Forcing every objections to rejection criteria

patsufredo-PGOpatsufredo-PGO Posts: 452 ✭✭✭✭

Most of submitters in my country doesn't really care about the quality of their nominations, and they will do anything to get their nominations not rejected. Instead to write any useful information related to the nomination, they would write objections to any possible rejection criteria their nominations can possibly get in the supporting information.

Below is another fresh example I just review, which I feel it's really annoying. Object is just a simple entrance gate to a neighborhood.., until you read its supporting information.

"Object is listed under eligible category according to Niantic (it's referring to 'What is it' category list) that is a gate. Location is VERY ACCURATE, clearly visible in GSV and may visible from Satelite imagery. The nominated object is THE GATE and not its banner, object is PERMANENT and exist since 2005 and clearly visible that it was made using CONCRETE, photo is VERY CLEAR and not BLURRED, object doesn't included to NATURAL FEATURE because it's located at the neighborhood that always keep the BEAUTY of their living place. Object doesn't located near to any military bases, hospitals, schools, or fire departments. Please help to review it very wisely (trims)"


Yet, under the current criteria, that gate doesn't meet any of eligibility criteria. The gate has no unique feature, and there's nothing special with the neighborhood. And if there's any, the submitter already failed his/her nomination by just writing every objections to rejection criteria and not explaining what's interesting about the neighborhood.

Cases like this are as common-and-annoying as asking for more Pokestops and asking to rate 5 stars to the nominations, at least in my country.

Any thoughts?

Comments

  • Theisman-INGTheisman-ING Posts: 251 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Reject with other rejection reason, or 1* abuse as they are clearly lying in the support statement.

    Just reject and move on to the next

  • Nadiwereb-PGONadiwereb-PGO Posts: 270 ✭✭✭✭

    While I agree that this nomination in particular doesn't seem eligible and the amount of argumentation is obnoxious, I have to admit that sometimes I write things like that in the supporting statement as well.

    When you nominate a statue in the garden of a 10-storey office building of a government organisation that is visible on Street View, with the cultural heritage data sheet linked in the supporting statement, and it gets rejected 7 (seven) times for being a natural feature or a private residence or having no pedestrian access, you start writing objections. I finally got that one accepted, but I still have a "project" of getting an art gallery and independent theatre accepted. It has been rejected 10+ times, and now it's closed due to the pandemic, so I can't nominate it at the moment. But as soon as it opens up again, I will try again, with similar statements.

  • toniukupaoni-INGtoniukupaoni-ING Posts: 10 ✭✭

    I don't believe this should be marked as abuse as the nominator probably wasn't lying. It's simply ignorance. Nominator saw categories in the "What is it?" and tought everything there is eligible.

Sign In or Register to comment.