Not getting a review-denied response, leaves people unaware...

Not getting a review-denied response, leaves people unaware that they need to give their review another go,..

... and that's even if expecting (unreasonably) that they will be necessarily able to work out what they did wrong.

Having to keep copies yourself, should not be necessary, if IMDB just kept your review in a kind of kept-suspended backup, which you would then get a email or pop-up or something, on like , one of those little alarm-bell icons ... like there is here in the community pages... see?  easy.

And then you open the internal message, see which review got denied,

and at least you would KNOW.

I've suggested before, that pretending as though we will all be able to work out WHAT is wrong with our reviews, is itself, unreasonable, and yeah, pretending, which is true ... not a single person in IMDB can say they somehow KNOW that all reviewers will be able to,..

... and-so how is leaving them to then potentially continually attempt to do it themselves,.. not everyone has a friend or co-worker or something, who's prepared to give it a proof-read ... FACILITATING them knowing how to make their reviews acceptable?

But anyway ... in this case ... this suggestion im making now,.. is only to simply FIND OUT ... that one has been rejected.

Going over the rules and editing my own, would not be too much for me,

but i DO simply need to know when one has been rejected.

--------

Leaving it this way , leaves it prone to biased values or other improper things being used in the checking of reviews ... there is no oversight, yet room for misinterpretation.  I've recently done one on Attack on Titan, referencing someone else's review, where i thought they attributed too much intent on the part of it's creators to as he put it advocate? (sic) encourage? (sic) something ... dictatorships and  rule-by-power,.. whereas i was simply saying that i thought they have taken things FROM real-life, yes, which is potentially insensitive ... but only if HOW it is used, is not suited to the fantasy setting ... as in ... if a  IMITATION of something in a setting, actually ADDS to the plot and oppressiveness of the setting, when that's what plot-ENVIRONMENT you've got in your script, and is a part of the novel, or in this case manga ...

... then there is not anything as he put "anti-semitic"  about it ... the entire series has literally ZERO references to the real world, including any ethic identities or religions by-name ... Semites ... no ...  Judaism/jews , nor Christianity/Christians ... no ...  I was literally simply saying that although the creators have used something that an oppressive gov / the worst we've ever had, etc... USED ... that they are trying to portray the protagonist / antagonist in the STORY of their setting ... as the monster, and not as he put it "Anti-Semitic".

Insensitivity would be more correct ... something less similar on their part, could've been less similar, but since there were no REFERENCES ... this other reviewer was taking that too far ... and that ;

you can fail to see what intended contrast was intended by the sci-fi ... or fantasy-realism in a fantasy-realism, or whatever genre  -  that if you stress on the in-sensitivities probably not-thought of important when they were trying to think of a way to portray a gov.  being oppressive and systematic / SEGREGATION-AL , specifically,..

then THAT, is their intent.  in the story, those protagonists / those antagonists ... are inflicting SEGREGATION.

THING LIKE THAT ... finito.  Not further backwards-reflections on the real-world.  They probably just carelessly took something from a oppressive example in the real world, and used it in their setting.  Simply that.

But what... my opinion, that that was their INTENT ... is somehow a breach of IMDB's terms?

does someone want to explain why?

* * * *

even if i'm wrong, that's just my opinion about the production's insensitivity ,

i was-NOT justifying that insensitivity,

* * * *

... i was just differentiating-it from something else.

sigh ... your reviewers might not have much time, but that is no excuse for carelessness in mis-interpretation of what we INTEND in our reviews.

Am i to be branded a Nazi-Sympathizer perhaps ... just because of that?

My relos fought and DIED fighting them.  You are in NO position to assume so.

Well go-on then,

have your overkill of a mere review-writer,..

... see how it makes you FEEL.

see how POWERFUL ... you feel ... attracted to POWER ?.. in your positions of abusing / mis-using  IMDB's policy.

*raised eyebrow*

--------

ffs ... there are times to not-make room for  true-INTENT , to breach the terms of agreements of review-content ...

... and there are times to let-go of the trigger, and not   shoot-first-ask-questions-later.

If there is never any process of such "asking questions later" ... then that never even happens, and metaphorcically ... you ONLY have someone "shooting first"

I'm saying ... what equivalently, does that mean, your process for review-proofreading/checking  IS ... if it does not have that 2nd part to the metaphor?

It means ... you NEVER FIND OUT, what the writer of a review, actually INTENDED.

#!#!*^#!(*%^   How can we possibly know how your checkers, are going to respond to things?

------

Its like a constantly random pernicious-teacher on the day the regular teacher's taking a sikkie day-off ... randomness.

Will we get an awesome positive-reinforcement one, who tries to blend playing-games with learning so it might be at-least 1/2 fun?

Or am i going to get a south-park-esque  P.C. megalomanic, who isn't going to get it right, who is going to MIS-understand me , not ever have to listen to- APPEAL ... but will then also probably think themselves some righteous-crusader , denying anything doubtful-seeming or uncertain-in-their-mind , since uncertainty is weakness, or some other pumped-up BS?

APPEAL should be possible, but we're miles away from that ... you're just deleting them without even telling people that their reviews are being rejected.

and that's  not-ONLY legitimtely-rejected.

BOTH ill-legitimately rejected ... as-well-as ... legitimately rejected ... are BOTH being just deleted ... and there is nothing between someone MIS-using their position, and the effect of someone like that effectively EDITING ... filtering ... opinion in the reviews.

I thought Americans cared about free-speech.

---------

I am NOT ... going to GUESS, at what your checkers  use-in-prejudice or carelessness.