Why was my review declined?

  • 3
  • Problem
  • Updated 12 months ago
  • Solved
For the second time a review of mine is declined for supposedly conflicting the User Review Submission guide. I'm going to post the entire review here. It contains spoilers for the first episode of "Stranger Things"' new season. Please, before marking my question answered, give me an exact answer, so that I may know what to do. I'm mentioning this, because last time you marked my question answered without giving me an answer. So, which of the rules have I violated and how? Here is the review (again, spoilers) (there are, sadly, also some typos):

After the first season I gave this show the rating of ten out of ten. I'm not going to change that because of this episode. The first season is still good and the second one, although deeply flawed, is pretty enjoyable. This one, though - I'm (probably) going to drop it, because, apart from the admittedly good acting and emotional moments here and there, it's just awful. Factually awful. I hope the show does get better after that, but, given the fact that almost everything I liked about it was basically obliterated, I don't think I can force myself to watch the rest of the season.

There will be spoilers. You've been warned.

So... First, as many reviewers here and on other sites have already pointed out, most of this episode is dedicated to a teenage romance. That alone is a huge problem for me as a person who rarely likes romance his shows and never if it involves teens, but the situation gets even worse, when it involves these particular teens. After everything they've been through together, am I supposed to believe that Mike and El will just abandon one of their closest friends, whom they haven't seen in a month, for a yet another session of pointless kissing? Did the Duffer brothers forget what they wrote in the first season? "She is our friend and she is crazy!" "A friend is someone that you'd do anything for." And so on. I mean, El is not a normal girl, Mike is not a normal boy, why do they all of a sudden act as if they're the douche bags terrorizing the nerds in the 80s high school movies? Yeah, hormones, growing up, and so on, but up to a few months earlier El was a killing machine who could barely speak, and now she's acting like the popular girl in school? Mike was willing to risk his life for his friends, and now he can't be bothered to spend a few minutes more with Dustin? Come on.

Second, Hopper. From a hardened cop he was demoted to a sitcom father. I hope this gets better in the next episodes, but, as I said, I don't intend to find out.

Third, Nancy and her storyline. I guess we were supposed to feel for her because of the way her bosses treated her. I didn't, though. Her boss, brilliantly overacted by Jake Busy, is made out to be an absolute piece of garbage. Maybe she'll get back at him later. I hope she won't, though. I hope she'll be put at her place as emotionally brutally as possible. Why? Because, although her boss treated her really badly and I definitely wouldn't approve this, I don't think she had any reason to expect anything else, the way she behaved. I know I'm going to get a lot of flack for this, but how exactly should he have reacted when she, a teenage girl barely out of high school, with no university degree, no experience in life, no job experience, and no proof of her abilities whatsoever (other than what her teenage boyfriend says about her), expect that the boss at a supposedly big newspaper would even consider working on her ideas? Why would he? True, he shouldn't have shut her down the way he did, but if the boss listened to any idea that came out of anyone's mouth, regardless of their position in he newspaper, he'd have no time to actually work. Nancy's job was to buy him food, not to suggest ideas for articles. (Not to mention the fact that her idea was not that brilliant, actually - because, first, every made would publish or air something about the way the new shopping mall would affect local businesses before they'd even started building it and, second, the situation surrounding this mall wasn't as black and white as she suggested - do you even imagine how many jobs are opened because of one shopping mall? Wouldn't that be a positive thing for a (relatively) small town like Hawkins?) Maybe this was supposed to be a comment on the sexism women faced in their workplaces back then, but what I saw was a prom queen trying to get a job she wasn't qualified for and being shut down by the actual adults. If she were as good a writer as Jonathan said she was, she wouldn't be so naive.

Fourth, time skipping is just weird. This season takes place in 1985 - the year when 'Back to the Future' came out. A few months after the events in the previous season - which was, at least to some extent, centered around Halloween in 1984 and the kids dressing up like the characters from 'Ghostbusters'. In the meantime, a huge shopping mall was built and, by the time the season took place, it was fully functional. How? We're not talking about a "McDonald's" restaurant here, we're talking about a massive building that has to go through countless stages of approval - before, during and after its construction - then the stores are rented out, staff is hired and trained, then... This is just not possible in such a short time frame, especially in the 80s, with the technology they had back then. The characters, as I mentioned earlier, were treated similarly.

Fifth, instead of showing me the 80s (or the movie 80s) organically, this episode relies on memes - like that hands scene from 'Day of the Dead' - but this just obliterates my immersion - although the movie is from 1985, the meme is relatively modern, and I could only think about the time I saw it for the first time - which was a few years ago. They used exactly the same clip...

