A title is a distinctive name. The title's job is to name and uniquely identify a Wayspot so that explorers can find it. The description's job is to provide details about it.
As a submitter, I try to keep my titles to six words or less. I attempt to use those words to name the place where the Wayspot can be found and to distinguish it from other similar Wayspots.
As a reviewer, I hope for this same type of information to be contained within the title, but I expect it to be succinct because such is the nature of titles. Do some research and I think you will find that most 12-word long titles for books and movies are widely ridiculed. I wouldn't reject your nominations, @PkmnTrainerJ-ING, but I would certainly rate your titles only 2-3* at best and encourage you to shorten them.
I don't think I said that at all. But I do believe that there are differences between poor titles, good titles, and great titles. I think that the best titles concisely and accurately provide information that enable others to easily identify Wayspots.
I admit that the criteria posted on this site don't say much about how to rate titles. That's why I largely judge nomination titles based on the same standards used for book or movie titles... higher ratings for correct capitalization, grammar, spelling, and a clear and correct name for the nomination, and lower ratings when these are lacking. Too few words can create a poor title, and so can too many. If a nomination is titled "Picnic Shelter" or "Playground" I certainly wouldn't reject it for title - since nothing is incorrect or against posted guidelines - but I don't think it deserves a 5* rating for title. I feel the same way about a title like the original poster's, which I think includes simply too much information for a title alone.
Do you give 2-4* ratings for title and description under any circumstance @The26thDoctor-PGO or do you always choose between 5* and rejection?
Here are a couple of trail markers I've submitted. The first is how I named them originally. The second is how I do them now. The name is longer but should I just name them #1, #2, #3 to keep the title short?
I much prefer seeing the location as part of it so to me the second is better. I wouldn’t deduct anything but don’t see need for pass by. ( I spend too much time taking peoples 250 word paragraphs at work and chopping them down to 50 😂)
You haven’t done this, but if there are several spelling errors or even one major one, so that it really becomes difficult to read I will knock a star off.
I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand that Lightship DOES NOT EXIST FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE.
Lightship's only reason for existing is to populate GAMES with interaction points. Games that exist now, games that will exist in the future.
Maybe y'all just don't understand good data handling in databases and in programming. But when a record has a field for Title AND Description, common convention is that the title is relatively succinct and the Description is longer and more detailed. That's just how it works in all technology I've ever run across.
Also, yes, I evaluate every POI as if "this could be a gym one day." If I had a better understanding of how Ingress worked, I would take that game into consideration as well (more than I already do). So far I have not spent much time worrying about Pikmin, because, to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if that game is phased out soon like the other Niantic failures. And when the Pokemon rip-off launches, I will take that one into consideration as well.
I think numbers work great when you're dealing with a lot of similar markers along a trail confined within a specific park or other small area. Sometimes there is no better way to delineate a series of markers through the woods than by numbers, letters, or direction (north, south, et cetera). For storybook trails, numbers seem to be the natural way to go given that pages of books are typically numbered in just the same way.
For longer trails that pass through many different areas, I do like to include a reference point in my titles, but I try to be as brief as possible. I recently submitted "Scioto Trail at Front and Greenlawn" and that's about the longest I ever get. If I had submitted a title like "Scioto Trail Marker at the Corner of Front Street and Greenlawn Avenue" it would have been accurate, but it would also have been unnecessarily long with no added value.
"North Esk Way Trail at Mavisbank House" is on the longer side - it's a difficult one because both the trail name and the reference point are lengthy - but I still feel like it's a good title.
I like the “pass by” way of doing it. If there’s nothing notable about the trailmarker, I’ll try and put what it’s near, or the road it is closest to like;
Brontosaurus Way Trail Marker - Reaper Close
or
Unidragon Walk Trail Marker (Wooden River Bridge)
so that if you did need to note which one it was, you have a reference point.
If I see a nomination that meets criteria, but I don’t love the title or photo, but they’re good enough to pass, I still rate the nomination highly knowing that the picture and the title can be changed later and that a valid POI will be accepted as it should.
Comments
A title is a distinctive name. The title's job is to name and uniquely identify a Wayspot so that explorers can find it. The description's job is to provide details about it.
As a submitter, I try to keep my titles to six words or less. I attempt to use those words to name the place where the Wayspot can be found and to distinguish it from other similar Wayspots.
