We are now sorting through the final remaining appeals. While we've always tried to be as consistent as possible in our decisions, the sheer range of websites and layouts that were covered by the contest made for some unavoidable mistakes and misunderstandings. We'd like to share some details on how we evaluate the severity of the different issues on this final stage so that everyone knows the reasons behind our decisions.

Our main concern is user experience on the receiving end of the IV. We have three main goals:
- To make sure Instant View pages represent information accurately and without omissions.
- To provide a better user experience as opposed to opening the content in a browser (lighter, faster, cleaner).
- To present Instant View to the users as the powerful and beautiful platform it is.

This means that some issues that could appear minor are actually much more serious than others — and vice versa.

SEVERITY SCALE
From worst case to best case

1. IVs are generated, but are missing parts of the content.
- Hey, look at this! What do you think? (sends link)
- (opens IV) Mneh, nothing special
- But.. I thought you loved cat GIFs! (blocks user)
- What GIFs?? 😱
(misinformation from IV)

2. IVs for dynamic pages or lists of articles.
- Congratulations on the press coverage! (sends link to a list of articles about a company)
- (opens IV, sees one cached result from a month ago) Sarcasm? 😡
(misinformation from IV)

3. IVs display content in the wrong order.
- Hey, I found an article about your video! (sends link)

Original article:

These videos are shit!
video1, video2
Watch something good instead...
video3

IV:

video 1, video2, video3
These videos are shit!
Watch something good instead...

- (opens IV) But.. My video3.. 😣 🔫
(misinformation from IV)

4. IVs are missing functional elements.
- Hey, here's a handy list of apps for your phone (sends link to article with store download buttons).
- Yeah, ugh. Very handy. Do I need to copy/paste their names into search?
- No, don't open it in the stupid IV, go to the website! 😬
(bad UX)

5. Poorly formatted IVs
- Look at this beautifully done in-depth report (sends link to IV with missing line breaks in quotes, poorly formatted tables, image captions set in plain text)
- (opens IV) Wow, this Telegram IV stuff is totally unreadable, and their design reminds me of ASCII-art. Back to the 90-ies! 😂😅
(bad impression from IV)

6. IV breaks if the source code of the original is using one-off formatting / the code has typos that are automatically corrected in the browser but break the IV.
- Check out these images (sends link)
- (opens IV) What images? I only see one.
- Wow, this never happened to me before. Other articles are OK. 🤔

While this is clearly a serious problem for the page in question, it's negligible for the template because the chances are so low that a user will hit just that article with the typo. A template that fixes a one-off case for one page is only marginally better than one that doesn't — because it processes exactly one page better.

At the same time, supporting all the possible typos is unfeasible. And we've frequently found that authors made their templates worse when trying to cover one-off formatting issues because this caused corrupted IVs in other unexpected places.

7. IVs are not generated for certain pages
- Check this out! (sends link)
- (no IV button is shown, opens link in the browser) OK. 😌
(no visible problems)


And now we'll get back to our dungeons to study the last remaining handful of appeals. Hang on tight!