160 Messages
•
4.1K Points
We need better explanatory reasons for rejecting contributions
We get two kinds of rejections: "Declined" and "Needs Attention", but they seems to be interchangable. Hardly self-explanatory. The reason given is almost always "Unable to Verify". The canned explanation that follows that (same every time, not customized for that particular contribution) hardly ever seems to apply. The corrections and suggestions given in that explanation are often irrelevant or were already done. This leads us to believe the given reason was not the real reason for rejection. Which of course doesn't help us do better contributions and correct any mistakes we're making.
Once in a while we get a different reason for rejection, either "Badly Formatted" or "Does not meet contribution guidelines". The short and very unhelpful canned explanation for both of these reasons is pretty much identical, again leading us to believe the reason given is irrelevant. That explanation merely tells us to go read the rules, with a link to the "submission guidelines", but not even a link or a mention of which particular rule we should be looking at. So, this then does not help us either, and if we can't guess what we did wrong or figure it out on our own, then our contribution will never be accepted... except by pure chance.
Now clearly the reasons for rejection are obtuse. IMDb needs better explanations so we can do it right, and so we can understand what's wrong with it. Specifics need to be given, not a canned response.
On the other hand, there may be nothing wrong with it. It may just be an editor who doesn't really pay attention, or could be an editor who doesn't know an IMDb rule on it, or it could be that editor is just lazy or doesn't care or is overworked. I do see they get behind every weekend: the stats show the number of contributions backed up beyond the designated processing date are 4000–9000. That happens every weekend. Doesn't get down to something reasonable (a couple hundred) until Wednesday or Thursday.
But that just leaves us contributors on our own, and our usual result is we just resubmit the contribution without changing it, or making a minor change here and there, or simply rewording the explanation (comment) box, over and over until it gets accepted. Or we complain and whine to staff in email (the help desk) or on GetSatisfaction, which may elicit some help from other contributors or supposed experts or occasionally staff, but often is no help. Sometimes the help advice is wrong... just like the reasons for rejection or even the rejection itself.
Once in a while we get a different reason for rejection, either "Badly Formatted" or "Does not meet contribution guidelines". The short and very unhelpful canned explanation for both of these reasons is pretty much identical, again leading us to believe the reason given is irrelevant. That explanation merely tells us to go read the rules, with a link to the "submission guidelines", but not even a link or a mention of which particular rule we should be looking at. So, this then does not help us either, and if we can't guess what we did wrong or figure it out on our own, then our contribution will never be accepted... except by pure chance.
Now clearly the reasons for rejection are obtuse. IMDb needs better explanations so we can do it right, and so we can understand what's wrong with it. Specifics need to be given, not a canned response.
On the other hand, there may be nothing wrong with it. It may just be an editor who doesn't really pay attention, or could be an editor who doesn't know an IMDb rule on it, or it could be that editor is just lazy or doesn't care or is overworked. I do see they get behind every weekend: the stats show the number of contributions backed up beyond the designated processing date are 4000–9000. That happens every weekend. Doesn't get down to something reasonable (a couple hundred) until Wednesday or Thursday.
But that just leaves us contributors on our own, and our usual result is we just resubmit the contribution without changing it, or making a minor change here and there, or simply rewording the explanation (comment) box, over and over until it gets accepted. Or we complain and whine to staff in email (the help desk) or on GetSatisfaction, which may elicit some help from other contributors or supposed experts or occasionally staff, but often is no help. Sometimes the help advice is wrong... just like the reasons for rejection or even the rejection itself.
No Responses!