Yes on Snowman Trailmarker 4, but no on Snowman Trailmarker 3?
PkmnTrainerJ-ING
Posts: 5,138 Ambassador
I won’t be able to resubmit this one easily but the only reject I got on it was for title/description which is for when;
Use for nominations where the title or description is not relevant to the submission.
As it follows the same naming convention, and is relevant, I don’t see why that would come up as a reject. 🤷
Anyways, there’s a couple more of these in the system if you see them. 👋
Comments
My guess is if #4 made it into the database before some reviewers saw #3, they marked it (wrongly, imho) as a duplicate. Then the buggy reject reasons when it was marked duplicate bug came in to mess with the reject reasons.
My guess is that reviewers decided you were breaking the third party text rule.
Maybe so. I thought it was made clear that I had noted “this is what it reads” but who knows.
@JillJilyJabadoo-PGO Number 4 was in firstly about a few days ago, 3 only recently went In Voting. I can Appeal it when they come back but I thought these were decent, with a sphere and all.
Personally I don't see an issue with it if the text is already clearly visible in the photo and on the physical object. It's not like you didn't add your own text to it either as you said. I know other reviewers may have a different take on it though.
My guess is some combination of reviewers rejecting for third party text and reviewers who think that title is just waaaaay too long. Lots of reviewers just don't like wordy titles, and that is definitely on of the longest I've seen. (I'm not passing judgment on whether that's really a valid rejection reason, but it's absolutely a sentiment I've seen expressed.)
I think you have some options for shortening the title. You could just change it to "The Snowman & the Snowdog Trailmarker 4". You could paraphrase it to "The Snowman & the Snowdog Trailmarker 4 - Beginning to Build". You could drop the first part altogether and go with just "Beginning to Build" or similar, but I know that would break the pattern.
For the third party text issue, instead of directly quoting what's written, you could give your own brief summary of what happens on each page.
and that is definitely on of the longest I've seen
You haven’t reviewed many of mine then. This is pretty short for me, for a trailmarker. 😆
I would think you'd also have some marked temporary - because parks change out the stories on those, every few months.
I would call it Dean Forest Storyboard #4. The supporting info could say that the display is permanent, and the story can be changed. Currently telling the story of The Snowman and The Snowdog.
Don't tie your titles to something that will make no sense next year.
those are very long titles that could be a reason just leave it as snowman trail marker 3 and resubmit it. remember the people reviewing might not have reviewed the other one's there
Appealed for April‘s Appeal. Approved now.
Great.
This is the sort of thing Niantic should be sending 'You reviewed incorrectly' explanatory emails if you were rejected for title length.
I often do long titles for my Wayspots to ensure they’re unique and people do reject just for the title. Used to it now though.
Personally I think that is too long. Don’t think I would knock a point off, though it is tethering on the edge and if I was feeling grumpy ….,,,
I prefer more info especially on something like this that is unique.. I'm pretty sure there are no guidelines on title/description length.
Obviously everyone has a preference to what they would like to see but nobody should be giving less ratings for more info unless there is something somewhere that says to
I would reject both of these for title. Those titles are WAAAAAAY too long. And I think it's funny that you are an ingress agent. My local ingress agent would yell at me for making a title like that. Right @MargariteDVille-ING ?
Gotta make it a unique title 🤷
As for rejecting for title;
Use for nominations where the title or description is not relevant to the submission.
The title is relevant to the submission, so I don’t see why you would? Nothing in the rejection criteria to reject long titles as far as I know.
I'm sorry but that's incorrect. You are rejecting a great nomination on the basis of personal preference.
Lightship may not be a game in itself as such but at the end of the day most of us are contributing to whichever game we play. Those games are meant to be enjoyable and interesting and informative not exact science. A longer title and/or description may not be everyone's cup of tea but that's no reason to reject.
That’s not incorrect. It is valid to vote down a nomination that puts the description in the title.
Again, I'm sorry but that's incorrect.
Do submit titles that are:
Official titles, if known
If no ‘official’ title, creative titles to distinguish it from other nearby Wayspots
Don’t submit titles that:
Include real names, initials, codenames, or faction/team names
Include emojis or emoticons
Include HTML, URLs, or other code language
Are unrelated to the Wayspot in question
In this case it would be pedantry for the sake of pedantry.
Using minutiae to apply personal preferences to your voting.
As @The26thDoctor-PGO pointed out, a long title is not a reason to reject it.
Guess I know where I’ve been getting rejects from for my Wayspots with unique titles now.
just to be clear I wouldn’t reject, but may give it a star less.
