I'm not tired of shopping, I'm tired of fighting for my life with these editors to get my shops approved. I think in this past month, I have had more rejections than in the past 3 years! Maybe its me, I don't know.

I did a debrand, have done many of these before and I have always cropped my photos a bit to give them a better picture. This editor said absolutely no cropped photos and rejected my shop without giving me an opportunity to correct. Ok, whatever, I let it go, wasn't worth the $30 to fight it. Job gets reposted for $100, I grab it, re-do it, was sure not to crop anything. It got kicked back to me asking for additional photos. Seriously? Ok, I went back out, I took all of the photos requested, uploaded. Rejected. No notes as to why, no reason given, no email sent. I mean, I am not an idiot, at least I don't think so!

I emailed the scheduler to let her know, I have more pics, happy to try and rectify so you have a report you can use.

Some editors are just so easy to work with and others just suck!

I had a route of shops I was doing. I did the day shops on the way out, and the nighttime shops on the way back, at the same locations. When I got home, I realized I was missing an ID photo on a daytime shop. I just used one of my extra nightime photos instead. Shop rejected. Oh well, not worth fighting for the $25 or whatever. Technically, they were right, but come on. A month later, I happened to have a route in the same direction, passing right by the station. I checked Presto on a whim, and there it is again, this time for $200! Mine had a happy ending. The shop was approved.

But, yeah, I am also seeing more rejections. But they almost always tell me why and give me a chance to fix it.

I did one BP debrand a few years ago. Rejected. No clue why. Scheduler wouldn't help. I've successfully completed HUNDREDS of regular BP shops and still have no clue why it was rejected.

@Datagirl wrote:

I'm not tired of shopping, I'm tired of fighting for my life with these editors to get my shops approved. I think in this past month, I have had more rejections than in the past 3 years! Maybe its me, I don't know.

I did a debrand, have done many of these before and I have always cropped my photos a bit to give them a better picture. This editor said absolutely no cropped photos and rejected my shop without giving me an opportunity to correct. Ok, whatever, I let it go, wasn't worth the $30 to fight it. Job gets reposted for $100, I grab it, re-do it, was sure not to crop anything. It got kicked back to me asking for additional photos. Seriously? Ok, I went back out, I took all of the photos requested, uploaded. Rejected. No notes as to why, no reason given, no email sent. I mean, I am not an idiot, at least I don't think so!

I emailed the scheduler to let her know, I have more pics, happy to try and rectify so you have a report you can use.

Some editors are just so easy to work with and others just suck!

Personally, I would escalate the situation. To go out and do a job twice and not get paid and no explanation is shady AF. I'm assuming its the big I company that likes to do stuff like this.

I would also escalate for sure. It is totally unacceptable for a shop to be rejected without reason. An explanation needs to be provided...that is totally ridiculous. Sorry you have to deal with this.

I received emails saying there's no go-backs. You have to take the pictures the day of the shop and can't go back and take more any other time. I wonder if that's why you were rejected the last time.

As a former editor and longtime forum reader, I would like to say "these shoppers wore me out." When I was editing a lot of shoppers miss things they consider minor, but the client does not. There seems to be this preconceived notion that editors like to return shops or exclude/reject shops, and that is just not true. It is in no one's best interest to reject a shop because it costs the editor money, the company has to re-shop it, and the shopper is pissed off. No one wins in this scenario. NO ONE. In what world does rejecting a shop benefit anyone? I have edited for three companies over about five years total. All the companies offer a very low rate for excluded shops (.25c-.50c) as compared to $2-3 for an accepted shop. The editor having to chase a shopper down for the correct picture, which they may not even have, is costing the editor money because they are spending time trying to get into contact with the shopper or make the correction so they can accept the shop. In this scenario, if a required photo is not turned in, the editor has spent time hand-holding the shopper to get the correct picture, only to reject the shop and receive little compensation. Honestly, yes, there are some bad editors out there. Remember, editors are dealing with hundreds of shoppers a day. Overall, the complaints I am reading on these forums are just that, complaints. Shoppers would always ask an editor to accept something "this one time," not realizing that could put the editor's job at risk because the shopper did not follow the guidelines. When writing these posts, people should remember that editors often read them. They, too, are people just trying to make a living. Lastly, I always wished shoppers would take pride in their work. Some shoppers don't proofread or use spell check and then expect the editor to fix it. Take pride in the work you do. Editors and schedulers know the shoppers who turn in good-quality work. Those shoppers are often approached first with bigger bonuses or extra work before the shops are placed on the board. Merry Christmas, everyone, and thanks for listening!

