Your contribution has been declined. Again and again.

Species: I have found that sometimes IMDb rejects a goof for being too long. For the How It Ends goof, I suggest breaking it into two separate goofs, as follows (assuming the following information is correct): 

Goof #1:

The space object changes its trajectory from shot to shot, sometimes from left to right and other times from right to left. Due to its distance from the Earth, it should always have appeared to point in the same direction.

Goof #2:

The space object, being a meteor or asteroid rather than a comet, could only have had a fiery tail after it entered the Earth's atmosphere, that is, the last few seconds or minutes before it crashed to the ground, not in the preceding days or weeks.

I've simply stopped contributing because they always get declined with the vague "unable to verify your contribution".  

Short of uploading a copyrighted video, not sure how they expect to verify some of these things.  Tired of wasting my time.  

Your first entry is just too long. Actually, it reminds me of how I used to write mine...back when they got rejected occasionally. :) 

It also sounds like commentary, i.e., the part about how none of the actors bothered looking up; re-word that or remove it.

Try to pare it down and/or split it into two entries as another poster suggested, and remove anything that sounds like personal commentary.

The second entry...I don't know. I would simply submit it again--as a *new* submission--and be sure to add an explanation this time, describing exactly what's wrong with the posted version versus your version. I see no reason for it to be declined, so if that happened to me, I'd do what I just suggested.

Thanks to both gromit82 and SoCalGrace for your suggestions. It does appear that when IMDb experts say that a submission is declined  because it is “badly formatted”, what they really mean is that it’s “too long”. I took your advice and split the above “How It Ends (2021)” goofs into two shorter goofs, and both comments were immediately approved in less than 60 seconds!! I then shortened and resubmitted six other submissions that had been declined due to “bad formatting” and all were approved. Problem solved.

But wait. Thinking that I now understood what IMDb required, I then submitted a comment for a new movie that was nearly identical to my previous successful submissions (same goof, different movie), but within 10 minutes I get the message:

Comment declined
Reason - Does not meet contribution guidelines.

How could a goof comment that has been deemed acceptable for 6 other movies now be deemed unacceptable? It makes no sense? And what’s worse, their rejection reason is the most vague yet: “Does not meet contribution guidelines”,which is really no different to saying, “Comment declined – No reason given”.   

It really surprises me that IMDb staff judge and critique our ability to clearly express the views we make in our submissions, but then show themselves woefully incapable of clearly explaining why they then decline said submissions. They fail to live up to their own criteria. Finding a submission to be too long, rather than simply saying that, they respond with the misleading, utterly bogus and totally unhelpful reason: “Badly formatted”. That’s like me never bothering to read the novel “War and Peace” because I feel it’s far too long, but when asked why by others, I say it’s because I thought it was badly formatted.

In reply to ravnwood and IMDb’s equally unhelpful rejection reason: "unable to verify your contribution", I also can’t think of what new information IMDb might accept as verification. If you make an effort to clearly explain your argument, then IMDb staff will simply respond that your explanation is “Badly formatted”, ie too long. If you make your comment short and concise, then they’ll likely note that it merely states your claim, it doesn’t go any way towards explaining, let alone verifying your claim. Concerning the example I gave, the ONLY way to verify my claim is for them to watch the actual scene in the movie, which, if they are consistent, they must have done to “verify” the original goof submission that I was contesting. I suspect it’s just too hard for them, so rather than decide who is right, they just refuse to reveal that there is a contrary viewpoint and that a comment they've accepted might be bogus. Another comment I had declined because they were "unable to verify” was one solely based on logic and reason, they didn’t need to watch the scene to reach a conclusion, which suggests that the IMDb person involved simply wasn’t bright enough to understand the problem, so simply declined it with a bogus reason. Maybe the only chance of success is to just keep resubmitting the comments every so often and hope that a different person reads it, someone capable of making an intelligent decision that they can explain.   

It’s depressing to read in the posts on this forum where on the rare occasion that IMDb staff do respond to a complaint that submissions have been declined for no good reason, that the staff always say they can see no reason for the rejection and have then overturned the rejection. It’s almost as if some staff, when they’re having a bad day or are busy on social media, just hit the “Comment Declined” button to get rid of the annoying work distraction.  

I wouldn’t mind if IMDb was prepared to briefly explain or discuss the reasons they reject a submission, at least I could then learn and improve my submissions, but to just receive an automated response of “Comment Declined – Reason unclear” is next to worthless. I might as well be communicating with a fridge with an Internet connection. Maybe I am.