Yes the title needs to be distinctive. But I don’t think it needs that much of a quote to achieve that goal. The number 4 should be enough to distinguish between 3 and 5? Or leave out trail marker 4. And put the key feature - a new snowman is built - otherwise you end up with same quote in title and description.
I don’t mean to sound picky but this may be the reasoning it got rejected 🤷♀️
A
Maybe so. But I don’t believe it should have been, so it was good that it reached the right decision in the end.
Appreciate that you wouldn’t reject but I think it’s clear that some in this thread would, and are then reviewing incorrectly.
It’s not just “long,” but thanks for putting words in my mouth as that’s always appreciated, it has clearly gone beyond the scope of a title and into description; at the very least it’s two titles glommed into one. Either way it’s poorly done and worthy of exclusion.
Everyone in this thread should already know this, but here it is anyway: voting on a nomination votes on the entire nomination, not just the subject. Bad text - including overdone text, including titles - ruins the whole nomination.
Fair enough, didn’t mean to put words in your mouth with what I said, so apologies if you feel I did.
The descriptions of rejection criteria are representative, not comprehensive. This is the case for photo quality rejections, abuse, location-based rejections, and approximately all the other rejection reasons as well. A title that does not represent the spot well is a perfectly acceptable judgement call.
I can certainly see it from that view. I wouldn’t approve a church that had the title of “Brothers Street Play Park” for example as it’s unrelated to the Wayspot in question.
There’s only one more of these left to go on Appeal now, so unless I go back and visit this location again 😈 it’s the last that many Wayfarers will see of it.
Now off to edit some trailmarkers I have submitted!
We are nominating to Lightship for the sole purpose of these POI being used *in games*. The interface for many of those games does not show the full title in all screens. By making the title a full sentence, especially when several nearby POI start with the same beginning words as in this example, you are making it more difficult for the players of those games.
I referenced Ingress specifically because I've been told (and experienced just a little bit myself) that when all the stops in the area have similar titles, "Washington Square Tennis," "Washington Square Playground," "Washington Square Clubhouse," "Washington Square Pergola," etc. trying to build links and fields is challenging. It is easier to play Ingress when whatever is unique about the POI comes first "Pergola at Washington Square," etc.
Like I said, I have only played Ingress for about a week's time (level 5). But I personally changed the way I name POI through PGO to accommodate this shortcoming/programming interface in Ingress. There's no guarantee that any future games will handle long names any better than Ingress. So as long as Title/Description exists as a rejection reason, I will continue to use it when someone wants to write a sentence as the title of the POI.
Are you saying that Ingress players have decided that titles with either long or are similar make the game more difficult for them?
I regularly user titles like Trail marker x - Pass by y location.
Can either @SeaprincessHNB-PGO or @X0bai-PGO point me to where it says that a title should be succinct and I shouldn't do that.
It's not about "deciding." It's about experiencing it. As a PGO player, I also am not fond of long titles. My thoughts on that one have to do with gyms. When you're trying to coordinate play at a gym, it is a lot easier to do when the name is succinct. Yes, it needs to be distinct. But trying to get people to meet up with you at the "The Snowman & The Snowdog Trailmarker 4 - Later that night, at midnight..." gym is incredibly painful. Just to type that out I had to scroll to the top and back down here 4 times to make sure I typed it correctly. Flipping between the game and discord or telegram or facebook or whatever your communication tool is (Campfire is not available to all yet and does not allow easy discussion about coordinating raids yet) is a serious headache.
It's far easier to type "Storybook Trailmarker 4" - fewer chances of mistakes. I can't tell you how many times I've had to retype the name of a gym because I got the words out of order on a long name and the bot we use to host raids on discord didn't recognize the gym name from the database...all while the raid clock was ticking away.
As it was noted that one of the reasons for not liking long titles is gym/raid co-ordination, I wondered if any of them were.
One is;
Gym at The Snowman & The Snowdog Trailmarker 2 - When winter came Billy had written a letter to Father Christmas...
I’ll say that I have never used a raid bot, but that I wouldn’t consider whether the gyms work with a raid bot as something when I review or submit.
Should we be considering Wayspots as gym locations when reviewing? In the case of whether it’s a good place for players to gather, sure. But for the title, I don’t believe so.
It doesn't bother me to be honest. I don't mean this in a rude or facetious manner but if I'm giving lower ratings or rejecting nominations based on their title lengths then I'm deliberately manipulating Wayfarer/Lightship to be advantageous to whichever game I'm playing whether that's Ingress, Pogo or the other ones.