Supporting info - reject based on "need more pokestop" claims?
MapoDofuX-PGO
Posts: 5 ✭✭
I'm a relatively new reviewer and still trying to get a feel for some of the rules - both explicit & cultural around what we should & shouldn't accept.
I see a lot of requests like this one:
I'm 50-50 on this being a stop if I exclude the supporting info, but the player left a message that's clearly irrelevant to the criteria, and it tends to make me want to downvote this more than I might otherwise.
How much weight should I put on submissions that try to justify their existence by leaning into "we need more pokestops here" or "other things like this have pokestops" or "this is close to gyms/stops"??? Should I ignore this, or actually consider it in my evaluation process?
Thanks!
Comments
Ignore the begging and rate according to the criteria. But do make sure that the location is correct.
Ignore that, the submitter has lost his opportunity to explain why this is a good nomination, but shouldn't be penalized beyond that.
As others said: that's not a reason to reject it. Such statements (usually "we need more stops", but there's a person in my area who writes "excellent strategic spot for Agents" in every nomination) can be annoying but they don't impact the validity of the nomination itself.
Perfect - thanks, folks.
If the nomination is good and eligible ... you should not turn it down for that charitable comment.
What I dislike about the shown nomination is the "effort" put into it by the nominator.
Was it really that hard to walk down the path and take a proper picture?
Regarding to the agent that always puts the same text in his nominations, if the nominations are good quality I wouldn't mind it, if it's bad nominations and somehow they do get accepted then it's probably a way of identifying the player and others accepting it because it's a nomination of player X. If that is the case these could be flagged as identifiable submitter (but we could say the same thing about screennames on 360s)
I had a playground that was like this. Behind some trees and bushes. I took a picture of it up close and personal. It got rejected. Due to not matching or something like that. I looked it up on Google Maps and matched my picture a little like the one above to match what reviewers saw in Google maps and it got approved. It was a one off. Cause I went back to taking close pictures of playground and those all get approved. It all depends on the group of reviewers you get it seems like.
For me is 1* abuse; reason: influence reviewers. Next.
How? Why? It's a bad argument, for sure. But it's in no way more "influencing reviewers" than perfectly acceptable things like quoting the criteria/AMA. Even rejecting it because of this would be completely wrong, but marking it as abuse is really over the top.
What total tosh, there is nothing in the submission that is abusive or influencing reviewers.
Pokemon Go players get this statement, which is why so many submit supporting info about why a poke stop is needed. Give them some slack on that. As long as they aren't saying something to tell you to put it where it clearly isn't, or something like that.
It can be an abuse, but let it interpose at a good place proposal, it is not intelligent for me.
My bad you are right. My apologies. This one is fine. But in a lot of others submissions the text almost set as mandatory to approve it.
Niantic should update the help text. The wayfinders submit point of interest, never portals or pokestop.
I evaluate the application and just subtract 2 * for begging
If this is a joke it's not funny, if you actually review like that then you deserve to have your Wayfarer access revoked
I like how people in this thread give different viewpoints. It demonstrates that not everyone sees the same thing in the same way.