Community Guidelines
What good participation looks like, what gets a submission rejected, and what happens when someone games the system. These guidelines form part of the Terms of Service.
Last updated: 5 August 2026
Why this page exists
Clients pay for research they can act on. When submissions are rushed or faked, the findings are worthless, clients commission fewer studies, and there is less work for everyone. Enforcing this is not about being strict — it is about protecting the pay of members who do the work properly.
What we expect
- Complete the task as described before answering questions about it.
- Answer in your own words, in the language the study asks for.
- Be specific: "the confirm button did nothing on my phone" beats "it was bad".
- Say when something worked well, and say when it did not. Both are useful.
- Keep profile details accurate, and update them when they change.
- Keep what you see in a study confidential — much of it is unreleased.
What counts as a low-quality submission
- One or two words where a description was asked for.
- Answers that contradict each other, or contradict the recorded session.
- Generic praise that could have been written without opening the product.
- Text pasted from a review site, another member, or a language model, presented as your own experience.
- Finishing a fifteen-minute task in ninety seconds.
A low-quality submission is rejected and not paid. It is not, on its own, treated as fraud — everyone has an off day, and the first response is feedback rather than punishment.
What counts as fraud
- Holding more than one account, or opening one in someone else's name.
- Misstating your age, country, languages or devices to qualify for studies.
- Using a VPN, proxy or emulator to appear to be somewhere you are not.
- Automating any part of a study with scripts or bots.
- Sharing account access, or selling an account.
- Coordinating answers with other members.
- Publishing confidential client material, including screenshots of unreleased products.
How review works
Submissions are checked by a mix of automated signals and human review. Automated signals flag things worth a closer look — impossible completion times, repeated text, device fingerprints shared across accounts — but no account is closed on an automated signal alone. A person makes the decision, and you are told what it was based on.
Consequences
| Step | When it applies | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Feedback | First low-quality submission | Submission rejected and unpaid; explanation sent. Nothing else changes. |
| 2. Warning | A repeated pattern of low-quality work | Formal warning; matching may be reduced while quality is monitored. |
| 3. Points withheld | Submissions found to be falsified | Points from the affected submissions are reversed. |
| 4. Suspension | Serious or repeated breach under investigation | Account paused, payouts held until the review closes. |
| 5. Closure | Confirmed fraud | Account closed permanently; associated points forfeited. |
Appealing a decision
Reply to the message you received, or write to support@nemodits.net from the email address on your account, within 30 days. Explain what you think we got wrong and include anything supporting it. Appeals are reviewed by someone who was not involved in the original decision, and we aim to answer within five working days. If we were wrong, points are released and any restriction is lifted.
Reporting a problem
If a study asks for something it should not — payment, your password, real card details, or anything that feels unsafe — stop and tell us at support@nemodits.net. Reporting a study never counts against you.