Share for Perks: Why Half of All Submissions Are Rejected, and How Not to Be One

Share for Perks is not a hard programme to complete, but it has a poor completion rate. Across every submission suppliers have made since it opened, a little under half were approved. That is not reviewers being difficult. Reading the recorded reasons, the great majority of rejections are one of two things: a link that did not open, or a post nobody could see.

Both are avoidable before you submit, which is what this page is about.

Your odds differ enormously by platform

These are approval counts, split by the supplier who submitted so that no single account's record is driving them.

• X, formerly Twitter: 31 approved against 1 rejected, across fourteen different suppliers. Exactly one supplier has ever had an X share turned down. If you want an approval, this is where to get it.
• Telegram: 19 approved against 29 rejected, across eighteen suppliers. Eight of those suppliers have never had a Telegram share approved at all, so this is a property of the platform and not of a few careless accounts.
• Facebook: 3 approved against 7 rejected, five suppliers.
• Review sites: 2 approved against 12 rejected, five suppliers. The worst rate of the lot, and almost entirely one fixable mistake.

Reddit has been used twice and both were rejected, which is too little to describe as a rate and is not one.

Two of the recorded rejections are administrator test rows and are included in these counts rather than quietly removed, since removing them would flatter the figures by a couple of points.

The link format each platform demands

Roughly 28 of the 51 rejections say some version of "invalid link" or "the link does not open". The checker does not accept a profile page, an invite, or a share redirect. It requires a specific host and, on several platforms, a specific path shape.

• Telegram. The link must be on the t.me host. A message link from a public channel or group is what works.
• X. The host must be x.com or twitter.com and the path must contain /status/ followed by the numeric post id. A link to your profile is refused before a human sees it.
• Discord. The host must be discord.com and the path must begin /channels/. A discord.gg invite link is refused. Use Copy Message Link on a message in a public channel, not the server invite.
• YouTube. Accepted, and missing from most descriptions of this programme. Either a youtu.be short link, or a youtube.com address on a /watch, /shorts/ or /post/ path, so community posts count as well as videos.
• Reddit. The host must be reddit.com with any real path.
• Facebook. The host must be facebook.com or fb.com, any path.

Separately, the page you promote has to be a page on the main marketplace domain. Promoting your own external site, a mirror, or the supplier portal will be refused at submission time, before any reviewer is involved.

The Telegram problem is not the link, it is the audience

Telegram rejections split into two groups. Some are the link shape above. The rest, ten of them, say something quite specific, and they are worth quoting because they are the reviewer telling you exactly what the standard is: that the channel only has yourself in it, that it is newly created, that it is a fake channel, and in three cases a direct suggestion to post on X instead.

So the bar on Telegram is not "is this link public". It is "did a real audience see this". A channel you created for the submission will be recognised as one. If you do not have an established channel, posting in a large public group you genuinely participate in works, and posting on X works better.

The Facebook rejections are the same failure in a different costume: five of the seven say the reviewer could not see the post. Facebook's own privacy default is the usual cause. Open the link in a private window before you submit it. If you cannot see it signed out, neither can the reviewer.

Reviews: one mistake accounts for nearly all the failures

Reviews are the highest-value action in the programme, worth half again what a social share is worth in listing slots, and they do not consume any of your weekly social quota. They also have the worst approval rate, and three of the rejections say the same thing in the same words: the reviewer is asking for the URL of the review you wrote, and received the URL of the review site instead.

The flow has two different links in it and they are easy to confuse. The site you were sent to is not the proof. After you publish your review, open it and copy the address of that specific review. That is what goes in the field.

Three review destinations are currently configured, and they are the only ones that will be accepted: Trustpilot, G2 and AlternativeTo. The review must be public and must stay published. You may hold one active submission per site, so three is the ceiling from this route until one is decided.

What each approval actually unlocks

This is where the programme is most often misdescribed, because there are two currencies and they do not convert.

Listing slots come from both routes. Every approved social share and every approved review adds a permanent bonus to your listing cap, the review being the larger of the two.

The feature unlocks come from social shares only. Your first approved social share opens a single free Top Pick application, which features one product on the recommended surface for about a week after an administrator approves it. Your second approved social share grants one free Telegram channel advertisement credit.

An approved review moves neither. It is not counted toward the unlock ladder at any point. If your goal is Top Pick rather than shelf space, a review will not get you there however many you complete.

Worth knowing before you spend effort on the unlock: once a share is approved, the Top Pick application itself is nearly a formality. Of the Top Pick submissions made so far, 54 of 61 were approved. Getting the share past review is the hard step; what it unlocks is not.

The two limits that stop you submitting

One is the weekly social quota, which counts submissions that are pending or already approved, resets on Monday at 00:00 UTC, and does not carry unused slots forward. Rejected submissions release their slot, so a rejection does not cost you the week. Reviews sit outside this quota entirely.

The other is less obvious and is the one that catches anyone working through several posts at once: you may hold at most five submissions awaiting review across the whole programme. Beyond that, submission is refused until something is decided, regardless of how much weekly quota you have left.

Keep the post up after approval

Approved shares are re-checked on a weekly cycle. Anything approved and unchecked for seven days or more goes back into a review queue, and if the post has gone by then the approval can be revoked. A revoked share takes its bonus slots back with it, and where that pushes your catalogue over your cap, the trim runs after a grace period of about a week and switches off your newest active listings first.

Older listings are protected from that trim, so the loss lands on your most recent work. The cheapest way to avoid it is simply to leave the post published.

The shortest route through

1. Post on X, from an account with a real presence, and take the link from the post itself so it carries /status/ and the numeric id.
2. Do that twice. Two approved social shares is the whole unlock ladder: Top Pick after the first, Telegram ad credit after the second.
3. Write a public review on one of the three configured sites, then submit the address of the review, not of the site. That is your largest single block of listing slots.
4. Before submitting anything, open your own link signed out. Most rejections are the reviewer failing to do what you did not test.
5. Keep everything you posted published, and check the submissions table on the page rather than waiting for a notification.