MAKING SUBMISSIONS BETTER: Examples of useless supporting text
Hosette-ING
Posts: 3,470 ✭✭✭✭✭
Introduction
I review a fair bit, over 31,000 submissions so far, which means I see a lot of really good and a lot of really bad stuff. It's also given me a really good feeling for what sort of information is helpful for reviewers and what is completely useless. A couple of weeks ago I decided to start recording all of the useless supporting text that I came across, after which I categorized it. Everything in the lists is unedited except in the few clearly-marked places where I have redacted identifying information.
One of my favorite things to do in Wayfarer is to use my knowledge and experience to show people how they can improve their submissions. This post is essentially that, although in this case it's mostly education by bad example. My goal for this post is not to make fun of anyone, but rather to show common patterns of useless supporting information so that people can learn to avoid them.
Some of these submissions were perfectly good candidates that could be approved despite the useless supporting text. Others were coal that couldn't have been saved by the best writer in the world. The third category is why I am posting this-- they were potentially good candidates that I couldn't approve because I needed more information than was available to me. In most of these cases I probably could have approved the candidates if the person submitting it had provided useful supporting text. (I expect a lot of those people are upset because their "great submission" was rejected and they have no idea why.)
I hope that this is useful to some of the people who read it. If there's another set of systemic errors that you'd like to see me take on please let me know.
This is near something else
I see variations of this fairly often and I'm always confused by the rationale behind it. Each wayspot qualifies on its own, and proximity to other locations or wayspots is irrelevant.
- It should be a pokestop because it is mext to a place of religioun
- In plaza by restaurant, playground stores, mini mart, good walking distance
- Its on a walk just outside the mainline station [REDACTED] along with walk to town / six form colleague and tech college.
- In downtown close to all the churches, is it to walk to all the restaurants little shops
- It is right next to a big open field and many buildings next to it to explore.
- near [REDACTED] high school and motivates people to walk around
- It is a sitting place relativly near a trainstation which is also a pokemon gym.
Ease of access
I sort of understand why people would think this way because being able to easily access a wayspot can be good for some players. It's completely irrelevant, though. A wayspot that requires a two-day hike to get to is just as valid as one that has parking next door.
- Its an easy spot to reach and people can go to it
- This is a safe public location with plenty of parking. It is also near a school and has a lot of foot traffic.
- Perfect pokestop along the road
- There are many great businesses on this side street and people to play along. It is a safe area on a slow street so wont bother others and plenty of places to park to do spins and challenges.
- Safe walking distance from downtown and also near restaurant and other busineses opened for the public.
- In a big plaza a lot of parking pedestrian walking access safe location popular area and legit art work legit location
Many people come here
As with the above category I can understand why people might think this way. However, being in a high-traffic area is neither a feature or a bug when it comes to wayspots.
- This is a heavily populated area and it is a few blocks away from the gyms
- A highly populated area where trainers can interact and socialize with one another as-well as plan raids,battle catch Pokémon and enjoy the outdoor scenery with both family and friends of all ages
- Family community with lots of children in the area and dog walkers.
- High Visability High Traffic location
- hundreds of people visit this range every day. 24/7 driving range.
- Theres constantly people walking right past this place playing pokemon go. Its also an easy place to just stop and get to. Its also somewhere you play thats safe
- Many people come to this park to exercise, walk, and to play pokemon go! This pokestop would help the community and attract more people to play pokemon here.
- There is a lot of people that exercise around this area and pokemon trainers
- This location is on the walking route of many of the office employees in the nearby buildings. It also has easy to access parking next to the marker, as well as benches to stop and rest while spinning a pokestop or battling a gym. These buildings house many up and coming biotech companies.
- Its located in a park for recreation, many people gather for sports, to BBQ and exercise.
- I believe this should be here because many people that play pokemon go live around this area and can drive by and walk by it to use it.
- popular loop for walking, runnning, and biking.
- Shopping area with a lot of foot traffic.
