Why was this declined?!

@Fran​ Thank you for your reply, but I have read plenty of reviews that include opinions on real life events, etc. I don't have an example off the top of my head, but I will send you the net one I come across.

Here are 2 reviews of episode 3, season 2 of the show FBI which obviously contain viewer's opinions: Bias Creating Unrealistic Storylines This show needs to try to be more realistic and consider that sometimes violent attacks might be perpetrated by radical leftist. Since in real life they usually are. Instead, this show's usual suspects are always 'right-wing'. Seems like every show, the first 10 minutes they mention the perp possibly being some right-winger. She played presidential candidate Valerie Caldwell who has been targeted by a bomb explosion that annihilates her SUV and kills one of her security personnel. After sifting through the usual red herrings (which includes a Chinese-American working for the People's Liberation Army), we find out that Valerie has been targeted by a lawyer named Len Barker who had once worked with her and had represented accused rapist Wayne Simmons who wound up spending ten years in prison. Ol' Len knows explosives, you see. So why would Len Barker go after Valerie? Turns out she sat on evidence that would have cleared Wayne. And now she's running for President. Yeah, I had the feeling that Valerie was crooked. Just goes to show, you just can't trust a whole lot of politicians these days. Just look at the polls. And Jeremy Sisto's character still bellows "The clock is ticking, people! Let's find the peep and bring him in!"  Yes, they aren't straight forward as what I wrote, but still opinions on real life events. Where does IMDb draw the line?

@jeorj_euler​ But it seems to be okay to criticize political views, such as left/right wingers. 

Not really. In the example provided above, the author may not have crossed the line in pointing out how typical it is that the heroes in the television drama show FBI are depicted as tracking felonious extremists whom the Federal Bureau of Investigation would like to categorize as "right wing". The author is being subtle in criticizing the storytellers for misrepresenting the ideological demographic makeup of the total body of terror suspects and terror conspiracy suspects that pose a threat (to liberty or security) during any given span of several years.

@jeorj_euler​ So the author IS criticizing, but being subtle about it. 

Yes, without crossing the line, if there is such a line.

Apparently there is a line, but it appears to be subjective. How the heck is the below a review at all?! Spiderman in fbi That was a Crossover Spidey was a bad character and was shot What are they smoking when they write this bs?

I've stated before and elsewhere that the line is perhaps blurry. Regardless, IMDb members who are certain that any given movie review deviates too far from the overall mission of the system outlined at https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/contribution-information/user-review-guidelines/GABTWSNLDNFLPRRH# are more than welcome to submit reports of abuse against it. As for rw7422790 ("Spiderman in fbi") by mondeo_iplay, it definitely doesn't belong as a review on IMDb, since it is poorly-punctuated, slightly-cryptic junk, and seemingly it was approved because, for whatever reason, a great number of the particular author's somewhat-informative-yet-largely-shallow reviews had also slipped through not only the review-screening process but also never managed to catch the attention of a contributor willing to properly lodge reports of abuse against them. I see that the review has a portion of favorable votes that fall short of half of the votes it received in total, which is a sign of conflict among readers, whereby folks are willing to come to the defense of possibly-embarrassing presentations just because the message being conveyed aligns with their own perspectives.

That's not a "blurry" line, it's just straight up subjective. The "reviewer" liked what this guy wrote and let it go through, whereas the "reviewer" didn't like what I wrote and didn't let it  through. The readers are not at fault here for not reporting.

Uh, the "reviewer" in the sense of the IMDb employee who screens submitted reviews for violations of IMDb guidelines? For the sake of avoiding confusion, we probably shouldn't refer to these people as reviewers. Also, not very much is known about the screening process. I've only provided speculation beyond what is common knowledge, and basically so has anybody else. (See https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/is-it-taboo-to-criticize-the-blue-fairy-in-disneys-pinocchio-2022/638fa92ab5af727572b09fc3?commentId=639168166bc4c47d61d85c1c&replyId=63927ba479ef5d464f74b99a please for more details.) I do reckon that different folks doing the screening don't necessarily have identical biases. I don't know how often there are inconsistencies. I've never submitted an item in the title review data type, so I don't have any first hand knowledge of the hardship that review authors might go through. I've only ever submitted a report against a review, just once, back in the year 2017, after IMDb's site-native message boards system went offline. I've only observed on this forum, over the course of years, the several people who have complained about their respective reviews being declined, and one contributor who complained about a report against a review being declined. I've provided feedback on some of the threads described. There was another participant of this forum who would answer these kinds of threads (and do so employing a much more authoritative tone), but that person either quit or was banned (perhaps for feuding with ACT_1).

If there are guidelines, policies, etc. addressing the review process then they should be followed by any and all employees reviewing contributions.  It'd be great if an IMDb employee chimed in, but I'm guessing that's not going to happen. 

I do worry that there is a collection of people out there who have figured out how to exploit some kind of automatic approval mechanism in the IMDb software, because there have been all manners of strange content occasionally going live on the database/site for well over a decade, and hardly reserved to the movie reviews system. In rarer cases, actual spam has showed up in places. I'm starting to think, the geographic location of the IMDb member accounts being abused for this purpose has something to do with this.

I do believe you are correct and it's a pity that there are people out there who do such things. It's just a site for fans of entertainment for pete's sake! Ugh, get a life and IMDb, get with it, you should be invested in preserving the integrity of your website and legitimate users of it.