What do we do when someone poses a pet in their photo?
Hosette-ING Posts: 2,694 ✭✭✭✭✭
This is the third submission today that has had someone's dog deliberately parked in the main photo. I don't mean that the dog happened to be running around and got caught in the image. In all three the dog was clearly placed so as to be an element in the photo, and the dog was looking directly at the camera. (I've obscured the dog's face for pseudo-anonymity, but mostly because it was so absurd that it made me laugh.)
If a person was deliberately posed in this way it would be an automatic rejection. What about a pet?
you probably just want to make your pet popular
Similarly, there's a person in my local community who always includes their distinctively-colored car in all their supporting photos. Like a "signature".
1* :In the first drop down list you'll find the rejection reason: animal
@HannesTheHammer-PGO That is for "the submission is an animal", right? Not, "There's an animal in the photo of something else being submitted"?
@MessiPy-ING I want to make my pet popular? Or the submitter does? Definitely not me... I have two cats that don't leave my loft. I'm sure that's what the submitters are doing in this case.
In my opinion the spirit of the the rejection reason (animal) is similar to pictures with people in it.
If you can't avoid it and it is in the background (let's say: pigeons on the roof of a church), perfectly fine.
If the animal is the main focus of the picture or in the foreground (your example), reject it.
Your predicament is interesting and highlights an issue I have with reviews.
See one nomination like that, I wouldn't think much of it. It's maybe a dog park, makes sense to see a dog there. See 2 or 3 nominations like that, you start getting suspicious that it's on purpose and hitting "submitter identifiable" which can be associated with abuse. So at what point do you being rejecting? If somebody else reviews the same nominations in a different order, will they "reject - abuse" different nominations than you?
I've also heard (and respect their opinion) that "it's just a game, the dog is cute, it isn't hurting anyone."
Instant 1* in my book. Even if it's a nomination for a dog park, the appropriate thing for the submitter to post is a sign saying it's a dog park, not putting their dog into the photo intentionally.
@SiIverLyra-PGO, your post makes me curious. How so? Like their car is in view in a parking lot, but sort of in the background, or prominently out there (playground pic with the car in front, mural pic with the car in front, and so on)? I figure if the car is prominent in the photo, kind of like a "lookie here!" kind of thing, it's an instant 1* as well.
It changes from one nomination to the next, but it's always quite prominent, definitely a "lookie here". In the latest instance I saw - just earlier today - the car took literally half the space of the photo.
It's always the supporting photos though, so it never show up in-game; and people who aren't "in the know" in the local community probably don't even notice this recurring car among all the other submissions in the system. It's mostly a sign for people who know what it means in the first place.
As for 1*ing these nominations... yeah. Won't do much other than lower my rating, I'm afraid.
I forgot that I'd saved the photo from another one. It's the same dog, different days. The vest and tag are identical, and it's definitely the same dog under the privacy scribbles.
I guess if it's the supporting photo, rather than the main photo, then yeah, a 1*, even if it looks like it's a "signature" would get you dinged, especially if other people are unaware of that.
I would let it slide in the supporting photo.
Out of curiosity, why? Isn't it just as much "submitter identifiable" in Supporting as if it were in the main photo or some otherwise "signature" in the text? Or is your concern only for "extraneous or superfluous objects" in the main photo and not as a potential identifier?
Having an identifier in the supporting photo is temporary, and since most people won't recognize the reviewer from it there doesn't seem to be much harm. The identifier doesn't become a part of the wayspot itself.
I'm also curious to hear your reasoning, @Hosette-ING. It's an unusual situation to encounter, hearing another on this perspective will be interesting.
You aren’t supposed to have it in the main photo so it can be denied for that reason. I would reject if they posed there animal in the main photo. Supporting photo I couldnt care if they were in it or there dog.
The dog in the Supporting photo could alert groups to let them know "5* all nominations I made today with my dog!" Even if it's temporary and in the supporting, it has previously been confirmed as attempts at influencing reviewers.
@Gendgi-PGO Citation for that please? I haven't seen that one.
I posted a screenshot [pending moderation approval]. Casey's post containing the exact text has been removed, but I had quoted their statement in this post below:
I really, really wish I could provide the exact link that @NianticCasey-ING originally provided, unfortunately several moderators have taken to removing posts from this forum erroneously. The best I can do is this link:
So I guess the question is whether someone's dog is identifying information. It's certainly less so than a name or a person.