Need more stops
"NEED MOAR STOPZ!!!!!" is a running joke among reviewers. That statement isn't useful to reviewers, though, and it makes some reviewers skeptical.
- The closest pokestop is 1 block away, the closest gym is 5 blocks away
- Too few pokestops in the area. Peaceful place to walk.
- This fountain is nice to look at and in an area that is lacking in pokestops
- No other stops or gyms in a close vacinity. Lots of families stay at this hotel but the gazebo and court have public access.
- No stops along this area
- perfect little park in an area where arent many pokestops
- Need more stops, not many over here.
- I nominated this spot due to lack of pokestops in the area, [STORE NAME REDACTED] is a family based furniture store, safe environment, great for kids who get brought with family/parents who will shop here.
- A pokestop, where there is a need for more. It can get playes more rewards for getting up and active, which could in turn, get them to play for longer, and have a better time doing so.
Stops are good
This is closely related to Need more stops but it's a bit more general. This category is basically explanations of why stops are good or useful, or why it would be convenient for them to have a stop in a specific location.
- Great place to visit, no other pokestops around
- so everyone can play
- This pokéstop can help trainers spin stop safelty inside the grocery store.
- Public location Open 7 days a week good spot for a PokeStop
- This location is accomodates a large PoGo community, adding the pokestop will boost community engagement.
- My friends and i always meet up here for some coffee before we raid [COFFEE SHOP REDACTED] has the friendliest employees which majority play aswell :)
- This area would make a good Pokéstop because it is an open area great for socializing.
- more to explore for trainers in the village of [REDACTED]
- Great location for a pokestop due to entrance being the only way in and out at these specific apartment complex. Many trainers live here and we are slowly a growing pokemon community.
- If your are playing at a bus stop and have no items this pokestop can help you.
- would add a gym to the area.
- Another local Pokestop at a location with playing fields
- A lot of pokemon trainers live near hear and it will be helpful for them.
- Would be helpful
- please approve for people to play pokemon go while waiting for radiology
- It is a great spot for trainers to use this pokestop and explore the surrounding restraunts and stores. It is an area that is surrounded by two gyms that are frequently used to battle.
- Helps trainers to spin stops while upgading their phone service.
- Located on a well walked corner this stop would be a welcomed addition to this safe and stable neighborhood.
Meets criteria
This is the category of few words, usually wrong.
- church building meets criteria
- meets all criterias
- Meets critera and is used by many locals
- meets criteria
- Meets criteria
Miscellany
These didn't fit into any of the other categories but they also didn't contribute anything of value to the submission.
- utility box thats not private property even if it is nobody touching it if there’s a PokéStop it gives players to walk to spin it for rewards motivation poketop you like playeds to be active this is that motivation!! Show you actually want players to go out there give us does PokéStop
- [CITY REDACTED] is packed with little hidden treasures like this. Often times they are accompanied with a gorgeous view of our beautiful bay area.
- permanent sign
- Far enough away from the actual Elementary School grounds but within the local neighborhood. Not conflicting with nearby parks or other existing Pokestops/gyms.
- Beautiful place
- This is a public in-use post box
- sport area
- This water tower has been in place dor many years.
- advanced
- You can play and eat at the sametime!
- Couple baseball fields, Big park with lots of space to walk
- Public sign with plants
Comments
I completely agree:
By pet hate is describing a McDonalds for any café or restaurant. For example: serves good food, great place to socialize, etc etc isnt good enough as every café or restaurant does this..
Just tell us any X-factor that makes it unique and makes me want to go there and then the person submitting it to prove it.
Safe pedestrian access
This is something that reviewers are supposed to judge for themselves via Google Maps and your photos. In short, it is a "show, don't tell" matter. If you feel you must explain that your nomination has safe pedestrian access, it is likely because your photos aren't doing the job.
How about being overly vague and repetitive, like the one community near me that uses the same supporting text "a great place for locals to gather in the community" for just about everything?
