Have you ever had a shop kicked back by an editor for what is clearly a stupid reason and resubmit the shop exactly as is, then have it accepted?
Three times now, I've done this successfully. Just curious if I'm the only one.
It's stupid things like "please submit overall photo taken from across the street" when I've clearly submitted an overall photo, just not from across the street (not listed in the guidelines).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/2014 10:54AM by Hoju.

I'm curious. What was the stupid reason? And, you resubmitted it without any explanation or anything? Was that a test?

I had one that got kicked back because one of the receipts named a city and state about 1100 miles away from the gas station. I resubmitted it with a number of reasons why it was the correct receipt, including that it had the correct city and state printed on it too, and that the store receipt, which had the correct address on it, was printed eight minutes later, which tended to link the two together.


I hope and assume that when 'On Hold' reports are resubmitted, they go to a senior editor, better able to resolve possible problems. So, the first time, it might have been rejected by a nervous trainee.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/2014 11:03AM by Ishmael.

I doubt it would go back to the same editor. I updated the post with more detail about the most recent instance. In fact, I think I actually took the overall photo and renamed the file overall (instead of the default file name) and stuck it back in the report.

> In fact, I think I actually took the overall photo and renamed the file overall (instead of the default file >name) and stuck it back in the report.\

Okay, so you did do something to clarify it, even though the photo was the same. So, that makes sense, but it ruins the experiment. We'll never know if the clarification made the difference, or if it was just looked at by a more savvy editor, the second time around.


Here's a question. How would we know if the second editor had looked it over, and the response was: "STILL on Hold--get this right!" Would we get a second e-mail notification? Or, would they just disallow it, at that point?

The other two times absolutely nothing was changed with regard to photos. Also, I waited to post this until the most recent one was accepted.

One of my pet peeves is when a report is kicked back with questions about some detail on the receipt over which I have no control. For example, when the time on the receipt is wrong. Recently I was questioned about this two weeks after I performed the shop, and I was on a 10 day route and all my paperwork was back home. Just to be sure I did in fact report the correct time, I had to re-create the route I was on that day in Google Maps, then pull up the receipt photos for the shops I did before and after the one in question, in order to create a timeline of my route that day.

If I was questioned about the receipt within a day or two, it would not have been a problem to respond. But after two weeks, seriously? Why couldn't the editor have looked up the information from my other reports that day? This would have taken much less time than the way I had to do it.

I just got a kick-back asking about a detail in the report needing clarification. I knew it was going to cause some head scratching so I clarified it in my original submission. I emailed the proofreader and told them that the answer to their question was already in the report. She said she needed further clarification so I emailed the scheduler and asked for some help, explained the situation--which he was aware of to start because I had emailed him about it after I did the shop. About 10 minutes later my shop was graded and done . I also noticed that they had edited out some pertinent information on another shop, same proofreader, and she emailed me back on that one too. I just added back in what she took out--I had saved the narrative and it was accepted. Those two incidences will keep me from doing any more of those types of shops for that company.....

I bet we all have plenty of good stories about editors! I don't even want to go there!

When I have receipts with inaccurate times, I add a comment in the report that the times are based on actual entrance and exit times, backed up by the time recorded by the photos. These are not times that are recorded on the photos, but are recorded in the history of the photos.

There may be some editors out there who don't fully understand what you've provided. It could be the glut of edits on their plates, or it could be a simple misunderstanding of the information.

Here is a blog that may provide a little perspective from the editor standpoint when it comes to returns.

[www.acemysteryshopping.com]

I would like to return this article back to the original blogger for the following grammatical and spelling corrections as noted in the article listed in acemysteryshoppers.com:

<"Returning shops big production, bigger than just approving a project and sending it on through to the client."> There seems to be a verb missing between the words "shops" and "big".

<..."your next move should be to check your e-mail because the shop is’t over yet."> Please correct the missspelling of the word "isn't" in your sentence.

<"The process of returning the shop to a shopper includes writing an email detailing exactly what may be missing or not adds up. "> The grammatical ending of the sentence needs to be re-written, prehaps to something such as "does not add up".

<"Editors my attempt to call you before returning for something such as this, "> I believe this should be corrected to say: "Editors MAY attempt to call..."

<"Not complaining."> This is not a complete and correctly worded sentence.

<"Incomplete narratives are on part with a carpenter building your house, but leaving you with the shingles and nails to finish up the roof."> The CORRECT phrase would be: "are on PAR with a carpenter..." NOT "part" as in this sentence.

<"ACE editors want to hear from you. ">.....OK, so you have heard from me....overall,
interesting and thorough information. Overall grade is: 4.

Thank you and have a lovely day!!
==================================
Just a note to say that as of 7/2/14, Jesse went back and actually made the revisions
suggested here! Way to go, Jesse, and much appreciated! Have "upped" your grade to: 10!!

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2014 12:27AM by guysmom.

Great blog, Jesse.

Also, when we've gone somewhere and reported on something we saw there, it's completely possible that we write something that is completely clear to us, yet, to someone who wasn't there, it raises questions. God bless the editors.

I had a highly detailed casino shop returned to me by a new editor. I had to address ALL of the questions, negative or positive. I was asked to answer this, that, and the other thing in several sections. After going through the first 2 sections and confirming that I had already done all of that in every section, I just sent it back with no further corrections. It was accepted and I was given a "10".

Guysmom,

You caught me without an editor. I appreciate your notes and made the changes.

As for "Not complaining," I'm going to argue that point. As someone who worked in the newspaper industry for years, these incomplete sentences are acceptable. It's a stylistic choice, but you will see this in blogs, columns, newspapers, and books. "Fight Club" author Chuck Palahniuk uses this quite a bit.

I know it's an incomplete sentence, but it is a complete thought.

Thanks, again, for your notes. I wish you a happy holiday weekend.

"Ye fops, be silent; and ye wits, be just." --Samuel Johnson

Jesse,

You are a fine fellow!! Now I will revise your grade to: 10!!

As far as the "Not complaining" goes, I agree it is a stylistic preference. HOWEVER....in a
submitted report, we MSers would probably be "dinged" for not writing a complete
sentence...that is why I originally included it in my earlier list.

Have a safe and cool 4th!!

Examples of editors needing more information:

Editor: "Please explain why the times on the receipts are different from your report and photo's times (old MSC)"

Me: "Because their computer's times are not correct, my report and photo times are correct."

Editor: How do I know you aren't falsifying the time?"

Me: (thinking to myself - if I wanted to falsify the time, wouldn't I endeavor to match the receipt time, report time and photo time???)

My explanation: "Here are my receipts on my credit card for the same day, same town, different location but reflecting the same time as the other location's receipts that were off. I reported those times on my report and photos correctly. I could not be in 2 places at the same time with the same credit card. I did mention that the location's times were off on the report.

Editor: no response, report approved.

Or, this one:

Editor: "Please explain why the address on the receipts is not the same as the address on the listed shop."

Me: "The address listed for the shop is a state highway address. The receipt address is the local address for the town. I did report the discrepancy on my report. BTW, there is no place to report this on the report other than additional comments. I've been doing this shop now for the past year and have noted this each time on the report."

Editor: No response, report approved.


Which begs the question - In the reports, do we continue to report minor violations or problems that have not been repaired? I'm thinking about some gas stations that have minor peeling of paint or some other issue that has warranted reporting. If I go to the same station again and see the same thing, do I continue to report it? In the past, I've seen the same thing over and over, yet the station does nothing to resolve the issue.

Any thoughts?

I report what I see. It doesn't matter whether I saw it last time I was there.

Yes, you continue to report it. How else would the client know if the problem had been fixed or not?