Reviews, GIGscores & Appeals
Honest experiences
Reviews should reflect real work and relevant firsthand experiences. Do not fabricate work, buy favorable ratings, coordinate retaliation, impersonate reviewers or offer incentives conditioned on a positive or negative review. Paying for access, advertising or verification does not buy a better score.
Fair moderation
Disagreement or a low score alone is not a reason to remove a review. Reports alone must not lower a score. Review content may require moderation for fraud, threats, exposed private information or irrelevant abuse. Preserve honest criticism and apply consistent criteria.
How to dispute
Signed-in beta users can open a support case with the review or GIG identifier, the specific error and supporting facts. Avoid sending unrelated private material. Do not contact or threaten another user to force a change. A dedicated review-linked form and post-deletion route remain to be implemented.
Review and appeal
The proposed process records the original review, the challenge, relevant evidence, reviewer decision and any correction. Authorized staff should assess both sides without exposing private evidence unnecessarily. Users should receive a reason and an appeal route. Existing support cases allow appeals of resolved outcomes; automatic score correction is not yet connected.
Transparency
Publish scoring criteria, eligibility and aggregation rules before final launch. No new scoring weights or response-time penalties are set by this draft. Retention of deleted-user reputation follows the separate retention policy, subject to corrections and verified matching.