Hey, thanks for writing this post. Although most of what you describe in here is true regarding the expected quality, details and storytelling about the wanted features and enhancement, I believe that you have too strict view on the guidelines.

I would like to make this clear for anyone reading your post and interested in Utopian. The guidelines are not a law. They are there for contributors to see which components a good contribution contains and see what they should avoid doing.

But we could say that most of the points, including the review questionnaire used for evaluation, is there for moderators, the content and contribution evaluators. There are cases in which Utopian is less interested, such as not actively developed projects. Also, it should be highlighted that a direct contact between the contributor and the project members is always better.

Still, it may happen that some detail is overlooked and the contribution is submitted to the community with an expectation of some higher incentive. And that is completely fine. Although the set of guidelines is quite strict at the moment, it is more about the personal approach that can be seen in the given feedback.

In ideal case, anything regarding a reward should be forgotten at the moment of publishing the submission and its evaluation. It is about engaging good contributors and encouraging them in carrying on with their good work. Giving personal opinions to them, leaving any straightforward negative out of the comment. We all are humans and can have different perspective on details.

Therefore, blaming contributors for not reading may be too harsh. They are there and their first attempt happened to be one of the average. And yet they are still members of the community we want to see in the future as well. We don't want to discourage anyone to stop writing and contributing just because their submission was not chosen for the incentives. On the other hand, it is also on to us, the Utopian team, to make sure that they are treated well and if they deviate from the expectations, they should be guided or at least they should be given hints on what they can improve.

We are not to criticise one's ideas or any kind of valuable contributions just to justify a reward. We are there to see the best out there and as a result of the evaluation and friendly commentary, they can see the incentives for the hard work.

So, the reviews should consist of a constructive critics and highlight what is good and what can be improved. Highlighting only the bad parts of the hard work will result in upset people that will believe their work came in vain, although they should not do it for us but for themselves as they believe that the particular project can be enhanced and they are the right person to do so in any way.