I realized that the authors are very concerned about the issue of feedback in the case of hard rejection. For a person who has been working on a track for a long time, there is no more valuable information than the reasons why his track was not approved. I realize that the reviewers have thousands of new tracks every day, that they have neither the time nor the opportunity to explain the reasons for the refusal in each case. I’ve thought about this a lot. Perhaps the Envato team has some kind of algorithm, according to which they assess the suitability of the track for the market. Perhaps they evaluate each track on a certain list of “utility criteria”, maybe not, these are just my guesses) Anyway, it would be great to receive at least minimal feedback in case of rejection instead of a standard letter. I made a small table, which, it seems to me, could help the new authors to orient themselves in their mistakes, to understand in which direction it is necessary to develop.The author could receive a list of line numbers, after reading which, he would understand what the problems of the track are. And when creating the next track, he would take into account his mistakes and did not repeat them. Feedback on the forum is of course very valuable information, but it does not belong to the person who made the decision about your track. I hope this does not violate forum rules, and Envato will not regard it wrong.The opinion of the authors is important! Would this kind of feedback be useful to you? What would you add to this list? If the overwhelming majority of authors approve this idea, perhaps Envano will in future consider the possibility of its implementation.Thank you all for your answers!
Great idea, I think at least a list like this would be very helpful to have as checklist for authors. If rejection feedback would only include a few guidelines like “Commercial production standard not met”, “Commercial composition standard not met” or both, that would be helpful as well. I don´t think that would take the reviewers more than a few sec when listening to the track anyway.
Definitely a good idea, would certainly be helpful for people. I think 4(/5) check boxes would be enough:
- Production quality
- Commercial viability
It is a pity that the topic did not become popular) I thought that this question bothers many authors)
thank you! very useful!
I think that every author agrees with this. Why does the topic not develop? Because in some way it will be an additional burden on a reviewer. But in the future, the so-called “human factor” would be excluded. For example, the track did not like a reviewer, and he could be successfully sold.
I agree that there could be something done to improve the way we get feedback for our rejected tracks. I also started another thread about this before I found this one. Here is a link in case you would like to have a read.