Pity your target audience isn’t going to ever come here and read it. But there are many occasions when I’ve had to explain a nomination has safe pedestrian access even when my pictures clearly show it. Trail markers and public footpaths for example. Why are they ever getting rejected for pedestrian access. I even had to show reviewers maps of the area before now. If that isn’t good enough I don’t know what is. As for meets criteria so you are gonna reject something that meets criteria because the person explained in the supporting text that it meets certain criteria, why? Unfortunately spoon feeding is necessary because people don’t or refuse to read any of the criteria or updated criteria.
I agree with most of this.
My exceptions are that describing the ease of access in some of your examples could also just be describing the location. Especially when the satellite view is obscured or street view is out of date, I appreciate a location description.
Explaining why pokestops are good is 100% the fault of the Pokemon GO team. I don't nominate through Ingress so I don't know what it says for the supplemental info. But Pokémon GO's description for what to write leads inexperienced people down this path.
"This is important because my friends and I gather here on Community Day" is not unreasonable logic when the messaging we get from PGO is that we are supposed to go out and play the game in person with our community.
I agree with you that it's not the best from a generic wayfarer standpoint. But you'll never eliminate this kind of supplemental info while that's the screen they are presented with.
Ingress is exactly the same, just with game relevant terms switched to the Ingress ones.
There’s also focus on gathering for events such as for First Saturday, or doing Battle Beacons in that game too.
Great place to socialize is literally an eligibility criteria. So if you feel like every café or restaurant meets that criteria, you should accept all of them.
There is no reason for there to be any X-factor or for it to be unique or make you want to go there. If the locals go there to socialize, that is enough and that's the only thing the submitter must prove. All the rest is bonus.
This is another one of those "all wayspots must be great places to explore and the other 2 criteria don't matter" comments.
Exactly agree. It does what it says on the tin. Place to socialise, job done. Encourages exercise, job done, encourages exploring, job done. Encourages all 3 job well and truly done. The idea that I’m (me) am supposed to add my personal opinion on a restaurant or cafe for example when I’m never going to go there isn’t relevant to my review. If they have taken a good picture, put a little effort into a description, I’m accepting it as a place THEY or local people socialise. I’m not going to drop everything and rush off to these nominations because someone said it was amazing am I? I barely read people’s supporting statements unless it’s obscure and needs a little explanation and in most of those cases they’ve provided a URL for me to confirm their information.
I always like statements that give proper detail, like "safe pedestrian access exists - see crosswalk in satellite view" or "sidewalk shown in supporting image runs along Roadname St." In my supporting info I frequently point out background detail in the supporting photo that could help reviewers determine proper location, avoiding broad statements without verifying details.
For the record, I do agree with the sentiment of the OP. A great place to be social explains what the submitter is going for, but if it isn't obvious that it meets that criteria, then that isn't enough, and the submitter must explain why it meets that criteria.
This prison-church is easily reachable from the outside
@PeteC303-ING I agree that some submissions need to spoon-feed some information to the reviewers, but none of the comments that I quoted accomplished any of that. In order to show safe pedestrian access the best technique is to explain how. "This looks like it's right on the road but there is safe pedestrian access from the path inside the park, which you can see in the supporting photo."
@SeaprincessHNB-PGO I 100% agree that the submission workflow needs better text, and I've been saying that for years. Niantic could reduce a lot of frustrations just with some wording changes but they have never listened to that feedback.
@TWVer-ING The wording of the criteria includes the word "great", but a lot of people overlook that. I don't think every restaurant is a GREAT place to socialize, but some are. I tend to evaluate "great place to be social" as a place where people would go as a hangout rather than as a destination for eating and they incidentally talk to their companions while they're there.
Imagine a sausage restaurant that's mostly takeout but has four stools along a narrow counter by the window. Would you consider that a great place to socialize?
Because it's my personal pet peeve I'm going to vent on my own post about how people misuse "criteria".
Criteria is plural. Criterion is singular. Examples:
For the word nerds, criterion comes to us via the Greek word κριτήριον, which means a method of judging, a test. It roughly transliterates as kree-tee-ree-ohn.
