What does badly formatted mean?

@jeorj_euler​ 

You know what, this site is a great resource and it is so massive that it seems like a whole new world considering all the features they have made for users to explore. However, just like the real world  the application of rules is inconsistent and the clarification is up to a randomly assigned judge. I think with any barrier in our world, you should never give up because instead of rules everything is more about who is your content mediator that day. 

If they really wanted you to follow the submission guide they would put numbers on the infractions. For example, "your submission was denied based on rule 1.00231" ...in contrast, they write things like denied because it is "bad" please check our submission guidelines. If they cared about their own rules they would be more specific than that in the denial response. The truth is now I'm getting a different reply to why it is denied, now it says: ReasonDoes not meet contribution guidelines. This is different from bad formatting.

It's like if you were denied entry to the short hair club because at the door the bouncer said you have long hair. So you run to the store around the corner, buy clippers and cut all your hair to show the bouncer you are bald and then the bouncer says well you can't get in because of your name. The bouncer, if he was professional, was supposed to say you can't get in because of two reasons instead of changing reasons each time you want entry. This is the vagueness of a person in a power position. It should be said a person in a power position is a type of king, kings should strive to be fair with their posting of rules or they will look like tyrants.

People with vague answers would never be your choice for anybody in your circle, but it is common for people with power to not make the effort to clarify. Imagine you asked someone who showed up at your house party who they were and they said "I am someone from somewhere" you might throw them out just for being vague. However, in this situation we're at IMDb's party so it's really up to them no matter how random. These forums can't provide answers if for example were trying solve one question, and IMDB moves the flag pole and mutates their reasons into another random problem each time.

 "You can't logically solve random" unless you have the stamina to try over and over endlessly. You must attach yourself to the random, you must become the random. As bad as that sounds, people do it in relationships all the time. It's not about being right, it's about being there through changes and being willing to discuss those changing needs.

Even though they are vague and mercurial in their changing nature, at least they give us hints. As long as they keep responding, I guess I'll dust myself off and keep trying because I love IMDb.

It's unfortunate when they change up randomly because it's down right disrespectful to your time, but if you know you had fun with them in other situations ...you don't need to dump them. Keep trying to work with them and it will pay off in the end. They are capable of doing things "the way they should," it just might not be every time.

Remember you start frequenting a place or person because you like it, then you learn the rules to get more access. You can't learn rules before choosing what to learn the rules for. All that to say ...I still have some energy in the tank to deal with this absurdity because I love IMDb. 

 ;) Anybody else fell like IMDb is like a beautiful but disrespectful lover?

Well, the submissions could've been declined in error, so in order for the IMDb staff to investigate, they would need to know the reference numbers of the declined submissions. These numbers are eighteen digits long, formed from three six-digit numbers separated by hyphens.