Well said, energyboost! We definitely need a reminder from "the other side" now and then. There have been some horrifying accounts from editors on this forum (they're in the archives somewhere) about reports and shopper-types that they've dealt with. Schedulers also. KSSPete and others have shared some experiences with us. Thank you!

Obviously you never worked for Coyle.

While I agree with 99.9% of what you have said one thing stuck out.

Overall, the complaints I am reading on these forums are just that, complaints.

Wow! What an entitled, nasty comment. How would you like it if someone said your post was just a complaint? Basically 'shut up'....
There are legitimate times where a shopper has spelled everything correctly, used correct grammar and included all the required photos but is still contacted by the editor for information ALREADY INCLUDED in the submitted report. And I'm sure there are many many times that shoppers do forget info or a picture.

FYI this forum is for shoppers to chat, share ideas, and COMPLAIN. If the OP wants to do that, they are most definitely welcome to do so.

@energyboost wrote:

As a former editor and longtime forum reader, I would like to say "these shoppers wore me out." When I was editing a lot of shoppers miss things they consider minor, but the client does not. There seems to be this preconceived notion that editors like to return shops or exclude/reject shops, and that is just not true. It is in no one's best interest to reject a shop because it costs the editor money, the company has to re-shop it, and the shopper is pissed off. No one wins in this scenario. NO ONE. In what world does rejecting a shop benefit anyone? I have edited for three companies over about five years total. All the companies offer a very low rate for excluded shops (.25c-.50c) as compared to $2-3 for an accepted shop. The editor having to chase a shopper down for the correct picture, which they may not even have, is costing the editor money because they are spending time trying to get into contact with the shopper or make the correction so they can accept the shop. In this scenario, if a required photo is not turned in, the editor has spent time hand-holding the shopper to get the correct picture, only to reject the shop and receive little compensation. Honestly, yes, there are some bad editors out there. Remember, editors are dealing with hundreds of shoppers a day. Overall, the complaints I am reading on these forums are just that, complaints. Shoppers would always ask an editor to accept something "this one time," not realizing that could put the editor's job at risk because the shopper did not follow the guidelines. When writing these posts, people should remember that editors often read them. They, too, are people just trying to make a living. Lastly, I always wished shoppers would take pride in their work. Some shoppers don't proofread or use spell check and then expect the editor to fix it. Take pride in the work you do. Editors and schedulers know the shoppers who turn in good-quality work. Those shoppers are often approached first with bigger bonuses or extra work before the shops are placed on the board. Merry Christmas, everyone, and thanks for listening!

This morning, a thought popped into my mind. It is not my opinion nor certainly not predicated upon fact.

In that some, if not most, editors are ICs, what if the problem is the MSC? What if they, the editors, are only relaying mandates from the companies? I have completed 4400+ shops in 22+ yrs., but have only experienced a single problem with an editor. Have I merely been lucky or have I much more carefully chosen the MSCs and/or assignments?

In the past 30 days., I violated my rule against jobs that did not acceptably include a fee for multiple pics; there were 2. For the first, I missed 1 out of 10 and the work was rejected; that was on me. The second had conditions that were not possible for me to meet; surprisingly, it was accepted. There absolutely will NOT be a third. In 2007, I was paid $5 per pic, so in 2025+, my fee is $7.50 beyond a POV and an exterior.

My compliments to ENERGY BOOST for a logical post.

