Supplementary information to encourage high ratings in POI judgments

sinXsan-INGsinXsan-ING Posts: 299 ✭✭✭

I will now lay out the two POI proposals.

The proponent claims that his proposal should be highly appreciated.This proposer is familiar with the judging criteria.

Therefore, it is clear that he is making these supplementary explanations knowing that they are against the rules.


Note that these proposals were for a sea tile and a second-hand bookshop respectively.The following is a translation of what is written in the supplementary information.

Please judge what you think.

@NianticGiffard

◆Translation of supplementary information

This Wayspots meets the approval criteria.Please review.

Basis of Recognition:

①This exists permanently. It is in a physically identifiable place. It is a landmark in the vicinity.

②This needs to be safe and generally accessible to pedestrians. (indoors or outdoors)

③Titles, descriptions and photographs must contain accurate information.


◆Translation of supplementary information

A comics and games shop that meets the new Wayfarer criteria.Trading card competitions are also held in the shop. On the street view you can see the shop's sign from the nearby national road. So, it corresponds to ★★★★★ of the judgment at the time of examination.

Comments

  • Thor3381-INGThor3381-ING Posts: 221 ✭✭✭

    best case: ignore it

    according to all submitters their submissions are 5* slam-dunk nominations (which then get rejected for bad reasons followed by another similar topic on the forum)

    In worst case it could even be seen as an attempt to influence reviewers (which might work with new reviewers)


    In my judgement, I don't see why any of the 2 shown nominations should be accepted.

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 3,388 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The submitters are explaining why they think that their nomination fits the criteria, probably trying to fight bad reviewers that reject everything.

    Given the trend that we can see in these forums, I would be really scared to take part in this mess and risk my account due to overzealous reviewers.

  • aleprj-INGaleprj-ING Posts: 565 ✭✭✭✭✭

    They are just defending their nomination. They are not even lying, it's just a matter of opinion (although I don't agree with them).

    I don't see why they should be punished in any way for this. It's very different from abuse situations.

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 792 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If that second nomination indeed holds trading card competitions, then it is a great place to be social with others, and a perfectly eligible candidate.

  • BleedBoss-PGOBleedBoss-PGO Posts: 269 ✭✭✭

    Well, theoretically any sort of justification on the supporting info could be seen as "Influencing Reviewers". Giving insight on why this restaurant is popular? That's influencing right there.


    As WheelTrekker said, and well, "Given the trend that we can see in these forums, I would be really scared to take part in this mess and risk my account due to overzealous reviewers.".


    I see it as defending the submission, but i'm not too sure how Niantic sees this. @NianticGiffard could you please clarify if this kind of information can be seen as "influencing" or is it just someone defending their submission? Honest question.

  • Eneeoh-PGOEneeoh-PGO Posts: 750 ✭✭✭✭✭

    As I understand it, evangelism in the support of one’s nomination is expected: “This waypoint meets criteria X, Y, and Z.”

    What is considered abusive is anything like: “Please give five stars, we need more stops west of 12th street.”

    You must not conspire to win agreements, you really should indicate what makes your nomination a good one.

  • Rodensteiner-PGORodensteiner-PGO Posts: 1,706 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This Wayspot meets criteria XYZ is totally okay.

    Something like that:

    Not really sure what is good Wayspot? If you are unsure, read this on the Wayfarer Page:

    XYZ


    Examples for good Candidates:

    1

    2

    3

Sign In or Register to comment.