The rating is based on the feedback from visitors of the site from personal experience of interacting with participating companies.
Our mission is to help:
- visitors - in choosing an exchange or a company, a product, a service,
- clients - in solving problems regarding interaction with exchanges and companies,
- to exchanges and companies - in changing for the better.
- Respect. We treat our users and partners with respect.
- Fairness. Our rating rules are the same for all users and partners.
- Transparency. All feedback and the calculation formula are publicly available on the website.
- Collaboration. We help users and partners solve problems together.
- Trust. Users and partners trust us with important information, and we value that.
Rules for the People's
Review - an appeal with a description of personal experience of servicing* at the exchange/company, posted in the rating. Feedback reflects the author's opinion, emotional impression, conclusions based on the results of using the product and/or communicating with the exchange or company staff.
We ask that you adhere to the following rules when posting a review:
1.1 The feedback should contain a detailed description of the situation, the date and the time of the events described, as well as the channels of interaction with the exchange/company.
1.2 In reviewing the feedback, the Administration may request additional information, such as supporting documents/photos/screenshots.
1.3 Feedback must be submitted by the user on their own behalf and must describe the situation they were involved in or witnessed.
1.4 The review must be written in English.
1.5 The length of the text of the review - from 150 to 3,600 characters with spaces.
1.6 The text of the review must not contain obscene language, insults, personal data of persons who have not given their consent.
Please note the following points:
1.8 The administration reserves the right to edit the title and text of the review without distorting the meaning intended by the author.
1.9. Administration is not responsible for personal data posted by the user in the public domain.
1.10. The Administration does not provide consulting services.
1.11. Posting a review on the site does not entail an obligation for the Administration to participate in judicial disputes.
1.12. Administration reserves the right to make changes to these Rules without personal notice to users and rating participants.
When posting a review, the user has the opportunity to rate the work of the exchange/company on a five-point scale, where 1 is - bad, and 5 is - excellent, or leave a review without rating. Please note that this does not assess the performance of the exchange/company in general, but how the exchange/company behaved in the described situation.
Please consider the following points when assigning a grade:
2.1 The evaluation must be consistent with the content of the review.
2.2 Only one review is accepted and one rate is counted.
3. PROCESSING FEEDBACK AND SCORING
3.1 Rating is added to the rating only after the review is checked by the Administration.
3.2 Feedback is processed in the order it is received. The administration reserves the right to process reviews in different order.
3.3 The maximum period of the appeal acceptance for the review by the Administration is 30 days from the date of posting the review. The Administration reserves the right to adjust the timing of review processing, taking into account the saturation of the flow of incoming applications.
3.4 Responses of users to requests of the Administration, as well as clarifying comments of the authors of reviews are processed in the order of receipt.
3.5 If neither party can confirm or deny the events described in the review, the Administration has the right to decide in favor of the author of the review as the fragile party of the contract.
3.6 The official response of the exchange/company on the review, posted in the appropriate section on the website, must contain a detailed explanation of the situation and stay applicable.
3.7. THE GRADE MAY BE WITHDRAWN BY THE ADMINISTRATION
(the review is displayed on the site with the status "rejected"), if:
3.7.1. the review addresses the following issues:
a) A general question on the activities of the exchange/company,
b) a proposal to improve service of the exchange/company;
3.7.2. the format of the review does not correspond to the concept of the People's Rating and touches upon:
a) Actions and decisions of the financial monitoring service/security service of the exchange,
b) alleged fraudulent actions of third parties;
3.7.3. neither party can confirm or deny the events described in the withdrawal. The paragraph applies in the following cases:
a) The review was written by a third party who was not present at the situation described in the review and does not have comprehensive information about it;
b) the situation described in the review occurred as a result of a failure that was not confirmed during the technical check;
c) the situation described in the review is the result of a force majeure;
3.7.4. the evaluation does not correspond to the content of the review;
3.7.5. more than 300 days have passed from the date of the events that prompted the review at the time of its publication;
3.7.6. review is written by an active employee of the exchange/company, provided that this fact is confirmed by the author/exchange/company. If the portal administration independently identifies the author's affiliation, Rule 3.8.7 is applied.