I certainly see both sides of the spectrum here. Editors don't make much money, and they have to deal with all kinds of shops. I'm sure the majority of the shops are done correctly, but there are some that are not. New shoppers, mistakes, etc. I have occasionally had disagreements with an editor on whether there was an infraction or not. That's a judgment call, and disagreements are understandable. I've had some excellent editors that have given me awesome feedback that has made me a better shopper. I'm grateful for that, and I'm grateful for their part and the mystery shopping system.

All of that said, it is never acceptable to reject the shop without giving a reason. It shows a lack of professionalism, a lack of thoroughness, and honestly total disrespect to the shopper when an editor rejects the shop without taking 30 seconds to type a couple of sentences to explain why the shop was rejected. How is the shopper supposed to improve in the future they don't even know what they did wrong? It doesn't take much time to type two sentences.

When an editor rejects a shop without giving a reason, it just shows that they are an unprofessional person. It also shows a lack of personal ethics and character and total and complete disrespect for the shopper of the report that was rejected.

@shopperbob wrote:

In that some, if not most, editors are ICs, what if the problem is the MSC? What if they, the editors, are only relaying mandates from the companies?

Definitely! Don't even get me started on the hugest, the "i" company, that consistently gives shoppers incomplete, inaccurate or contrary instructions but gives editors a completely different set of instructions! All. The. Time.

Another MSC assigned me a shop at the last minute, the day of. As I looked over the instructions, they were for recorded telephone call yet the job posting had said in person inquiry. The shop form itself asked for a POV upload. No one responded to my request for clarification so I went ahead with the in-person scenario and, surprisingly, it was approved. But I was docked one point for not having done something that was in the instructions (that I did not have). I was sweating it a little bit because the client had actually been shopped by EliteCX not too long ago so that combined with a mismatch of instructions had me worried.

Having experienced a ton of issues with one specific editor the past few months I can understand the frustration. But, before I did something stupid and shot myself in the foot like refusing to do those jobs again, I reached out to this specific editor and asked for her advice on what they were looking for and what could I do differently to fix my issues. She was absolutely amazing. Her response was kind and professional and above all she appreciated me asking her questions. I figured it was her returning my jobs so I asked what she was specifically looking for.

On the flip side I get different "requests" from different editors. One time I'll be told take the photo from farther away, the next will be take it closer. Then they will say we only need 1 photo of that and next time we want more photos of that. There is no consistence for some jobs. Sinclair is the worst. I have turned it into a game now to see what they will come back with as a complaint. I will do everything exactly as I have been told previously and low and behold they will have something to complain about.

Just an update. I did reach out to Carey yesterday who did respond. She asked another person to look into it and did get back to me.

I was told that I did not submit the changes requested from the editor and that my shop was rejected for failure to respond. Now, I know this is not true because I submitted the changes within a few hours. A few hours later, I checked on the job in the my pay area since this is shopmetrics. The job shows as pending review, there was nothing in my jobs that needed to be submitted. Unfortunately, you can't see the progression or the status of your job as you can on Sassie. Of course, they are closed for the holiday now. So... helpful forum members... any words of wisdom on this one? Could this be a technical error? I do want to respond and cc Carey on the email, I will wait until after the holiday. Would be nice if I can at least recoup my time and mileage wasted. This is definitely a new one for me!

I hope you got screenshots of every thing! Heed my mantra, "Escalate! Escalate!"

I'm still trying to understand your original post regarding the editor responding that cropped photos are not allowed.
You aren't saying which shop this refers to.
I say this because I have done debrand shops and have cropped photos, resized them etc. Never had that response from an editor.
However, if I'm wondering if this was a BP shop that you reused a photo, already submitted, that was then cropped.
Now, that was the original complaint that I wish the new poster who says they were once an editor could have least have given an idea of the response.

@French Farmer wrote:

I'm still trying to understand your original post regarding the editor responding that cropped photos are not allowed.
You aren't saying which shop this refers to.
I say this because I have done debrand shops and have cropped photos, resized them etc. Never had that response from an editor.
However, if I'm wondering if this was a BP shop that you reused a photo, already submitted, that was then cropped.
Now, that was the original complaint that I wish the new poster who says they were once an editor could have least have given an idea of the response.

