@Creattive, your points have been noted. We actually do have a united team and we’re regularly working to improve this further. The amount of times this happens is rare when compared the number of items processed regularly and we’re actively trying to reduce that number further.
Hey guys, really sorry about this, I realize how frustrating it can be to receive a soft rejection followed up with a hard rejection. Here’s a few things to keep in mind.
For starters, as frustrating as it can be, soft rejections should never be considered a guarantee that your file will be accepted once resubmitted. Yes, if your file does not meet our quality standards from the beginning it should just be a hard rejection from the get-go. But there is some level of subjectivity involved with file reviews. For files that are right on the borderline, it’s very possible that one reviewer may think it’s good and another reviewer may not. Either way, this is something we’re going to be working on in the coming months.
We plan to focus pretty heavily on quality control both within our library and within our review team. What this means for authors is that we’re now working more closely and we’re going to be frequently discussing quality standards as a team to ensure the slight differences in our opinions shrink. I feel like all of the reviewers are on the same page already, but we need to close the small gaps that do exist.
Please join me in welcoming the newest member of the VideoHive team – FluxVFX. Marissa’s been an author here for quite some time, and has a pretty fantastic portfolio.
She’ll be using her wealth of knowledge and experience to help out across all categories eventually, but for the time being her focus will be in the After Effects Projects category. Which should help reduce wait times a bit.
Welcome to the team Marissa!
Sorry for the confusion on this one. I must admit it does fall into a bit of a grey area. In the past the licensing would have prohibited the act of selling one marketplace item within another (if you’re exclusive) as Cyzer pointed out.
But Creattive is correct. According to the recent policy change, authors can include other marketplace items within their own item, so long as they get permission from the author of the other file. In this case, the author of both files is the same. So he’s essentially granting himself permission.
It is a bit confusing, but I’ve spoken with the team to make sure everyone’s aware of this and if you resubmit the file Tredigit, please clearly state in the notes to reviewer field that you own the license to distribute the included audio file and you won’t run into this problem again.
Yes as Filips just mentioned, you can include AJ files in your projects but you’ll need to purchase the Extended License and then also get a written agreement or permission from the author. You’ll want to keep this agreement/permission letter handy just in case its ever questioned.
Well the graphic that would appear in the rollover is not actually considered the roll over graphic but serves as the preview image on the item page. BUT I agree with you, seems like this may have just gone overlooked, I actually just noticed it myself yesterday. I’ll shoot an email out and see if someone can look into it.
I couldn’t agree with you more. Titles like “10 Awesome [insert category or attribute information here]” make very little sense in any situation and we’re working toward a standard that will correct this issue. We’re actively working on the supporting documentation and will be following up with the review team regularly to ensure these standards are met moving forward.
Sorry for the confusion. As Tyson has mentioned here, attribute-based information really does belong in the attributes. Titles should be a short succinct description of the file and not include extra, redundant information.
We just recently updated the knowledgebase to include this information, but then decided to go in a slightly different direction so the article update was rolled back. We’re still working on it, so it should be back up shortly with this information included. And in the future, we plan to make information like this a little more accessible to both new and existing authors.
Regarding the inconsistent reviews, I’m afraid there’s no other explanation other than a reviewing slip-up. Please understand that these small things can happen. When reviewers are looking at hundreds of submissions, occasionally small things like this tend to go overlooked. When we do notice the mistake we go back and correct it, and it looks like Tyson’s already handled it for the items noted in the start of this thread.