I agree. I didn't say that every restaurant is a great place to be social. I was replying to a comment by @randombeard-ING that seemed to suggest that.
Hmh. When I notate to be mindful of the sidewalk in streetview, as it's hidden by snow in both of my images, my nominations almost always still get rejected for "pedestrian access"
If I can add a category: any supporting text that asking, pleading or influencing reviewers in any ways to accept their nomination. I know some of you who were participated in Indonesia Wayfarer challenge have met this kind of supporting text, so the common ones:
• please accept this, no pokestop nerby
• 5 stars
• This pokestop should be 5*, because it meet all criteria
• acc please
• 'Acc aja lah bos jangan pelit kalau pelit nanti ratingnya turun lho' (try translating this by yourself :p)
Although this is an interesting thread in terms of things that some reviewers have found unhelpful or annoying or frustrating or abusive, I don’t think it helps to educate the submitter.
The main loser when the value of supplementary text is not used to its fullest is the nominator, not the reviewer.
You are likely to engage and learn more from examples that show good practice.
The bottom line is that well thought through nominations help all aspects of wayfarer.
We are all individuals and there are a range of opinions but how about some concise examples from people of what they think makes good supplementary text so it is not a wasted opportunity.
@patsufredo-PGO Yes! I see a lot of "Please accept" in general but I don't think I saw any while I collected these data. "Thank you for reviewing" is also unhelpful in terms of giving the reviewers information but it comes across as kind/thoughtful.
@Elijustrying-ING Your point is well taken. I've also written a long guide about how to make submissions better, and I'm planning to rewrite/update it sometime soon. I can try to collect some excellent examples of supporting text for a while although they are less common.
@Hosette-ING i have referred to your guide before, and the recent guide by @Glawhantojar-PGO
also contains specifics about the supplementary info.
It would be good to pull together resources that people could dip into.
While these things are annoying, they shouldn't be a reason to reject a nomination. Someone can tell me "please accept this or my child will die" but I'm still going to use the power of my own brain to evaluate the merits of the object/place. I'm not going to vote the way they tell me to unless I agree with their assessment.
@Elijustrying-ING Here are examples from some of my accepted POI.
Here's a supplemental I wrote for a t-ball field in a public park recently. There were people in the second photo. I was over an hour away from home and would not be back in this area to submit stops so I couldn't hang around to wait for the field to be empty. I was able to get the primary photo without people, but to show the field in larger context, there was no way to frame people out.
"A great place to exercise. The second photo is a little wonky because a game had just ended and there were tons of people milling around. This field is clearly seen on satellite. It is the field closest to the road."
-------
This one is for a community notice board in front of the clubhouse. It could be seen on satellite and streetview so there was no need to explain the location:
"A great place to explore. Community notice boards help keep residents informed of what's happening locally. They give details on sports leagues, social gatherings, fund raising events, and more."
-------
This is a pergola at a fancy entrance to a neighborhood. I almost never submit neighborhood entrances but this one has a nice set of pergolas on each side of the road, over the sidewalks leading into the neighborhood. I have used this tactic of photographing with street signs in the background before. I always tell people when they have to enlarge the photo to see the details that I don't want them to miss.
"Promotes exploration. Located on the walkway at the entrance to the neighborhood near the Swim Club. 2nd photo can be enlarged to see the street signs to prove location."
-------
This is for a concrete statue in the front of a local cycling shop. I give them details in the background of the photo that tie out to Google Maps.:
"Promotes exploration. This is a concrete statue in 3 heavy pieces permanently set up outside [Name Redacted] Bicycles. From the second photo you can see the [Name redacted] dance studio across the street which is on Google maps."
-------
This is for a map that shows the features around a lake in a lake community, including the walking path, tennis courts, playground, where to launch kayaks, the best spots for bird watching, etc. I had to edit the submission photo so the map could be read bc the lighting was very extreme that day, so I addressed that in the supplemental.
