Why Don’t Reviewers Slow Down and Explain Rejections
Reviewers are in a privileged position. We learn (hopefully) the nomination criteria then we use our best judgment about what makes a good Wayspot nomination.
Here, in my opinion, is where almost all reviewers I know fall down on the job. Many are motivated to rush through nominations in order to maximize the number of agreements they get so they can quickly upgrade their own personal nominations.
As a result, very few bother typing in the reason they reject or poorly rate a nomination. They often choose one of the “preset” rejection clauses and simply move on.
Both as a reviewer and as a frequent submitter, I find this practice infuriating. There is nothing more frustrating than having a nomination rejected and all I get as a reason is something like “Other rejection criteria,” which is totally useless information.
Other times I get rejected for an issue I addressed in the supplemental section The information appears to be completely ignored by many reviewers.
That is why I beseech you, my fellow reviewers, to slow down and take just a few seconds to fully read a nomination before rejecting it. Also, if you do poorly rate or reject a nomination, how about typing in a few personal sentences explaining why you made your choice.
These two simple actions not only help improve the quality of future submissions, they also turn the emotions down a bit and not think that their nomination was not just casually tossed aside.