Frequent rejected goofs

  • 2
  • Problem
  • Updated 1 month ago
  • Solved
I have submitted several goof corrections and a couple new goofs to various Star Trek episodes. 15 goofs in 9 episodes. They have all been rejected with an "unable to verify" reason. I verified all of them personally after watching the episodes and reexamining the scene or shot in question. On resubmission they are still rejected, again with no details on why, but for the invalid and irrelevant reason "unable to verify".

Many are goofs that I've re-typed "incorrectly regarded as goof", or the exact opposite (they were "incorrectly regarded" and I re-typed them as valid). One was already described in the text as an incorrectly-regarded but was typed as a valid goof, so I merely corrected the type to "incorrectly regarded".

Some I reworded for more conciseness and better accuracy and to easier understand what the goof is and to help a viewer spot it more easily. A few were new goofs I added. One goof was just incomprehensible, so poorly written and self-contradictory (and should never have been approved originally), so I proposed deletion. One or two others were just wrong, the goof that was described simply not existing (the original poster might have been confused or just mistaken, or listed the wrong scene, or put it on the wrong episode).

Every single one of these was rejected. I watched the episode myself, and the part with the goof over and over. The "unable to verify" reason is meaningless. It's given on goofs that just didn't exist; you can't verify a negative. But of course I verified everything myself. None of the stupid and lazy editors watched the episode; I did all the work! Why do I bother?!

All of these were submissions I made first about 8 months ago and were rejected. Recently, I rewatched them all to double-check and submitted them again. Rejected:

200330-053352-907000
200330-063544-972000
200330-064559-064000
200330-072009-666000
200330-082622-072000
200330-085005-736000
200330-094456-058000
200330-095708-599000
200330-105119-258000

That last one had 4 that were approved (2 rejected). Why? Because they were the only ones where I chose the option "corrected spelling/punctuation"; that got those approved immediately, telling me it was done by a bot. All the others had the option "other" and I described the reason for the change in the explanatory box. Completely ignored obviously.

Can a staff person put these through please?
Photo of GoodFlixGary

GoodFlixGary

  • 175 Posts
  • 152 Reply Likes

Posted 2 months ago

  • 2
Photo of GoodFlixGary

GoodFlixGary

  • 175 Posts
  • 152 Reply Likes
Some of the 15 Star Trek goofs I mentioned above have now been approved on resubmission. 4 left. Those 4 on resubmission have been rejected for the reasons "Badly formatted" or "Does not meet contribution guidelines".

There's no explanation on what these rejection reasons mean, and no specifics on where the problem lies or what I need to do to correct it. In most cases, I'm correcting someone else's contribution, and I'm thinking the rejection reason is complaining about the goof that's already there, not my corrections, but I can't be sure.

I (we) need more useful rejection reasons. These are no help at all and don't solve any problems. All we can do is resubmit, maybe rewrite it a bit in the dark, and hope. Over and over. This is pointless.

I can post examples of these rejected goof corrections here if anyone is interested, particularly the remaining 4 with either of the two reasons I mentioned.
(Edited)
Photo of GoodFlixGary

GoodFlixGary

  • 175 Posts
  • 152 Reply Likes
All of the Star Trek goofs I mention have now been accepted. I had to submit them several times, finally they took. Still, the reasons for rejection were obtuse. IMDb needs better explanations. But that's a suggestion or discussion for another thread. This thread is closed now, thank you.
Photo of Michelle

Michelle, Official Rep

  • 13018 Posts
  • 10260 Reply Likes
Hi Good Flix Gary -

Thanks for the update and confirming that the goof updates have since been accepted.  I have noted your feedback regarding the rejections and will pass it along to our editorial team. 

Cheers!
(Edited)