We'll have another reviewer give these cards their 3rd look.

This is exactly the kind of thing I have been talking about. Things just don't make sense around here.  

I had the same thing happen last week. I submitted two cards at the same time, but different reviewers looked at them. One was okay....the other sent back.
 
I thought reviewers looked at cards in batches from an artist...especially if the image was the same.

quite honestly, I'd like to know if it is common practice to have the company's artists also doing double duty as reviewers?  At one time I thought I would have liked to help with such a job, but admittedly I'm not educated enough to do so - nor do I now feel it good to have my peers playing around with my cards.  Putting them up for critiques on the Critique Forum is one thing to get help from others - but something seems amiss with our fellow artists also being paid to approve or decline our cards.
 
Is this common practice in all these sorts of business entities (like "H" and other such greeting card companies and stock agency companies)?  Or are the artists paid as artists with a completely separate staff of reviewers who are NOT submitting artists?
 
Just curious...
 
and I really can't help but think with these new guidelines if GCU really isn't requiring artists to be professionally trained - yeah, beating that dead horse again but I can't seem to wrap my head around the idea of being able to reach the new bar considering the new requirements.  I can't help but feel that it really is a requirement to be professionally trained and why I need to step back until I feel I have the "big guns" of skills and experience to be able to submit here.  

It is common for submitters to also be reviewers on stock agencies. I was a reviewer on an agency for a couple of years.
I have no problem with other artists reviewing cards. They are monitored by GCU, and any problems are dealt with by Mindy and a second or even third review. I think it is better to have someone who shares our hopes and problems checking our cards, as long as they are not reviewing their own cards!

Well, I am glad SOMEBODY got someone's attention. If you who read my posts back in November about my 3 fast tracked being flatly declined by the same reviewer, and that when I wrote the reviewer he/she.was a bit rude, I felt. However, I wrote to ADMIN,and the last few times have been much better... even if reviewed by that reviewer.  
Betti

Mindy
 
It's rather confusing when your reviewers make a mistake in judgment and APPROVED Judy's first submissions of cards with a particular image then the next set is later declined, and after Judy requests further insight, this results in ALL of them being declined.  What is that saying about this whole process and the reviewers?  Granted, we are all human beings, but the issue remains that some of us are struggling to understand so we can up our own bars which I think you don't quite understand and take as us being argumentative.  I can't speak for others, but my barrage of questions and rather upset comments are all coming from the continuing frustration with the process.  I get a strong feeling that some of us can say what's on our minds and others cannot.  This new review system is time consuming - and if your reviewers aren't up to snuff on what they are supposed to be doing and make a mistake, it's costing a great deal of time and adding to the confusion - so I happen to think it a valid question for Judy to ask what qualifications allows them to be reviewers.  I would think that the first reviewer would have caught those issues you claim make her cards not marketable.  Aren't they being trained or are they not professional artists who have a good grasp of greeting card design and are fully aware of GCU's expectations at this point in time?  I question that too because if such things are happening, how will I really come to grips with what GCU wants?
 
As I've said numerous times over, I learn by mistakes made - either by myself or others.  I think Judy - and heck, if it were me and I got approvals with the all the said issues you point out swimming by the first time around, I'd be sadly mistaken that the cards were marketable in the first place.  So, Mindy - I really don't think you need to take the constant asking of questions as anything more than our attempting to get a tiny toehold on what we are and are not doing right with regards to YOUR expectations at this point.  
 
EDIT - let me clarify.  Mindy, you made a rather hard handed comment that Judy would be jumping for joy had her cards been approved.  Someone else asked about having only one image submitted, letting it go through the process, and then tacking on some sort of comment to speed up the review of future submissions using the same card.  Now, I agree that it seems to be pot luck whether or not you get a good review or not.  If her card went through and the rest were allowed through, then in essence, NONE are marketable.  So, look at the time wasted in having Judy's first ones approved and then the rest declined resulting in ALL declined.  It seems like an awful lot of work and a roll of the dice as to what the reviewer sees on that particular day.
 
You've commented on qualifications of us artists and that we SHOULD KNOW what we are doing.  Well, shouldn't the reviewers?  I'm taking this as a case in point that your reviewer made a big time mistake interpreting the perspective of the image and let it go while someone else saw fit to decline it - so I find your comment that Judy would be jumping for joy rather disrespectful - and I'm not even on the receiving end of it.  Considering the fact that GCU has upped the bar, I too will jump for joy for ANY submission that gets approved at this point - and I think I'd be equally aggravated if further submissions using the same image were later declined.  Why not step into our shoes for once - we are being asked to be professional, do our research, learn all we can, and provide you with professional salable cards, then isn't it understandable as to why we get our panties in a bunch when a reviewer makes a mistake that causes confusion?  When one "thinks" one has things going, then have it taken away, stand in our shoes and embrace our confusion before replying