Sorry.
Photo of Alexander Mishkov

Alexander Mishkov

  • 12 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes

Posted 12 months ago

  • 3
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27768 Reply Likes
There are so many things wrong with your review that it would be hard to explain. Sentence Construction is weak. Referring to yourself too much. Punctuation. Use - of - Dashes. Excessive periods......
That's only scratching the surface. There must be 25 issues with that review. IMDb will only say that it does not meet contribution guidelines and refer you to those guidelines.
Seriously, you need to comprehend those guidelines, not just read and misinterpret them.
Sorry to be so blunt, but it is that simple.
:):)
Photo of Alexander Mishkov

Alexander Mishkov

  • 12 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
None of these is a violation of the guidelines, though. What rule exactly did I violate, and how?

And sorry, but if IMDb's staff can spend hours reviewing my review, before declining it, they can spend a few minutes to give me some feedback as to what to avoid in the future. With the previous review they declined the problem turned out to be that I used the word "black" when referring to a black kid.
(Edited)
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27768 Reply Likes
IMDb is not a classroom. They don't get out a red marker and grade your page so to speak.
The issue that you state above I used the word "black" when referring to a black kid is covered in the help topics. Not in certain hard examples, but none the less covered and explained. You must comprehend a simple set of rules and extrapolate from there as to the complete do's and dont's. IMDb only takes less than a minute, not hours to read your review. If they catch a few mistakes in the very beginning, they won't bother reading the rest. They do not have the time to answer all questions posed as you are doing now.

They are going to tell you to read the guidelines.

User review guidelines


The minimum length for reviews is 50 characters, however reviews of 200 to 500 characters are typically the most valuable to our users.  Reviews which are padded with junk text will be discarded.

What to include:

Your reviews should focus on the title's content and context. The best reviews include not only whether you liked or disliked a movie or TV-series, but also why. Feel free to mention other titles you consider similar and how this one rates in comparison to them. Reviews that are not specific to the title will not be posted on our site. Please write in English only and note that we do not support any mark-up (HTML, XML etc.) within the reviews apart from linking names and titles.

What not to include:

Resist the temptation to review on other reviews or features visible on the page. This information (and its position on the page) is subject to change without notice. A review form is not an appropriate place to tell us there are errors in the database. If you'd like to tell us about a specific problem, please click the 'Edit page' button near the bottom of the title page.

IMDb is pleased to provide this forum for you to air your opinions on your favorite (or not-so-favorite) movies and TV-series. While we appreciate your time and reviews, we respectfully request that you refrain from including the following in your review:

  • Profanity, obscenities, or spiteful remarks in either the body or header of your review. 
  • Time-sensitive material (i.e. mentions of events, promotional tours, seminars, lectures, etc.).
  • Avoid unannounced spoilers! Please don't reveal crucial plot elements, if you include spoilers without warning readers in advance, your review may be subject to removal. To label a spoiler make sure you check the 'contains spoilers' checkbox. Also, please never include spoilers in your review header as this is always visible.
  • Square brackets [ and ] are not allowed apart from when used to link names and titles
  • Phone numbers, mail addresses, URLs, email addresses, links to Twitter or Facebook pages etc.
  • Availability, price, or ordering/shipping information.
  • Advertising, promotions or solicitations of any kind
  • Writing in ALL-CAPS! Writing sentences in all-uppercase characters is considered "SHOUTING" and must be avoided.
  • Content in languages other than English
  • Do not include personal opinions on real life events or subject matter on which a film is based.

Any review in violation of these guidelines will not be posted or may be edited to conform to the guidelines. In addition, IMDb reserves the right not to post any review for any reason.
Photo of Alexander Mishkov

Alexander Mishkov

  • 12 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
And, again, instead of giving me this lengthy nothing, you could give me an exact quote of my review that violates the rules somehow. I have read the guidelines, and I have written tens of reviews in a similar fashion that have been approved. Why wasn't this?
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin)

Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion

  • 3711 Posts
  • 5139 Reply Likes
Alexander Mishkov, re-read the review and I can't quite pinpoint why exactly it was declined. I should say that it's a bit hard to deduce how formatting of the review looked, maybe problem was in that. Also, have you checked "contains spoilers" checkbox or just inserted a custom warning in the text?.. That might be the offender.  

