Have to actual dig down to see a proper review.

Having an official group committed to do proper extensive reviews and going through each point and actually being honest and explaining any issues & flaws they found qould be far more valuable for the whole forum than the current free market system.

Click to expand...

Even if that's done, there will still be more 20 words reviews than official detailed ones and will also limit the reviews to one point of view (the same reviewer/group).

Also you can never guarantee that the service would be of the same quality as the review copies, neither there's a way to determine the honesty of the reviewer..

A rule regarding any review of given services to contain enough details with active/random moderation and checkups is the only way I can see to stop the shitty service providers, useless reviews and dishonest ones, still it's a hard task and would be a big load on the moderators who already have enough shit to handle.

Mohammed Saleh said:

Even if that's done, there will still be more 20 words reviews than official detailed ones and will also limit the reviews to one point of view (the same reviewer/group).

Also you can never guarantee that the service would be of the same quality as the review copies, neither there's a way to determine the honesty of the reviewer..

A rule regarding any review of given services to contain enough details with active/random moderation and checkups is the only way I can see to stop the shitty service providers, useless reviews and dishonest ones, still it's a hard task and would be a big load on the moderators who already have enough shit to handle.

Click to expand...

That is a lot of additional work for moderators. And also let us say if 50% of reviews are checked , even then rest 50% have the possibility to be fake.