It’s kinda frustrating for me to work on a project for days only to get hard rejected by Envato ‘curators’. But I get it - sometimes the work we do is just not fitting with Envato’s ‘quality’ and ‘standards’ (or whatever). But… what is more frustrating is the fact that we don’t get any feedback for why our projects got rejected.
For example, I recently uploaded an ae project and got hard rejected (without ‘curator’ feedback, of course). I started questioning my talent, aesthetics, my sanity… only to find out that I stupidly forgot to link external footage files in my project. How did I found out about my mistake? Well, since I got rejected by Envato I uploaded the project to another major stock site. They were kind enough to inform me that files in my project are not linked properly and asked me to send the project again after I fix the problem.
They wrote me ONE simple sentence which put hope back in my life. And I kept my sanity.
If the reviewers write feedback for each rejected item, the queue time will be months.
The reason for the rejection may not be related to linking issue, you can’t tell. but as I know reviewers first checking the video preview, if the video preview meets the quality standard, then they will move on to the next step. If the item has a small issue, for example linking issues, missing files, or any little issues, your item will get soft rejected with notes.
That’s not the reason for hard reject! If this was the only reason so reviewer would make soft reject and would write you about providing links to video sources.
When a project is hard-rejected, it’s not because of a technical issue. Issues that can be fixed are always soft-rejected with a note explaining what needs to be fixed.
If your project was hard-rejected, it likely did not meet minimum standards of quality or execution, and did not warrant an explanation since the review staff does not offer design critiques.
There is another reviewers answer: “Because there is so much competition in this genre, we only accept projects that we feel provide exceptional design quality and execution.”
But also, there is a new approved projects that don’t have anything new or unique. Standard (often used) animation and minimal design.
I am not saying that the approved projects are bad, but I examined the market and I see that my project is probably not the most unique, but it has more originality.
Unfortunately, this does not look like fair competition.
Actually, yeah. A few of my items have been soft-rejected for technical reasons such as files not being properly linked.
But if you’re insinuating that any of our projects should have been hard-rejected for quality reasons, then no, becuase obviously the review staff understands what the minimal quality standards are and always strive to exceed them.
There has always been, and will always be an element of subjectivity to the review process. That’s just part of the process with humans reviewing files. We can either accept literally everything like some other website do and flood the marketplace with thousands of iterative files, or we can be a little more discerning with review decisions and accept only the projects that meet certain criteria. Which would you rather have?
The review team works hard to base decisions solely on objective measures such as overall modern design standards and the complexity of the execution within a project.
However, if an author is creating projects that could fall into certain generic categories (such as slideshows or animated text), and that project is hard-rejected based on the description you provided above, then perhaps that author should consider creating useful content that doesn’t further contribute to the saturation of certain overpopulated categories.
There are plenty of ways to be a successful author and create popular items, but sometimes, following popular trends can be more detrimental than useful.
Thanks for the honest, detailed answer. I agree with you.
But unfortunately, I don’t always understand what you mean by a minimum quality standard or uniqueness.
For example, now I am creating a project like “Web Search Logo”.
Of course there are a lot of similar projects, but I know for sure that I will have a completely different style and animation (this is not 2D flash, shape, etc). I see that there is no such solution on the market!
Will it be considered as unique or any projects with a “Web Search Logo” are no longer needed?
Thank you for your honest answer, wasn’t referring to your work, but:
It would’ve made sense if you knew what a hard reject feels like.
Considering the fact you’ve been doing it to others for many years.
@johnnybd
Why would they be hard rejected if they meet all the quality standards? Reviewers are chosen because they demonstrate advanced knowledge and skills in their area of expertise, so naturally they wouldn’t be hard rejected.
@johnnybd
You’re clearly missing the point. I’m not a reviewer, but I respect their position. Sure they may make mistakes, but the vast majority of the time their hard rejections are completely justified. I’ve been on the forum for a long time giving feedback primarily on rejected graphic design items that authors post, pretty much every time I see one, it’s immediately obvious as to why it was rejected, even if it’s not to the author.
In my first few years of being an author here, my items were rejected every time, and I hated it, but now I haven’t had a single rejection in years, and part of that is because of those rejections pushing me to do better.
Why not give information with detailed recommendations and explanations about the minimum standards and uniqueness.
Indicate some of the best examples from various categories and say that projects with a similar style will no longer be approved (only with a very small probability if they can greatly outperform).
It is possible to identify some other specific criteria that can be described by numbers and words.
I think this would be of great help to the authors and possibly simplify the work of reviewers.
I’m a motion designer with 20 years experience in the industry. I fully understand what is required to create a quality and successful project, which makes me uniquely qualified to know when a project doesn’t meet certain standards.
For those reasons, I can entirely understand the frustration of a rejection. But if a project simply doesn’t meet our standards, should we accept it because an author might take that rejection personally and have their feelings hurt? Absolutely not. This is a business, and accepting projects for sale requires us to have some guidelines.
Doing what, exactly? Making the decision to reject a file that doesn’t meet quality standards determined by the marketplace an author is submitting work to? You’re insinuating when review team hard-rejects a project, they’re somehow committing a crime.
All authors know the rules. All authors know what’s expected of them. All authors are reviewed under the same criteria. And if all authors created unique, high quality content, the review team wouldn’t have to reject a single project.
We realize this is a somewhat abstract concept, but “minimum quality standards” isn’t something that can be conveyed or applied to all project types or categories. For example, expectations for a broadcast package might be different from a basic logo sting, for a variety of reasons.
Authors who submit content for review on Videohive are viewed as professionals, and from that perspective, we expect video professionals to know what “high quality” is.
The review team doesn’t set the design standards – authors do. When authors continue to submit better work over time, our expectations grow with the quality of the work that is submitted.
So it never makes sense for authors to take rejections personally. Authors simply need to keep up with their peers.
You find me questioning your authority entirely unnecessary? why doesn’t it surprise me.
You became a reviewer 9 years ago, and you’ll have a lifetime of approvals
For quality standards that were relevant, 9 years ago.
Even presidents have to get re-elected every 4 years.
There is something unfair and unjustified about the power, and inability to question the authority in this case.
I’m not questioning you – I’m asking you to act like a professional.
You’re the one placing the authority. You’re the one putting us on a pedestal, making us seem like we’re lording over you, or insinuating the the process is somehow unfair when low quality projects are rejected.
I’m merely doing my job to the best of my ability, a job that I take a lot of pride in. As does the rest of the review team.
Correct, my 9-year old projects were accepted under the standards set 9 years ago. What’s your point? As expectations have risen, so has the quality and complexity of my projects. Would you not agree?
And for full transparency, I’ve been reviewing for 8 years – 5.5 of those as Senior Reviewer.
Are you saying that everyone with a job should be replaced every 4 years? I’m not the President. You’re merely treating me like one.