This is a BP shop and i have always cropped photos to give a better view. I probably take 5 extra photos of each item and i am careful not to reuse. I write down the photo numbers and double check. She specifically said cannot crop photos for any reason. Well ok then. I never had thst response before either.

I did a debrand for BP, and the editor probably sent me back 20 times. By the time the shop was submitted, I photographed every square inch of the canopy.

@viv0412 wrote:

I did one BP debrand a few years ago. Rejected. No clue why. Scheduler wouldn't help. I've successfully completed HUNDREDS of regular BP shops and still have no clue why it was rejected.

@Datagirl wrote:

I'm not tired of shopping, I'm tired of fighting for my life with these editors to get my shops approved. I think in this past month, I have had more rejections than in the past 3 years! Maybe its me, I don't know.

I did a debrand, have done many of these before and I have always cropped my photos a bit to give them a better picture. This editor said absolutely no cropped photos and rejected my shop without giving me an opportunity to correct. Ok, whatever, I let it go, wasn't worth the $30 to fight it. Job gets reposted for $100, I grab it, re-do it, was sure not to crop anything. It got kicked back to me asking for additional photos. Seriously? Ok, I went back out, I took all of the photos requested, uploaded. Rejected. No notes as to why, no reason given, no email sent. I mean, I am not an idiot, at least I don't think so!

I emailed the scheduler to let her know, I have more pics, happy to try and rectify so you have a report you can use.

Some editors are just so easy to work with and others just suck!

About 90% of all editors are IC's. They are not always the ones who reject the shop. It is actually a manager. If there is an issue, it is put on hold; they are supposed to email and leave comments. However, I have personally found that one group of editors at a particular company that pays weekly is out for blood. I have had to become selective in what work I do for that company. There is one editor who is nothing but awful and hateful, and who rejects everything I do. I've had to get Carey involved before. It was awful. But I had a copy of the report that I submitted, and the editor was caught lying. She is still working for them, but she was caught in a lie. So who knows who else she has screwed along the way.

@shopperbob wrote:

This morning, a thought popped into my mind. It is not my opinion nor certainly not predicated upon fact.

In that some, if not most, editors are ICs, what if the problem is the MSC? What if they, the editors, are only relaying mandates from the companies? I have completed 4400+ shops in 22+ yrs., but have only experienced a single problem with an editor. Have I merely been lucky or have I much more carefully chosen the MSCs and/or assignments?

In the past 30 days., I violated my rule against jobs that did not acceptably include a fee for multiple pics; there were 2. For the first, I missed 1 out of 10 and the work was rejected; that was on me. The second had conditions that were not possible for me to meet; surprisingly, it was accepted. There absolutely will NOT be a third. In 2007, I was paid $5 per pic, so in 2025+, my fee is $7.50 beyond a POV and an exterior.

My compliments to ENERGY BOOST for a logical post.

I think every MSC should make their editors and schedulers actually perform the shop they are working on to fully understand what actually happens on the shop.

@Datagirl wrote:

@French Farmer wrote:

I'm still trying to understand your original post regarding the editor responding that cropped photos are not allowed..........

This is a BP shop and i have always cropped photos to give a better view. I probably take 5 extra photos of each item and i am careful not to reuse. I write down the photo numbers and double check. She specifically said cannot crop photos for any reason. Well ok then. I never had thst response before either.

In reviewing the latest BP/Amoco Debrand shop guidelines, (as of today December 25, 2025) I cannot find any mention of cropped photos or any instructions not to do so. Like the standard BP/Amoco shop guidelines, the shopper is instructed that each photo must be unique and cannot be reused.
Like you, I always take extra photos of each item. This ensures me that I have an extra photo to submit if the editor requests one.

I also note that the guideline instructs the shopper:
"The file name for each photo must include your evaluation ID (as shown in yourXXXXXX log), along with the Question ID (as shown on your evaluation) for each required photo and each debranding violation."

And below that instruction is this reiteration:
"Make sure you upload the correct photos for a location. Duplication of photos is not acceptable and may lead to the rejection and non-payment of your shop."