As for Ed's copy and paste response I do found it helpful because it helped me to try and troubleshoot what's wrong with the review. 
Photo of Alexander Mishkov

Alexander Mishkov

  • 12 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
Also, have you checked "contains spoilers" checkbox or just inserted a custom warning in the text?

Yes. I also put a warning in the review itself.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27768 Reply Likes
Your reviews should focus on the title's content and context.

So... First, as many reviewers here and on other sites have already pointed out,
Not focusing on context and content.

all of a sudden act as if they're the douche bags terrorizing the nerds in the 80s high school movies
Profanity, obscenities, or spiteful remarks in either the body or header of your review.

Jake Busy, is made out to be an absolute piece of garbage.
Profanity, obscenities, or spiteful remarks in either the body or header of your review.

Should read......Jake Busy, is made out to be an absolutely unlikable or despicable character.


Read the rules
Interpret them
Apply them.
There are more that need fixing.
It is not Nikolay's, My, or IMDb's job to do something for you.
You do for yourself.
If I and Nikolay can read and interpret these simple rules, so should you. 


Jake Busy is misspelled and really should be this.
Bruce, who is played by [link=nm0000998], is made out to be an absolutely unlikable or despicable character.

See where the nm number comes from?
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000998/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t16
Jake Busey Jake Busey ... Bruce



(Edited)
Photo of Alexander Mishkov

Alexander Mishkov

  • 12 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
Excuse me? This is a negative review, there is bound to be some, you know, negativity in it. I don't see anything spiteful in these quotes, especially given the context I've used these words in - and especially given the fact that you can easily find worse, if you just plough through the reviews. Like this, for example:
The relationships and forced love between characters are just bad, and mike has to be the worst character of the show now. Just a plain terrible kid that has no idea of what hes character is supposed to be
This is literally the first review that appears, when you sort the reviews by rating, starting with the lowest. If this isn't considered spiteful, how is it that what I wrote, which is much milder, is?
How about this:
The girls are all smart, quick witted, resourceful, patient, undervalued, saintly and misunderstood, while nearly all the males are slow, lecherous, lazy, boozy, misogynistic numbskulls.
And how about this:
It is the story of 5 very annoying kids (most of all the mouthy one with a bowl haircut and the curly haired one) who save the world against a demon. There is no army, no police, no CIA, just small kids who save the word LOL What a lot of nonsense.
And how about this:
This is one of the most baffling movies ever. Not because of the "surprising" twist, which is only surprising because it is completely moronic, but because it was so well received.
This is from a review of my own, a review that was approved instantly.
And how about this, which was also written by me and approved instantly:
If the writers want you to believe somebody is a bad guy, he or she will be simply the worst piece of cr@p you can imagine.
What exactly does "spiteful" mean? If what you're quoting passes for spiteful, how is it that negative reviews even exist on this website?

And sorry for being this blunt, but are you even qualified to give me an exact answer? If you're not, maybe you shouldn't waste your time.



(Edited)
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27768 Reply Likes
Yes I am qualified. I have NEVER had any biography or review rejected or removed.
You have used examples above that are fine. Your review and the examples are comparing Apples to Oranges. The examples cited are fine, your review need repair.
Oh and "Spiteful" is in the eye of the editor. Remove the offensive diatribe and resubmit.
(Edited)
Photo of Alexander Mishkov

Alexander Mishkov

  • 12 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
In other words, you're not qualified. Thanks.

Look, I'm not looking for confrontation, but that doesn't mean I'll just let some random person on the Internet insult me without responding to them.
(Edited)
Photo of Michelle

Michelle, Official Rep

  • 13286 Posts
  • 10763 Reply Likes
Hi Alexander -

Do you have the submission reference numbers associated with your submitted reviews?
(Edited)
Photo of Alexander Mishkov

Alexander Mishkov

  • 12 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
Is this the number you're asking me about?
#190727-202219-709704
Photo of Michelle

Michelle, Official Rep

  • 13286 Posts
  • 10763 Reply Likes
Hi Alexander -

Yes, thanks for the information.  I can see that your User Review didn't overtly violate our guidelines and should have been approved, please re-submit your review again and immediately post the submission reference number here and I can take a look at approving it.
(Edited)
Photo of Alexander Mishkov

Alexander Mishkov

  • 12 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
Thanks. Here is it:
#190802-170641-448704

I fixed some of the typos. I hope this isn't a problem.
(Edited)
Photo of Michelle

Michelle, Official Rep

  • 13286 Posts
  • 10763 Reply Likes
Hi Alexander -

Thanks for the submission number, your review has now been approved and should be live on the site shortly.  Cheers!