"This is located not too far from where the star on the map is. In the supplemental photo you should be able to see duck island out in the middle of the lake. I did lighten the submission photo because the map was in shade and not readable. I wanted the map to be readable both for reviewers and in each game."
@SeaprincessHNB-PGO The only reason "Please vote yes" would be a reason to reject is if the submitter did that instead of providing the information that reviewers need. Otherwise I just treat them as decorative words and pretend they're not there. I don't see them as trying to influence reviewers like the "Please pick the pin on the right" messages we see sometimes in edits.
Nothing in my list above is a reason to reject either, but they're all great examples of text that provided no help to me as a reviewer. Lots of them also illustrate fundamental misunderstandings of what makes a good wayspot.
.
I appreciate the thread, but I do agree with you. I have done far less reviews than Hosette-ING. I haven't done this for long, nor do I believe it is appropriate for me to donate so much of my time to help a for-profit company that is understaff and has an awful track record of hearing its player base. But I put effort into my reviews. I almost always open google street view, sometimes go to great lengths to check the surroundings to see if there's a match if the nominations are about objects or items that are more recent than satellite or street view images, etc. If I'm not sure, I skip instead of doing an half-assed job. And I write comments whenever I feel they can add something to however might read them (and it often feels nobody does).
What I want to read in the additional information section are things that are beyond the obvious and that the image and google street view might not make immediately clear. Yet I seldom do this when I submit. Why? Because some reviewers are utterly clueless and won't even bother checking street view. So I have to spell to them why my nominations are no-brainers instead of expecting them to recognize them. And even then, every blue moon, I get rejections based on fake location when a 2 second google street view would be a dead giveaway.
That being said, what do I like to read, besides the info that is not available on the submission image/google street view? That the submitter has a clue about what he/she's doing. That that person understands not only the criteria, but the Wayfarer spirit (something many people often seem to ignore), especially on nominations that are borderline acceptable, but need that extra contextual argument to get a 2 or 3 star. I want to the submitters to convince me they know the process, they are familiar with rules and that the nomination is a worthy addition to Wayfarer. Some cite the criteria, which is fine, at least shows effort; others explain in what manner what could be considered a rejection criteria does not apply, or in what way that particular place is unique above others; that link me google street view photos, pages from official entities that corroborate what they claim (regarding art, places that have been recently built and still lack images online), even things like brochures or flyers from official tourism departments that showcase trails, parks or specific locations, etc.
I am a strong believer of two-way communication in submissions and would love if reviewers could make a text argument explaining what was wrong so that the submitter could learn from its mistake, or so that submitters could see if the reviewer had any clue about what he was doing when no-brain submissions get rejected.
As it is, the process is extremely opaque and prone to abuse. I can only try to do the best I can, but I would surely love some better tools to accomplish that goal.
@Loseless11-PGO Thank you for the excellent post.
One small thing: It would be wonderful if there was a way to pass useful reviewers back to submitters but Ninatic will never allow us to send freeform text. Imagine if you submitted something and the feedback came back with, "What kind of @(*#$& loser would submit this piece of @($* ????!!!!???"
Probably the best we could hope for is some options that we could select, something along these lines:
I would welcome something like that. The worst part is when you have to reject what would otherwise be an acceptance on some minor, trivial issue, like a photo with some face or license plate not blurred, or some error in the description. I would love if we could ask for the author to submit a different image, description, etc, instead of outright reject.
I have done scientific peer reviews (and been reviewed as well), so I am used to both bad and useful reviews. The difference is that we are actually encouraged to explain in great detail the issues with the submissions and how the author can improve. Is part of the scientific process to provide and receive feedback. I get that you would hardly be able to implement such a system, but a system like what you suggest would be much more helpful to everyone.
I'll even had that in such cases like the ones we listed, if instead of outright reject, the submission were to be under review for X days until the author provided the additional information or corrections required, the process would be much faster.