3.8. THE SCORE IS NOT APPROVED
(the review is displayed on the site with a status of "not credited"), if:
3.8.1. the user did not provide any contact information;
3.8.2. the contact information provided by the user is incorrect or irrelevant and cannot be used for verification;
3.8.3. the author has not provided additional information at the request of the Administration or a representative of the exchange/company within a week of the request;
3.8.4. the unreliability of the events described in the recall is confirmed; 3.8.5. falsification of supporting documents on the review was revealed;
3.8.6. the author left reviews about the same exchange or company under different user names;
3.8.7. the author is suspected of being affiliated with the exchange/company about whose work the review was left;
3.8.8. the review is posted by a third party and is found contrary to paragraph 1.3 of these Rules;
3.8.9. the review with a negative evaluation describes a situation in which the level of service*** corresponds to the stated conditions****;
3.8.10. the description of the situation does not contain specifics sufficient to determine the compliance or non-compliance of the level of service*** with the stated conditions****;
3.8.11. the review contains an advertising message;
3.8.12. The situation described in the review concerns the internal policy of the Exchange;
3.8.13. Feedback is left by a market professional or an exchange/company partner;
3.9. THE EVALUATION IS AMENDED BY THE ADMIN
3.9.1 If a review posted with a score of 5 describes not only a positive experience with the exchange, but also problems that arose in the process, the Administration reserves the right to lower the score.
3.9.2 If the situation described in the unevaluated review develops further, the Administration may issue a negative or positive evaluation of the review at the request of the author. Further consideration of the review and credit of the evaluation takes place in accordance with these Rules.
3.9.3 The user can put a positive ranking on the uncredited review or on the review with the Administration withdrawal, if the exchange / company met the client and helped to solve the problem described.
To amend the rating result, the author should contact the administrator in the comments of the review or by e-mail email@example.com from the mailbox specified in the user's profile.
3.10. THE RESPONSE IS REMOVED if:
3.10.1. the format of the review does not correspond to the concept with the People's Rating and happens to be:
a) an Evaluation of the exchange/company as an employer,
b) an the author's commentary on the news related to the stock exchange/company,
c) a general discourse on a political or social topic;
3.10.2. the content of the review is contrary to these Rules and applicable law. 3.11.
If the exchange/company solves the problem on the review with a negative score (from 1 to 3), the user has the opportunity to report this to the site Administration. This will have a positive effect on the company's rating.
3.11.1 Problem solving is counted by the Administration only on the basis of feedback from the author of the feedback.
3.11.2 Problem solving cannot be scored on unscored or unrated feedback.
4. INTERACTION WITH COMPANIES - PARTICIPANTS OF THE RATING
4.1 If the participant company disagrees with the decision taken by the Administration on the review, within 30 calendar days from the date of the decision the participant can send to firstname.lastname@example.org
an appeal in the following format:
- review link;
- paragraph of this Policy under which, in the opinion of the company, the decision on the review is subject to review;
- company comments, facts and evidence supporting its position.
4.2 The administration does not provide participating companies with information about the
internal procedures of processing the feedback received about other companies.
4.3 Requests from participating companies are processed in the order of receipt.
4.4 . For each appeal from a participating company, the Administration provides a response with explanations. The Administration reserves the right not to support further correspondence on the application.
- actions aimed at providing the services providing the services by the exchange/company.
- the sequence of events that served as the basis for writing the review. Circumstances that are a direct consequence of the events described in the review are not considered a new situation.
*** Level of service
- compliance/non-compliance of the rendered services with the declared conditions and the legislation. In the latter case, non-compliance must be recognized in court.
**** Declared conditions
- a set of documented circumstances relevant at the time of conclusion and validity of the contract between the Exchange and the client. For example, tariffs and terms of service, internal regulations of the Exchange in the state of force at the time of provision of the service, etc.
False review - a review that satisfies one or more of the following paragraphs of the People's Rating Rules: 3.8.4., 3.8.5., 3.8.6., 3.8.7.