As a reviewer, I hope for this same type of information to be contained within the title, but I expect it to be succinct because such is the nature of titles. Do some research and I think you will find that most 12-word long titles for books and movies are widely ridiculed. I wouldn't reject your nominations, @PkmnTrainerJ-ING, but I would certainly rate your titles only 2-3* at best and encourage you to shorten them.
Again, personal preferences being used as criteria.
Do you really believe that someone out exploring can't find a wayspot because they are confused by a title?
I don't think I said that at all. But I do believe that there are differences between poor titles, good titles, and great titles. I think that the best titles concisely and accurately provide information that enable others to easily identify Wayspots.
I admit that the criteria posted on this site don't say much about how to rate titles. That's why I largely judge nomination titles based on the same standards used for book or movie titles... higher ratings for correct capitalization, grammar, spelling, and a clear and correct name for the nomination, and lower ratings when these are lacking. Too few words can create a poor title, and so can too many. If a nomination is titled "Picnic Shelter" or "Playground" I certainly wouldn't reject it for title - since nothing is incorrect or against posted guidelines - but I don't think it deserves a 5* rating for title. I feel the same way about a title like the original poster's, which I think includes simply too much information for a title alone.
Do you give 2-4* ratings for title and description under any circumstance @The26thDoctor-PGO or do you always choose between 5* and rejection?
I mostly give a 5*. If it's completely incorrect or violates the guidelines I don't but that's rare.
I haven't read anything about title length affecting the process. I'm more than happy to have some insight into that though if anyone can provide it?
Niantic, as usual, obfuscate the process by asking us to vote on Title and Description on the same rating.
Here are a couple of trail markers I've submitted. The first is how I named them originally. The second is how I do them now. The name is longer but should I just name them #1, #2, #3 to keep the title short?
I much prefer seeing the location as part of it so to me the second is better. I wouldn’t deduct anything but don’t see need for pass by. ( I spend too much time taking peoples 250 word paragraphs at work and chopping them down to 50 😂)
You haven’t done this, but if there are several spelling errors or even one major one, so that it really becomes difficult to read I will knock a star off.
I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand that Lightship DOES NOT EXIST FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE.
Lightship's only reason for existing is to populate GAMES with interaction points. Games that exist now, games that will exist in the future.
Maybe y'all just don't understand good data handling in databases and in programming. But when a record has a field for Title AND Description, common convention is that the title is relatively succinct and the Description is longer and more detailed. That's just how it works in all technology I've ever run across.
Also, yes, I evaluate every POI as if "this could be a gym one day." If I had a better understanding of how Ingress worked, I would take that game into consideration as well (more than I already do). So far I have not spent much time worrying about Pikmin, because, to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if that game is phased out soon like the other Niantic failures. And when the Pokemon rip-off launches, I will take that one into consideration as well.
I think numbers work great when you're dealing with a lot of similar markers along a trail confined within a specific park or other small area. Sometimes there is no better way to delineate a series of markers through the woods than by numbers, letters, or direction (north, south, et cetera). For storybook trails, numbers seem to be the natural way to go given that pages of books are typically numbered in just the same way.
For longer trails that pass through many different areas, I do like to include a reference point in my titles, but I try to be as brief as possible. I recently submitted "Scioto Trail at Front and Greenlawn" and that's about the longest I ever get. If I had submitted a title like "Scioto Trail Marker at the Corner of Front Street and Greenlawn Avenue" it would have been accurate, but it would also have been unnecessarily long with no added value.
"North Esk Way Trail at Mavisbank House" is on the longer side - it's a difficult one because both the trail name and the reference point are lengthy - but I still feel like it's a good title.
I like the “pass by” way of doing it. If there’s nothing notable about the trailmarker, I’ll try and put what it’s near, or the road it is closest to like;
Brontosaurus Way Trail Marker - Reaper Close
or
Unidragon Walk Trail Marker (Wooden River Bridge)
so that if you did need to note which one it was, you have a reference point.
It's less about understanding and more about preference.
There are lots of nominations I'm not particularly keen on but I don't mark them down because I don't like them.
I'm not sure your comparison works since a description isn't even necessary when submitting.
Trailmarker 5 now under Appeal review. All the others have been accepted so hopefully this one goes in too.
Approved now, so that means all five are in!
Glad these are all finally approved now. There’s probably one or two more but a good section of the trail done.
You got there 👍
If I see a nomination that meets criteria, but I don’t love the title or photo, but they’re good enough to pass, I still rate the nomination highly knowing that the picture and the title can be changed later and that a valid POI will be accepted as it should.