Guru.com, the world's largest online marketplace for freelance talent, launched a proprietary Feedback Management methodology to improve the value of subjective comments or rankings on its site. For the first time in any online marketplace, subjective feedback will be validated against actual performance metrics to provide greater assurances of quality while limiting misuse.A common Web convention, feedback is traditionally posted for public review with minimal intervention or modification. The practice typically entails the submission of remarks or rankings by one party in a transaction to capture, share, and guide public opinion about the other party.
Feedback Management preserves the natural order and use of feedback as a decision-making tool while neutralizing its tendencies to illogically bias choice or to inhibit honesty. Users are invited to block some unwarranted feedback but only in proportion to their prior, proven success. Negative feedback is not fully suppressed; rather its exposure is made more reliably predictive. Objective performance metrics determine a variable blocking rate, or 'Blocking Power,' which is calculated for each user in real-time. A seven day review-and-approval period is allowed for assessment of individual feedback records prior to public disclosure.
"Current feedback standards create an assumption of validity predicated on transparency," explained Inder Guglani, CEO and Founder of Guru.com. "But as incomplete information and fear of retaliation are introduced into the feedback process, transparency requires objective verification."
Why Manage Feedback?
Feedback Management addresses well-known shortcomings of the traditional feedback model, such as those involved in the Feedback Policy adjustments announced by eBay last May. Feedback can be inaccurate and misleading in cases where transaction details are unavailable, retaliation is feared, or there is a general disagreement between two parties. As business relationships break down, the parties involved may become prone to questionable motivations, poor judgment, and unethical or predatory behavior, such as blackmail or libel. Global markets face these concerns more often as differences in language, culture, and work style may directly contribute to failed transactions.
