If you look closely, you will find dozens of fabricated reviews across many plugins, created by their own authors through fake accounts. You will also find dozens of installations coming from test apps or apps created specifically to inflate installation counts.
You will likely also find reviews that severely damage a plugin’s visibility simply because the user who installed it did not bother to read the documentation or understand how it works. As soon as they encountered the first bit of “complexity” during setup or use, they became frustrated and left a negative review.
I would also not be surprised if some of the same fake accounts used to promote plugins with fabricated positive reviews were being used to leave negative reviews on competing plugins.
We have already seen free plugins converted into paid products in the past. Now, we are seeing a case involving a free plugin, possibly donated or transferred, being transformed into an entirely different product.
In summary, the current system creates opportunities for fabricated reviews, installation counts inflated through test apps, criticism from users who have not properly used the plugin, and the improper inheritance of a product’s reputation after significant changes in purpose, price, or ownership.
Several measures could help reduce these problems:
1. Review the Marketplace policies
Significant changes in a plugin’s purpose or ownership should not automatically inherit the installation count and reputation of the previous product. And also, deliberate manipulation should also result in clear and serious consequences, potentially including permanent removal from the plugin ecosystem.
2. Make ratings more representative of the plugin’s current state
Plugin ratings should distinguish between historical reviews, recent reviews, and reviews of the current version. This would reduce the impact of older issues that have already been fixed without erasing the product’s history.
For example:
4.6 for the current version (18 reviews)
4.3 over the last 12 months (41 reviews)
4.1 since release (126 reviews)
3. Connect reviews to verified usage
Instead of allowing users to leave reviews immediately after installation, Bubble could consider the actual usage period and activity associated with the plugin, clearly identifying reviews from verified users. This verification should consider how long the plugin has been installed. A minimum usage period of 1-3 months, followed by a reminder to leave a review, could help improve review quality.
4. Send periodic feedback requests
Users who have been using a plugin for a certain period could receive a invitation to review it or update an older review.
5. Provide a right to dispute reviews
Plugin authors should be able to request a review when there are indications of fabricated feedback, conflicts of interest, improper usage, or no evidence of actual use. Just as some developers may create fake accounts and apps to leave positive reviews on their own plugins and inflate installation numbers, they may also use fake accounts to damage the reputation of competing plugins.
There are also cases in which users do not take the time to read the documentation and leave negative reviews for problems caused by their own misunderstanding or incorrect configuration.
6. Create a clear reporting system
Users and plugin developers should be able to report suspicious reviews, plugins, or Marketplace activity that appears to violate Bubble’s policies. Reports could cover issues such as fabricated reviews, manipulated installation counts, misleading descriptions, unauthorized changes in a plugin’s purpose, intellectual property violations, abandoned plugins, malicious behavior, etc.
The reporting process should include clear categories, the option to submit supporting evidence, and a way to track whether the report has been received and reviewed.
7. Require annual plugin maintenance confirmation
At least once a year, plugin authors should be required to confirm that their plugins are still actively maintained. This would not necessarily require releasing a new version or adding new features. Instead, authors could complete a periodic review similar to the previous requirement to disclose whether a plugin collects user data.
During this annual confirmation, the author could be required to verify that:
- the plugin is still supported;
- its description and documentation remain accurate;
- its data collection is up to date;
- it remains compatible with the current Bubble environment;
- the listed support and contact channels are still active.
Plugins that are not reviewed or confirmed within the required period should be marked as potentially abandoned and temporarily hidden from Marketplace search results until the author completes the process. And maybe also be flagged as “unmaintained” in the plugin section for those apps using it.
This would reduce the risk of users becoming dependent on plugins that no longer receive support, security fixes, compatibility updates, or responses from their authors.
8. Use more reliable metrics than total installations
In addition to accumulated installations, the Marketplace could display active users, retention, apps running in production, recent uninstallations, and unique customers. Installations in apps owned by the plugin author or in test environments should not carry the same weight as installations in real, independently owned production apps.
It would also be important to display a public history of changes in the plugin’s name, ownership, purpose, price, and major versions.
The problem is not only the existence of abusive practices. It is also the lack of mechanisms capable of distinguishing genuine adoption and legitimate reputation from manipulation. A healthy Marketplace must protect both users and developers who take their work seriously.
