E
efc001
Some weeks ago I enquired about the status of a submission to be told that it was in a long queue - very frustrating.
Some months ago I applied to be an editor for a category (record labels in the UK) which had a lot of potential for growth. I was rejected with what appears to be a standard reply with a list of possible reasons, nothing was added to the comment area to suggest which reason(s) applied. It was mentioned that I might want to re-apply.
Why can't you be more specific with your rejections? It would only take a couple of minutes to list the reasons. A lot of people, like me, will look at the the potential reasons and not be able to identify which ones apply.
Having read a few of the posts to this board I am amazed that you don't have access to the information why applications are rejected. Some categories are thought unsuitable for newbies because they are open to abuse, some categories are too big for newbies (the size appears to include unreviewed submissions which is an unknown quantity to those applying).
How are people supposed to know which categories they stand a chance of being accepted for? Why can't you supply a list of cats. that you will accept new editors for instead of people wasting their time once, and then thinking there's no point re-applying because they don't know why they have been rejected?
Even though there were probably 20 sites I could have added to the category I applied for, it still took me about 3 hours to choose and review 3. For all I know these 3 sites could already have been in the queue.
I think you really need to improve your 'would be editor' selecion process.
Some months ago I applied to be an editor for a category (record labels in the UK) which had a lot of potential for growth. I was rejected with what appears to be a standard reply with a list of possible reasons, nothing was added to the comment area to suggest which reason(s) applied. It was mentioned that I might want to re-apply.
Why can't you be more specific with your rejections? It would only take a couple of minutes to list the reasons. A lot of people, like me, will look at the the potential reasons and not be able to identify which ones apply.
Having read a few of the posts to this board I am amazed that you don't have access to the information why applications are rejected. Some categories are thought unsuitable for newbies because they are open to abuse, some categories are too big for newbies (the size appears to include unreviewed submissions which is an unknown quantity to those applying).
How are people supposed to know which categories they stand a chance of being accepted for? Why can't you supply a list of cats. that you will accept new editors for instead of people wasting their time once, and then thinking there's no point re-applying because they don't know why they have been rejected?
Even though there were probably 20 sites I could have added to the category I applied for, it still took me about 3 hours to choose and review 3. For all I know these 3 sites could already have been in the queue.
I think you really need to improve your 'would be editor' selecion process.