I think these are different things? Poor performance due to lack of marketing and being rejected = different things.
I recently posted here: Feature Request: Ability to browse the round content even after it is finished
I would like to browse the projects after the round - someone put the promotional effort so let them receive the attention even after the 2 week shilling period.
I would like to browse the rejected projects too. Many reasons why… I like banned TED talks, I like results sensored by Google, surely there are some 
that didn’t pass the Gitcoin filter.
(sensored = new word = censorship on sensemaking)
About the appeals. To save the effort: $100 worth of ETH to initiate the appeal process. It will reduce the workload. It will ensure that those who appeal are serious. Maybe even allow to do some edits?
I was thinking about something similar… The most successful projects in QF have aced the shilling / marketing / community (SMC) game. On the other hand, there are many great projects that are not so succesful with at SMC but doing loads of impact on the ground.
I think it would be fun / fair / beneficial for every project to redistribute some % of their raised funds:
A. 10% towards great projects (no additional qualifier)
B. 10% towards great projects that were not successful in matching
Thinking about operational complexity - shouldn’t be that difficult. I’m more concerned whether this idea makes sense. Current formula with QF is leaning towards “winners take all” (luckily there is some cap). Winners are integral parts of the community and they know which projects are A. great and which projects are B. great and didn’t not ace the SMC game.