It’s true that if there is a trail of perceivable silence (at normal volumes), or the very tail end of a note ringing out that barely crosses the 2:00 mark, a submission will get priced as 1:01 -2:00. The same goes for other price points.
That said, in your case, StarDiva, the main version is clearly sounding after 2:00 still, so it appears a system error occurred. It’s been fixed now.
Otherwise, please note, importantly, that in order for your update notes to ever be seen by anyone on the review team, you need to actually attach a file, or make a small tag or title edit. Otherwise if you only enter notes, as you’ve done now, the update is processed automatically by the system, and will not be seen by any staff in the queue.
Thanks for your attention here, Let us know if you have any questions.
It’s ultimately not critical to change the filenames in the zip. If you wish to do so, however, you’ll need to submit updated zips via each item’s edit page. Otherwise, you can just edit the titles in the title field on the update page without attaching zips and it won’t affect the processing.
Bottom line, a track cannot be in more than one pack at any given time.
So technically you have two options:
1. You are free to delete the pack if you wish to reorganize those tracks into other packs. Though you lose the sales history and those packs won’t be reinstated.
2. You may also update an existing pack to remove a track, if you wish to include that track in a another pack. The updated pack will see price adjusted, and that step is required first before the new pack is submitted or updated
NOTE: What you are Not allowed to do, however, is take advantage of the update system to continuously update pack content to swap new tracks into an existing pack and promote that as regular content updates to buyer. The systems logs these updates too and that can lead to account disruptions, naturally.
Any further questions, shoot, or send a support ticket in.
I wanted to call this one “Cruising the Information Superhighway”; the reviewer made me change it (which I found rather odd…) http://audiojungle.net/item/the-future-looks-bright/8815341
That title could have been accepted. We’ll get the team aligned on that detail. While I personally think the current title is more standardized and a good one for stock, If you’d like your original idea to stand, we can gladly fix that.
I have no idea why this changes were not translated clearly to reviewers team. Simple math – (18+18+18)/2=27 not 25.
Lumen, that is not the formula used used for music pack pricing.
Either way, The issue was already raised with the strategy and growth teams, and is being addressed shortly. Item updates are being held until the matter is resolved, which should not be very long
Also, very important to understand – Soft Rejection is NOT a guarantee of acceptance when resubmitted.
Soft Rejection is an opportunity to rework aspects of the submission based on a reviewer’s encouraged suggestions.
If a resubmission still does not meet the requirements of the AudioJungle library, it may naturally not be accepted. It may not be continuously bounced back and forth repeatedly. What other Stock Audio library does this, sincerely?
And for the record, to quell the inherent speculation here, The item was not processed by two different reviewers.
In this case given the nature of the initial soft rejection, the resubmission was held by the team specifically so that the original reviewer could reevaluate, being already familiarized with the item record, and for all intents and purposes, as far as the current quality standards go, did not make an incorrect decision.
Thanks everyone for your attention and understanding
Well you are right – It’s not quite government classified top secret but it is in fact a internal corporate document so it can’t be shared publicly on the forum or knowledgebase. There’s no sense in us debating this point, we all trust everyone can appreciate the notion.
AudioJungle did release acceptance solid tips however, recently, for the types of arrangements/production that decrease rejections here – http://audiojungle.net/forums/thread/new-article-general-commercial-viability-music-acceptance-tips/135173
You are, again, basing your belief on the premise that a reviewer approves or rejects based on personal likes or dislikes. This is clear by your food tasting example which could not be more wrong. Reviewers training manuals exist you know
Your Speculation on the dynamics of the process are appreciated however!
Kurly we appreciate the thought. In a perfect world maybe.
That being said, you are correct that this could never happen because in peak submission season the queue time would be up to 5 times longer.. so up to 35 day queues that would be ok theoretically?
From a business perspective this would be prohibitively inefficient..