I’ve gotten sick and tired of being rejected by form emails.
At this point, I prefer to only send to magazines who will at least give a bit of feedback to authors whose work they turn down.
Do you know magazines/editors who routinely make comments about the story in their rejection emails?
Most magazines are understaffed, and the staffers they have are overworked --print media is a difficult career, these days. Combine that with the ease of submitting work via email, and you reach a situation where most editors are overwhelmed with submissions, which makes responding personally to them difficult. In addition, there are very few advantages and some significant disadvantages to providing actual feedback. For one, many writers --myself being one --get emotionally invested in their work, and can take negative criticism badly. Conversely, encouraging criticism might unleash a flood of follow-ups. Keep in mind, providing feedback isn't really a part of their job or their mission. Given the large number of polished, accomplished writers out there, it really doesn't do a magazine any good to spend time on helping a less experienced writer improve their craft.
If you are really dedicated to the idea of submitting to outlets that will be willing and able to give feedback, your best bet is small, obscure, local and/or niche publications --ones that won't have thousands of other submissions competing for their attention.
Speaking as someone who once relied heavily on the submission process for feedback, it's a fool's game to look for useful criticism that way. Join a local or online critique group, it will be much more valuable. I signed up at Scribophile (a well-known online critique circle service) a little less than a year ago, and I've found it super-helpful. I always had a very fraught relationship with getting feedback/criticism, and this experience has really helped me embrace it.
