item review time submitted 10 days, i wonder about that,that is first time…
Here you go…
Whoa, 134 days for stock footage, that’s rough.
Sending a video to videohive is like giving birth!!!
its looks like less items are reviewed on a daily basis
some reviewers might be on vacation, or they have less reviewers than before
I don’t think more items are submitted.
I’ve got clips waiting 5 months now…
As per http://quality.market.envato.com/videohive waiting time is reduced to 118 days!
Can anybody confirm?
I’m waiting to have less than 30 days to resume uploads. 
Best Regards,
Andrey
I refute. I have files that are more than four months old. They have not been considered yet
Ohhh 
Unfortunately the shame continues.
I also have several videos waiting for 5 months.
Or I’m being hampered in reviewing the items or Envato tries to fool his collaborators by dropping the waiting days. But not everyone is sleeping!
112 days now.
Too long to go I to, I’m on the treadmill, but your numbers aren’t included in the calculation as they’ve not been reviewed yet. It is possible for the last person to have waited 112 days and for you to have waited 4 months without there being a contradiction.
I honestly do not understand this way of calculating the review time. There is not a single row ?! Then how can the count for some 140 days be and for others 112. We are not all in the same boat. How come the items do not go into that count you say? I think that if the waiting time falls by 6 days, this should reflect on my page as well. What do I use in the packaging page to say that the review time is 50, 25, or 5 days if I am 5 months waiting? Your point of view has no logic whatsoever.
But how would the average review time affect the figures on your dashboard? If you’ve been waiting for 140 days then you’ve been waiting for 140 days… nothing can change that numerical figure aside from the passage of time at a 1:1 ratio. It’s not like your 140 days will drop to 130 days or increase to 150 days overnight… as that’s not how long you’ve been waiting. You’ve been waiting 140 days!
The average review time of the queue can fluctuate considerably though, as the average time is based on the expected review time when a certain amount of files are reviewed every day. If that number exceeds the expected amount then the numbers will drop. If the number exceeds the expected amount considerably, then the number will drop considerably.
My point is that there are people before you in the queue. They may have taken 112 days to have their items reviewed but that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the figures. Imagine you’re in a queue to get on a ride at the theme park. The guy at the front waited 112 minutes. You’re 100 people behind him and have been waiting 140 minutes. That doesn’t mean that something is wrong and you should have got on before him.
It just means that queues are never constant… They fluctuate, and how long one item takes doesn’t automatically mean that’s how long the next item will take… or the one after that. It’s the whole reason why it says ‘times are indicitive only’ at the top of the page. They’re not a hard and fast rule to how many days your item will take.
I think the issue here is that you’re assuming the number stated is the maximum review time. If it was, then you’d be right to be concerned, as there’s a bunch of files (yours) that have been in the queue longer than that. Maybe that would be a better way to do it, but it’s currently an average wait time of items over the past week.
Now the wording there could probably be better as it can’t be an average wait time. Otherwise the calculation would have hundreds of items that have been waiting one day, hundreds that have been waiting two days, hundreds that have been waiting three days and so on and so forth. Then the maximum wait time might be 140 days, but the average would show as 70 or something.
The proper wording should be something that describes any file that was reviewed in the last week… the amount of days that file was in the queue before it got reviewed… the average of all those numbers over the last week. Whatever wording that is, it’s going to be a bit clunky, so I can kind of see why they went with the current option.
The bad news, unfortunately, is that if there’s a bunch of people getting their stuff reviewed at 112 days, but there are people in the queue with stuff at 140 days, then I’m pretty sure that means there is more stuff in the queue with 113 to 140+ days wait times, than there was in the queue between the 86 and 112 day wait times… which means that 112 will increase with all things being equal. However, if we take the large drops of late into account, hopefully it will stI’ll gradually decrease.
Sorry its not the most straightforward explanation, but queues are very complicated things! You get people whose only job in the world is to monitor, analyse, forecast and plan for queues. They’re nice people, and I get the general gist of what they’re saying… but after a few minutes of them.talking about queue, forecasting and service level agreements… you know it’s time to go for a cigarette or finish early and hit the pub.
I understand what you mean, but I ask the following question:
Imagine that someone places an item for review today. In principle the waiting time will be more or less 112 days. Right? Now imagine that someone else had put a video for review 30 days before when the average wait time was 140 days.
Which of the videos will be reviewed first?
Come on now…
The 112 number is the average time all approved items have waited these last 7 days. The first item could have waited 10 days and the last 230 days if some big change happened during THE TIME OF UPLOAD.
So many things affect review time.
A reviewer can get sick. Can quit. Can go on vacation.
A new author can upload their entire portfolio of 5,000 items over two weeks.
AVERAGE times means just that. Average. If the wait was 10 days for an item approved on Monday, but someone uploaded 1,000 items right after that one, the wait could be 100 days for an item uploaded right after that.
The average after those 100 days have passed could be anywhere between 10 and 100 depending on the number of items. But that doesn’t mean that a new item uploaded after those 100 days would necessarily wait anywhere close to the displayed average that day. It could be more or less.
The longer the review time is, the more can have happened since the items that were approved today were actually uploaded.
Another example:
The review time is 10 days and it’s constant with 4 working reviewers. Inflow of new items is about the same.
2 reviewers suddenly quit. But the inflow of new items is the same. The review time won’t just go to 20 days. It will continue to rise towards infinity unless 2 more reviewers are hired or people stop uploading. If only 2 reviewers are hired the queue time will stop at whatever number it is at that point. Maybe that would be 100 days. They need to hire 3 or more to bring the queue down again.
After a week maybe the new review time will be 20 days. But the average would still be 10 days because over that last week, all newly approved items would have waited 10 days since they were uploaded before the 2 reviewers quit.
Again, the average review time number is INDICATIVE, and it’s a rough, rough, very rough, indication.
Even if it says 112 today, your wait time could be 1 day (if they hired 1,000 new reviewers yesterday) or it could be 2,000 years if all reviewers quit and they waited too long to hire new ones…
The lower the number is (1-5), the more likely it is to be somewhat the same today. But when it’s high (50+) it will likely be VERY different from what a new upload will experience.
They’re all reviewed in order. Although there are a couple of examples I can think of where they might not be, due to the way items are allocated to reviewers, but we’re talking the difference of a day at most.
You need to understand that the number in the box has no influence on anything other than the people reading it. Everything just gets reviewed in order and as normal… as if that page didn’t exist. The length of review influences the page, not the other way around.