I can no longer access the thread "Are you kidding?"  
Please don't tell me you removed it because members were expressing dissatisfaction.

Especially with 'ex member' being the last one to have logged into that thread.  
 
I don't know what kind of classification that is, but something smells fishy at the wharf.  Let's hope not as that is a really low underhanded way to mange a public forum and I would likie to believe that not one of GCU's owners or staff would ever stoop that low.
 
Of course, these threads can be viewed by basically anyone, so pehaps someone in enough  of a position to monitor and control the forum thought it best for the integrity of the company to quell this uprising before it spreads like a wildfire into other areas of the GCU system.
 
Frustration breeds discontent, discontent breeds dissention and dissention spells disaster for a company!  
 
I'm sure someone will come forth tomorrow and do some damage control, if they value the artists here as much as they claim.  I'd be shocked if they don't!  
 
Best always, Randy

Pamela - there have been such bizarre decisions being made re 'marketability' - and many of them NOT addressed by admin - that it's hardly surprising that people are starting to become suspicious.  
 
When such a breakdown in trust starts to occur, anything seems possible.  
 
I think it's just as well for people to voice their worries openly on the forum, if only to have them refuted by admin.

If it was just a glitch, then they should be able to restore the thread using backups. I don't know of any forum software that doesn't allow for that sort of thing.
 
... unless they didn't set up the backup system, but a place as large as GCU most likely has some sort of backups in place.

One of the things I suggested on the other thread, that I think might have brought a response from Mindy that would have clarified things for us, was a way that this 'marketability cull' could have been carried out more quickly and transparently, at much lower cost to GCU and probably with much more acceptance by the artists.
 
GCU could have simply announced that, after a period of time (eg 2-3 months), all designs (not cards) that had never had a sale in, say, the past couple of years would be automatically deleted.
 
That would have given us time to work on those designs, both from the point of view of upgrading them and also promoting them. And, assuming that the reviewers are being paid for going through all the cards, it would have saved GCU money as well as standing a better chance of taking the artists along with them.
 
GCU would have then ended up, after a two or three months, with a site featuring only those designs that have proved themselves to be 'marketable' - which is what I understood was the purpose of this exercise.
 
As it is, people are understandably baffled as to why cards are being removed that have proved themselves to be marketable - ie people have bought them. And that is what, I think, gives rise to the suspicions that have been voiced on the other thread that there are really other motives for the 'cull' that we don't know about.
 
I would really like to know whether my suggestion, with maybe a few tweaks, would be workable and if not, I would like to know the reasons why not.  
 
And if it is workable, I don't think it is too late to switch.

Quote from Rosanne_132497 on Dec 5^th, 2011, 10:14am:

 
In my world, the "inner verses" are a nightmare  
 
I'm more of an artist than a writer. It probably takes me longer to put something inside the card than it does to design the front.
 
I really wish they would just have a big pile of licensed verses that buyer's could stick into whatever card they chose, and then I wouldn't have to guess at what to put on the inside. It would sure make my life easier  

Quote from Rosanne_132497 on Dec 5^th, 2011, 10:14am:

 
Thanks for your response, Roseanne - but what I was suggesting was that we could be given time to upgrade our keywords and the things that you suggested and make sure that they would get seen by promoting them. If they still didn't sell, then presumably it would make more sense to remove them than ones that do sell?
 
Surely that would be preferable to working on cards that have sold and then having them declined anyway, which is what seems to be happening.
 
As for 'rejection' - on the thread that disappeared, I think people agreed that this is not about rejection.  It's about the 'frustration' and 'bewilderment' of having cards rejected for very strange reasons even though they had sold or were still selling well.  

Quote from Rosanne_132497 on Dec 5^th, 2011, 10:14am:

 
then send those cards back for EDITS... not to be declined.  If we followed through on Judy's suggestion, not that it could make sense if the cards proved to be of poor design, then I'd be left with nearly nothing in my store.  Of almost 300 cards, I've had maybe a dozen to twenty that probably saw a sale.  I keep looking at those non-selling cards and can't find what is wrong with them... if it boils down to ME not marketing them and not on their ability to be marketable, then that should be on me and not in need of being culled.
 
As for the lack of trust here, I am feeling at odds with matters because I lived the "Corporate America" laborer deal for almost 20 years... I didn't like feeling as if I was just a nobody employee - I wanted to know I actually meant something to the company - that my work was valued and gave me a sense of importance in the grand scheme of things.  Perhaps I'm living in a fantasy world, but really now, what's that old saying - you get more bees with honey than with vinegar.  
 
Lots of angry posts have been made, and I admit by me too, out of FRUSTRATION - and it has nothing to do with rejection.  I don't like being unclear about my goals and that's my biggest problem right now - I don't know what GCU's vision for future card submissions entails.