Eg.: lousy description? Ask the author to provide additional details within Y days or the submission will be rejected. A couple days later, you get a better description and is an instant approval. Need to blur a face or a license plate? Same thing. The location doesn't seem to match google street and satellite images? Ask for additional supporting evidence instead of going with the fake submission that some reviews love to label on anything that is not immediately visible (and some don't even bother with google street or satellite images).
Want to improve this system even further? Should a user be asked to clarify their images/descriptions/location multiple times (let's say 3 or 5), they would be prompted with a pop-up or message about it: "Esteemed traveller, it seems you have had some trouble with your submissions' images/description/location or X as of late. Have some doubts? Check the X [link] submission guidelines to see how to add the best image/description/location/X to your submissions, or ask for help at Wayfarer community forum".
I often see people on Reddit ask why obviously faulty submissions get rejected multiple times, because they can not understand what is wrong with them. That's a failure of the Wayfarer program. If people don't understand what's wrong with the submission, your rejection process needs to be much more constructive and illuminating, instead of sticking two or three words that are often misused and be done with it.
Unfortunately, many posts are about bad reviews that don't bother analysing a submission in detail, or use the wrong reasons to reject them due to either laziness, profound ignorance or outright malicious intent. Curiously, it seems that upgraded submissions tend to have a higher rejection (and abuse) rate than regular submissions, for some reason. I have my theories, but this is not the time nor the place. I just wish Niantic would put some effort into anything and actually help us do their job for them.
@Loseless11-PGO You are absolutely right about all of the issues around feedback and people complaining about "bad reviewers" when the problem is obviously that either the candidate is bad or the submitter presented it badly. If I was appointed Queen of the Freaking Universe I would completely revamp the mandatory education and the submission workflows so that submitters had a lot more information before they started.
Bad rejection reasons can be as simple as a misclick. "Live Animal" and "Body Part" are two of the ones that get complained about a lot and those just happen to be the two that are next to "Other Rejection Criteria", and I'm fairly sure that is the most commonly-used rejection criterion. I've certainly caught myself hitting one of those two from time and fixed the mistake before I clicked the last button but I wouldn't be surprised if I had occasionally let the wrong reason slip past me.
@Loseless11-PGO Also, the "upgrade curse" goes against my own personal data. For the last three years 100% of my submissions have been upgraded because I review a lot more than I submit. During that time only two have been rejected. One was marginal when I submitted it but Niantic changed the rules shortly after it was rejected and it was accepted after appeal. The other was a 100% legitimate submission (artwork in an airport) but I submitted it mostly in English instead of the local language although I provided a title in both languages. That one has been pending appeal for months.
Your experience might be different from other peoples' experiences. You might live in an area were everyone speaks the same language as you. For other people, upgrading may mean that their nomination gets distributed mainly to people that don't speak their language, causing more rejections.
More than the language barrier, there are different cultural sensibilities involved. Restaurants and coffee shops, in southern Europe, define social hotspots all year long. People spend a great deal of time in outdoor seating areas, the "esplanadas", especially in the summer. Restaurants are far more than a place you go to satisfy hunger. Eating itself is a social experience, with people forming attachments to specific restaurants and other patrons that visit them. But other regions might see restaurants and coffee shops in a different light and be more likely to reject them.
On reddit, for example, I'd say most users are for the US and they are far more critical of restaurants than we are in the Iberian Peninsula. Probably because in the US generic businesses are more common, while over here fast-food chains aren't even seen as restaurants, but rather a place you go to eat - and that is a huge difference - for us, a restaurant is far more than a place you go to eat.
Upgrades maximize the chance of your submissions be reviewed by people that are less familiar with your local context - and context is everything. Some items can be upgraded with considerable success: playgrounds, religious buildings, community centres, art... but other more contextual submissions might be evaluated on a curve.
Personally, I have used one upgrade and it took over a month to be reviewed. Every other submissions was reviewed in less than two weeks and mostly were approved.
If anything, I'd say upgrades are not very useful...