Lastly, at the end of the guidelines the shopper is instructed:
"Your report is required to be submitted within 8 hours of conducting your visit. Be clear and concise with your comments.
• Within 24 hours of submitting your report, the client requires you to login and check your shop status to see
if your report has been returned to you for clarification. It is a client requirement that you respond to
emails/messages within 6 hours of receiving them.
• If for any reason, you cannot make a scheduled visit, or you feel unsafe at any location, contacting your
scheduler immediately is required."

As much as I can see, you submitted your photos of the shop, followed the guidelines and were rejected for reasons not substantiated by the shop guidelines.
Once again, it would be interesting to hear what the former editor opines.

BTW, the Debrand Guidelines for a shop asking to be performed 1/1/2026 - 1/10/2026 are dated 1/1 2024. Obviously, things have not changed!

To me, your complaint is valid!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/25/2025 06:36PM by French Farmer.

Well, it has been my experience, both past and present, that any alteration of a photo in the BP shops won't load in Presto. Most of the other gas station shops you can crop them, or whatever, but not the BP pics. Even renaming them will make Presto reject them. So I don't. It actually seems strange to me that other folks can in fact alter, crop, or rename BP pics and Presto doesn't reject them at all.

I live in an extremely rural area so when I go out to do a gas station I drive a lot of miles. After having this happen to me one time, I decided that I would take additional photos when I'm at the location. I know it sounds excessive but remember it just takes a couple of seconds more. I only do this in cases where I am driving it a long way. I take a photo of the entire pump. Then I walk up to the pump and take a photo of the side of the pump from the left and a side from the right. So you can see the front of the pump but from a left angle and the front of the pump from the right angle I also look up take a photo of the top of the pump and look down and take a photo of the bottom of the pump making sure that the pump number is in every photo. When I do that it covers all of my bases, So if something comes back and says I need a picture because you missed something small. One of those additional pictures would have picked it up and you still have a couple of additional photos available just in case they need another photo for something else.

I will also take additional photos of the canopy and additional photos of the sign, again, I may not see anything wrong, but I'm covering my bases and I always make sure that I have at least two angles of the building one from the right side of the canopy, one from the left side of the canopy and always make sure that you can see the front door in each photo, There's nothing worse than getting home and finding out that they're rejecting your shop because you couldn't see the front door because there was a vehicle parked there.

@piebaby wrote:

I live in an extremely rural area so when I go out to do a gas station I drive a lot of miles. After having this happen to me one time, I decided that I would take additional photos when I'm at the location. I know it sounds excessive but remember it just takes a couple of seconds more. ............... There's nothing worse than getting home and finding out that they're rejecting your shop because you couldn't see the front door because there was a vehicle parked there.

For all BP shops, I always take 3 pump photos and 3 closeups (crind/pop down). My pump photos always include the bollard(s). The additional photos are for backups, especially so when an editor as described begins making up their own rules.

However, IMO the most important suggestion of mine is always have a worksheet for each shop, no matter the type, brand, etc. The sheet should have a comment section, checkoffs for each pertinent, required photo, and further, to download your photos onto your laptop and then name and review them on site.

Nonetheless, the OP's complaint with that particular editor is, IMO, valid and reasonable, no matter what the former editor claims about shoppers.

It has to do with BP. I did a debrand, and they kept sending it back. Both the scheduler and editor stated it was because BP expects only original photos. They demanded the program be app-based and wanted it to be fixed so that it had to be done onsite.

@Morledzep wrote:

Well, it has been my experience, both past and present, that any alteration of a photo in the BP shops won't load in Presto. Most of the other gas station shops you can crop them, or whatever, but not the BP pics. Even renaming them will make Presto reject them. So I don't. It actually seems strange to me that other folks can in fact alter, crop, or rename BP pics and Presto doesn't reject them at all.

It does not show up on the shopper side. But on the editing side, Shopmetrics tracks duplicated photos. If you crop an image in ShopMetrics, and that photo was used somewhere else (this report or another), the editor knows.

