Inaccurate or inappropriate title or deception
DragonExadon-PGO
Posts: 2 ✭
New to the community. Looking forward to contributing where I can. I attempted to send a submissions but was informed the title was inaccurate or inappropriate.
Unsure where I went wrong here. There is a slide and **** bar set within the "tot lot" playground in a location called Ridley.
Any ideas why?
Post edited by DragonExadon-PGO on
Comments
I don't understand why you got that rejection reason (not all rejection reasons make sense though).
The only thing I would say is that the title makes it seem like you're trying to nominate the individual pieces of play equipment as opposed to the play area as a whole (you don't mention the swings that can be seen on street view and satellite view at all).
If I was nominating this, I'd call it "Ridgley Tot Lot" as that's what the sign that's visible on street view calls it. Whether you use a picture of the sign or the play equipment is up to you, but I would definitely include the sign in the supporting picture at the very least.
I'm guessing it must be the "monke.y" bars. It isn't a nice word in every language, better not use the word at all. Turn bar, training bar, of whatever they are called in English might be better.
I'll add the clarification that "Other Rejection Criteria" is likely your main rejection reason. It means reviewers don't think the nomination meets eligibility criteria. In this case, @HankWolfman-PGO's guess as to why sounds the most plausible to me.
That is what they are called in American (at least) English. I can’t think of another way to describe them succinctly. (Your alternative suggested terms don’t actually have any meaning to me as a speaker of American English, unfortunately.)
I know people in this area who *hate* the term “tot lot”, but I can’t imagine they would reject it for being offensive. I’d definitely try again using @HankWolfman-PGO’s advice.
This is the rejection reason that occurs when people have selected this as a duplicate, but due to the strange way Niantic's system works, it extracts the lowest rated star rating (i.e. title/description, cultural significance, etc.) and applies it, very inconveniently as a reject reason. Ignore that reason.
There seems to be already a wayspot for the sign, so it is fairly clear why people would have duped this.