Oh yes, I forgot to tell you:
We already uploaded our work in August, and, very strange, it was approved as soon as possible, literally in a few hours, with only one soft reject. Then we made a decision to remove our product for revision. And now after 4 months of work, we are trying to do it again
If the work is hard rejected, then why make soft rejects indicating errors, problems, inaccuracies. Do not you think this is a waste of time, both authors and members of the Envato Quality Team?
The fact of the matter is that we did not try to create a product whose analogues are on the market place. We studied similar products, we read people’s reviews of these products in order to understand what they really lack. We took this into account and implemented in our project. We also took into account trends and standards in order to implement the functionality in our system with a reserve and demand for the future. We have even more ideas and functionality in store for the future. But they don’t even give us the smallest chance …
As indicated by the topic, our concept satisfies the policies and rules of the site, but something is missing. Naturally, the team will not say anything about this, but will make a hard refusal, again referring to the “minimum technical requirements”
Understand that the question is not why our product was rejected, but that some abstract things are indicated as the reason, again, for example, “minimal quiet requirements” that none of the authors have ever seen.
With this policy, Envato’s entire load turns into a lottery: if a member of the quality team personally likes the product, he will approve it, or if he is in a good mood. Even more generalized - there are no product evaluation standards (and if there are, then most likely they are intended for members of the quality team, and the authors can only guess what kind of standards there are)
I’ll even assume that a certain subjectivity affects decision-making, which should not be the principle …