@French Farmer wrote:

@Datagirl wrote:

@French Farmer wrote:

I'm still trying to understand your original post regarding the editor responding that cropped photos are not allowed..........

This is a BP shop and i have always cropped photos to give a better view. I probably take 5 extra photos of each item and i am careful not to reuse. I write down the photo numbers and double check. She specifically said cannot crop photos for any reason. Well ok then. I never had thst response before either.

In reviewing the latest BP/Amoco Debrand shop guidelines, (as of today December 25, 2025) I cannot find any mention of cropped photos or any instructions not to do so. Like the standard BP/Amoco shop guidelines, the shopper is instructed that each photo must be unique and cannot be reused.
Like you, I always take extra photos of each item. This ensures me that I have an extra photo to submit if the editor requests one.

I also note that the guideline instructs the shopper:
"The file name for each photo must include your evaluation ID (as shown in yourXXXXXX log), along with the Question ID (as shown on your evaluation) for each required photo and each debranding violation."

And below that instruction is this reiteration:
"Make sure you upload the correct photos for a location. Duplication of photos is not acceptable and may lead to the rejection and non-payment of your shop."

Lastly, at the end of the guidelines the shopper is instructed:
"Your report is required to be submitted within 8 hours of conducting your visit. Be clear and concise with your comments.
• Within 24 hours of submitting your report, the client requires you to login and check your shop status to see
if your report has been returned to you for clarification. It is a client requirement that you respond to
emails/messages within 6 hours of receiving them.
• If for any reason, you cannot make a scheduled visit, or you feel unsafe at any location, contacting your
scheduler immediately is required."

As much as I can see, you submitted your photos of the shop, followed the guidelines and were rejected for reasons not substantiated by the shop guidelines.
Once again, it would be interesting to hear what the former editor opines.

BTW, the Debrand Guidelines for a shop asking to be performed 1/1/2026 - 1/10/2026 are dated 1/1 2024. Obviously, things have not changed!

To me, your complaint is valid!

I did a Small Bus Visa Debit/cash shop for an Italian specialty gourmet store this year. I called to check store hours which were unavailable online. I left no message but the owner called back. I learned they closed the storefront months earlier but were still doing baskets for special orders such as raffles, corporate gifts, funerals, etc. I still had to geo verify, photograph the storefront and learn if the site was operating as another business, for sale or rent. I felt significantly ridiculed by the editor for going to a site they said I knew was closed. Nominal pay would have been about $7. After trying to educate the editor in several emails I let it go for being nonproductive. I’ve gone a few rounds with them again since then for other situations. It seems to be a consistent attitude. I can let it go. Sometimes it’s OK transcend smaller things as a business choice and reduce stress. I appreciate this thread and this site. It helps me validate my situation and is informative.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2025 03:49PM by emm2131.

Emm, now you know not to waste time on businesses that have no online info. As I have also learned the hard way, the ONLY information this MSC considers true and valid is what Google or a corporate website, depending on the project, shows. No matter what the guidelines say. Even when it's dead wrong.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2025 05:00PM by sestrahelena.

@wrosie wrote:

I think every MSC should make their editors and schedulers actually perform the shop they are working on to fully understand what actually happens on the shop.

Yes! It should be a prerequisite that anyone supervising field workers should have spent time in the field doing the work…for the fees being offered. So many have no idea the overhead we carry just to do the job such as gas, maintenance, insurance, device cost, device service costs, travel time, time on site, and time to complete reports , especially those with days worth of prep, targeted personnel, over 100 questions and photos, and long narratives…that’s over 100 miles round trip.

It’s very clear to me that requiring the completion of even a single assignment could offer perspective that could save considerable time, money, and grief for everyone.

To require a return visit for a $10 assignment over a debatable issue is not ok. You’re lucky to cover gas costs for a single visit at that rate. If there’s something missing from a $100 gig and it’s a legitimate lapse, I’d say thank you for allowing the opportunity to correct so my efforts can be rewarded.

We’re all human. We all make mistakes. Decent communication can usually resolve things amicably. Misuse of power is…(insert various analytic possibilities)…just not ok, and it often has little to do with the one being messed with.