I've already said this a hundred times, so I can only say it so many more - this is something I would like to consider for the future but it is NOT possible right now. There are not enough hours in the day. It seems really, really simple from a user standpoint, but it isn't that simple from a programming/work standpoint. And it's not as simple as just saying "hire more people to do it".

Yes, it's something I'd like some day. No, it's not something we can do right now. I can't really seem to say this enough, so this is the last time I'm going to say it for now.

For what it's worth, it has a LOT less to do with 'not enough pets meeting standards' than just not enough pets being nominated in the first place. And before anyone goes off on a "no one is interested in pets anymore/Subeta doesn't care about pets/etc", please know that pets are the reason I am even on Subeta (and the only reason I ever started playing in the first place)! I care about pets -- a LOT - and that's part of why we're cutting it down to just three days a week. Because right now, I'd rather see three pets go out a week than us just get rid of the pet spotlight all together.

[edit] I do want to add, however, that 'making money for the site' sadly DOES come into play sometimes. We've had CWs in the past that we've had to tell people that we can no longer give full critique on, because we are now losing money on that item due to the amount of work we've put into it. Trust me, we're not doing this for free ;) The problem is, if it starts off as a simple box-tick-off system, then it turns into "Well I got rejected with a box that says I have grammar issues, but I checked and I don't and I want to know exactly where they are!!" -- and that is something we absolutely CANNOT provide for the pet spotlight. It would take way, way too much manpower. I'm sure a lot of you would be satisfied with just having a few reasons listed, but I also am sure a lot of you wouldn't be, and then we'd just be back to my old standard of "You need to go ask in the forums". A check-off system is likely all it will ever be (if/when it is ever something), and that's something we'd really, really need people to understand. It will never be in-depth like it is with CWs.

I do like the idea of more user participation/peer reviewing and etc - the kinds of things to really create a community rather than just having a lot of single people essentially asking for the review of a few staff members on their pet.

We are in the process of discussing this system now, based on these kinds of comments. It's going to be difficult/problematic to take staff out of the equation completely, because we need to make sure nothing particularly offensive or rule-breaking gets through the system and ends up on our front page.

I was thinking something along the lines of putting potential winners into some sort of upvote/downvote system, but that could end up being seen as a popularity contest very quickly. I suppose we could have some kind of 'no advertising your profiles' rule.

Some basic checkboxes for rejection reasons is also something we are looking into. (This is in early stages, it was not considered practical for a very long time and is only now beginning to be discussed again. Meetings have yet to be had on it fully, but it's something that is now in my mind to talk about)

(BTW - In threads like this where we end up at multiple pages, it would be great if you guys/OP could do me some sort of paraphrased list of what you'd like to see happen, otherwise I'm potentially going to miss something over these 7 pages - I have only so much time and would rather be moving forward on things instead of reading the same suggestions over and over! Thanks :) )

There has been significant communication on this feature recently, we will update when there is more solid information, which I hope to have soon.

- as we're in the midst of a plot, I've had no time to devote to this. Once the plot is over, it's top of my list.