Forums  /  The Site  /  Reject: This doesn't appear notable

Now that I think about it, a big problem with having a compilation set out on a level leaderboard is that they would share the name category name. Unless of course, you didn't have a cateogry name, but just specific levels with their own sets of rules.


I'm confused by the attitude here from

I do understand that there is a cost, both economic (hosting and space have some cost) and "reputation" when it comes to adding games to the site.

However, the only reason this site is worth anything is it provides a toolset to create a speedrun leaderboard. Nothing else is of value to the users of the site.

If a game is deemed "not notable" then it would seem to me that the goal of the site is to be "Leaderboards for games we like" and that ruins the only aspect of the site that I liked, which is that essentially every game with an ending was welcome.

KiniamaroKiniamaro, IlluminaTeaIlluminaTea and HurricaneMixerHurricaneMixer like this. 

They have to draw the line somewhere. Understand SRC gets requests for some of the worst, bottom of the barrel flash games and so on all the time. The problem is they would have to keep any game request rules incredibly vague, as rejections should be handled case by case. It's selective quality control and only looks like bullshit on the surface, but the site would be overrun with terrible games otherwise.


^ @btrim
I got game maker studio in a humble bundle years ago. I can go make a game in 1 hour using downloadable physics and assets packages.
It has obscene material, you know, because art.
You can barely call it finishable, since it's partly endless.
It's very high quality in my opinion and if more people played it I think it could win GotY. I'll put it up for free on this site's resources page on the game page.
Should my game be allowed?

Edit: the title of the game is Btrim Stinks, and it's been submitted to steam greenlight and itchio


I don't really see how it would be "overrun" in the sense that it would interfere with much of anything else. Just ignore any drama over it and leave it in the dusty corner like you would anything else nobody "serious" cares about. Maybe this is just my perspective considering I ignore at least 95% of the games as it is. I see this site as a tool to build leaderboards for video game speedruns.

Regardless of my opinion, telling people the video game they played is "not notable" is probably not a good way to handle this (This is not the first thread I've seen recently about this phrasing). Just be honest and say "I don't care about Atari games so I'm just going to reject this game"

It seems to me that the game exists, has some kind of goal (I'm taking the submitter's word for this), and has at least one person who wants to play it. I don't see the harm when this is the case.



Provided it abides by the law (it sounds like satire) and the content rules, sure.

6oliath6oliath likes this. 

I'm not even commenting on whether or not the particular game mentioned in this thread should or should not be rejected (I'm not even going to check what game it is). I'm just pointing out that SRC has been moving towards controlling the quality of content on the site. Google sheets is a tool and can be used to build leaderboards, as well as track your own PBs. SRC is definitely more than just some tool. It's much more community focused and as of late, they seem to care more about quality than they did several years ago.

It depends on how you use the site, I suppose. Not everyone will use the site the way you do. If I didn't go out of my way to follow runs, and all games were accepted automatically, the main page for SRC would be bloated with terrible games made for some college kid's midterm project. Might not matter to you, but matters to others clearly.

I agree though that the wording of the rejection reason is a bit lazy though.

6oliath6oliath likes this. 

I think I've seen this subject kicked around like a dead horse now for a long while now.

When people are provided with actual information regarding a rejection, people still complain anyway, in my opinion I think no matter how we choose to reject for a reason people will always complain and fight over it regardless as its been proven time and time again. Explain to us what makes it "notable", provide more information about the game, a lot of people do not do this and this is not our fault. Time and time again, we try as much as we can, it still doesn't mean a game would get accepted but it would go miles and beyond. This is something people need to understand and this isn't uncommon, many sites follow their own guidelines and ruleset but there is always a limit.

"Notable" is not a lazy explanation, there are lots of game that literally do not need an explanation on why it was rejected because its that simple, we get bombed with lots of games that just....I don't even know how to put it into words. When the few who get rejected complain on here, they are typically fine and we provide information regarding the rejection (and most of the time there is no issue). It's usually the people who have nothing to do with the game that get involved in the discussion and end up sparking some kind of argument just for the sake of doing it. For me I try to be insightful with what I see, if it turns ugly I just ignore it entirely because it ends up becoming worst (repetitive and redundant).

Again, I personally ask to actual provide more information about the game itself in the notes section as it goes a long ways, it may not promise it would get accepted but it still goes a long ways and has a better chance (We aren't perfect speedrunners, we're still human). Sometimes I feel people just complain more than they are to try and fix the problem (we can only go so far), it isn't like none of us don't read any of these posts but they get repetitive and redundant.

This is just what I've been seeing and what I personally feel. With that said, I'm no longer going to post in this thread, it has already been said in a forum post somewhere that eventually it will be known what makes things appear more notable among other things but it's going to be a while (rules request section on the site IIRC).

QuivicoQuivico, TheGreatToddmanTheGreatToddman and 2 others like this. 

I would respond but since you've already decided to ignore any response I give, I suppose I'm writing into the ether.

Enjoy your fiefdom, mod.


I'll at least chime in to give @btrim credit for using a $20 vocab word, well done! Fiefdom!


It's as you said really, the reputation of the site is a possible factor. This means there absolutely has to be some kind of quality standard, and for the most part that quality standard in the case of less 'notable' titles is providing as much information as you can to us regarding the title in your submission. This might include information on how you would setup the board, how the speedrun actually works (is there a goal in-game/or some kind of end-game?) and information on any known prior history the game has in speedrunning. As Dangerless said though, regardless of if that particular information is presented some games will still be rejected based on varying other factors. We get a ton of flash/webgames fairly regularly, and most of those either don't really have any kind of end-goal, are purely score-based or are so overly simplistic that it would be impossible to differentiate what a speedrun of the game is versus someone simply playing casually.


However, the only reason this site is worth anything is it provides a toolset to create a speedrun leaderboard. Nothing else is of value to the users of the site.

Even before I was a mod, of which was fairly recently, one thing I always wondered is how a lot of the games even made it onto the site. How the site presented itself and its attitude to quality control was always a concern to me, and for a lot of other people I speak to as well. Not wanting to maintain some level of quality negatively affects the view of the site in my opinion, and although there are probably a lot of people who don't care about this stuff (yourself included as well), there are definitely people who do.

I don't really see how it would be "overrun" in the sense that it would interfere with much of anything else. Just ignore any drama over it and leave it in the dusty corner like you would anything else nobody "serious" cares about.

I mean, we could do that, but that just shows a lack of responsibility even moreso, in my opinion. If you are willing to accept something onto the site, but not follow through and ensure it's something of quality and is maintained properly then that is more of a problem. For the most part what we're asking is as much information as possible when games that are less notable are going through the form. Not because we dislike games that no one knows about, there are a lot of less notable titles that are really good games on the site that are of a high quality, but because we want some information on a game that little to nothing is known about regarding the game itself and how a run works. Sometimes the videos aren't always self-explanatory.

That said, personally, the way rejection messages has been handled has always been an issue to me, that being them being handled currently solely through notifications. They should be handled similar to a rejected run, and go into a user's pending actions under 'rejected game request'. That way, we can actually given rather lengthy explanations for particular titles without being at the mercy of the notification system.

QuivicoQuivico and drgrumbledrgrumble like this. 

Rejecting random flash games makes sense.

Rejecting mainstream commercial games released on cart, I think should be reconsidered.

TenkaTenka, IlluminaTeaIlluminaTea and NihilistComedyHourNihilistComedyHour like this.