I'll preface this by saying that my shop was ultimately approved, albeit with the editor saying this is a 1 time gesture of goodwill. Last week I did a shop at a local sandwich place. Total payment/reimbursement was $40. Before going, I had all my guests read the instructions to make sure we were all on the same page about the requirements. The editor complained that I didn't take all required photos, but I'm confident that I did take all required photos.

The instructions said in bold and italics and multiple asterisks to unwrap the sandwiches and burgers but NOT alter them in any other way before taking the photos because the client wanted to see the food exactly as it was served. Later on, the instructions said (in parentheses) the sandwiches and burgers should be cut in half. My guests and I all concurred that since this was written in passive voice and a parenthetical, it meant that the sandwiches should be served to us pre-sliced. But that we should take photos exactly as served, whether that was properly sliced or not. So we only took photos of the original sandwiches.

It seemed obvious to me and to my guests that the part in bold was the key instruction we should follow, especially if there's a way to interpret the instructions to be self-consistent. But the editor was insistent that the line that the sandwich should be sliced takes priority over all other instructions even if that interpretation isn't consistent. So I was supposed to slice all of the sandwiches before taking photos, even though the instructions said to NOT alter the food at all. I genuinely don't see how that's consistent with the plain text of the instructions.

How do you handle a situation where the instructions seem clear, and you follow them, but then the editor comes back with a different interpretation?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2026 04:28PM by tornado163.

Interpretations certainly can be, and frequently are, ambiguous. In the example by Tornado, I agree with him/her. IF I am being paid, the editor is within their right to have an opinion. If, though, I am being declined, I have in the past, will in the present and plan on in the future, kicking the MSC to the curb.

Both last winter and this spring, I had work declined due to photos. For now and in the future, I am charging an extra $10 per pic exceeding one. Concerning both shops, the error was on me and to make it more aggravating, not only did I blow 2 $15 fees, but also $63 in reimbursements.

This is the problem having unskilled editors. They are more interested in transferring blame than in recognizing the inconsistent nature of these instructions and modifying them to improve clarity.

Perhaps they wanted you to ask to have the sandwiches cut when you ordered them. Someone familiar with this shop may be able to chime in on this. Unclear instructions are so common!

I do not know what shop this is, but I do know that for an ACL sandwich shop they want a photo of the sandwich showing 'middle'. If the location does not cut my sandwich I photograph the food as given to me, THEN I cut it to obtain the necessary angled shot. I then explain in the narrative that the store did not cut the sandwich and label each photo indicating 'as served by store' or 'after sliced to obtain angle photo'.

You were clearly in the right and should be paid/reimbursed. Obviously hindsight is 20/20 but sometimes in these scenarios I take photos that meet both criteria and upload them if there's space or if not hold onto them in case I get pushback.

I had a shop last week. Pic 1 - all items unopened. Pic 2 - all items with tops removed. It doesn’t say unwrapped. So what do I do with the sandwiches that are foil-wrapped inside the boxes? I took pics with and without. I attached photo of it in the foil and put a note that I had them unwrapped if needed. They asked for that and I attached the extra photos with a note to suggest to the company that they amend guideline to say unwrapped. They then slapped my hand in the acceptance email that I should have included the required photos in original submission.

I have a current dilemma with an upcoming Applebee’s shop. The new guidelines do not say the same as the old guidelines. I emailed for clarification and was of course told that I could not do what I wanted but there was no explanation as to why the guidelines did not say it anymore. Specifically, it used to say that you could not overlap happy hour. Now it is silent. It does say 7 - 9 PM but I assumed that was the start time and not that I had to be out at 9 PM. It is actually difficult to time the exit when you don’t know if there is going to be a wait for the table. Happy hour starts at nine. I don’t understand why I cannot buy additional items at happy hour as long as the required items are not discounted. Again, there is nothing in the guidelines about this. It was there two months ago during the last set of shops. Isn’t it logical to think that by dropping the language, that it is now permissible? If I were a new shopper who had never done the location before, I wouldn’t even know that it used to specifically prohibit it. Considering how much these companies nitpick are reports, they need to do better on their end.

I think best practice is to include sample pictures in the guidelines.

Never had a Happy Hour that started at 9:00 p.m.

It's not unheard of to have "late happy hours" especially in places where they might not be a steady flow of customers at that hour.

@purpleicee wrote:

Never had a Happy Hour that started at 9:00 p.m.

Can you drop a hint as to who shops Applebees nowadays?