Nominations of things regarding Pokémon with supporting-text mentioning anything Pokémon related
Spinky108-PGO
Posts: 104 ✭✭
When submitters nominate things and places that are Pokémon related and they mention something Pokémon related in supporting-text, should the "dropping a codename or codewords" rejection criteria in the supporting-text be considered? I think "dropping a codename or codewords" means mentioning anything that is related with Pokémon, since Pokémon Go is Pokémon.
Comments
If they nominate something Pokemon related, like a card shop specializing in Pokemon TCG, it is permissible for them to mention Pokemon in the description. However, they should still not mention things specific to Pokemon Go (such as if they were to say, "PokePals Card Shop, a great place to buy cards and spin a Pokestop while you're at it" = reject description).
In general, if they mention Pokemon Go in the supporting info, it's not a reason for reject. If the nomination is eligible and acceptable, but the supporting info says "we need more pokestops here," it's okay. While it's not a supporting reason, it's just the supporting info, so it shouldn't be rejected just for that reason.
In general, if codewords or usernames are used in the description and/or supporting info, it should be rejected accordingly. Codewords may be hard to detect, but people putting initials or "signing" their nominations (like having "-L.B." at the end of the text) is something that should be rejected. Usernames often have numbers, names, and/or words that have nothing to do with the object being nominated. Think of our usernames on this forum for examples.
I could consider the example of "-L.B." as a codeword and a rejection for that. I could also start rejecting nominations regarding Pokémon only if they specifically mention Pokémon Go with codewords in the title, description or supporting-text.
unless the supporting text is clearly a code then mentioning Pokémon in the supplementary is no reason to influence decision.
The text when submitting from Pokémon Go can read as meaning you should say why this should be in PoGo, which to an ordinary player might perfectly reasonably respond - trying to get more pokestops, lack of stops, hoping you can make this a gym.
All misguided in terms of wayfarer but it’s because of poor communication from Niantic and the submitter has lost the chance to tell the reviewer something useful. But not a reason on its own to affect how you rate the POI.
I will start rejecting nominations regarding Pokémon only if they specifically mention codewords related with Pokémon Go in the title, description or the supporting text.
Mentions of Pokémon Go in the supporting text aren't a rejection reason.
It could depend on how you define the rejection criteria. I personally define it as mentioning anything related with Pokémon with a non-related Pokémon object/place, and mentioning anything related with Pokémon Go with a Pokémon related object/place.
If the object/place however were to be specifically about Pokémon Go, then I would personally allow anything Pokémon related be mentioned in the title, description and supporting text. I would then with those nominations with the codename or codewords rejection criteria only focus on the "-L.B." anywhere in the texts as an example Melurra gave.
It being in the supporting text is a waste of time for both submitter and reviewer but it’s not a reject.
Anywhere else, title or description, any in game references are a reason for reject.
If you have a mural of a Pikachu however, there will be some mention of in game stuff. If it said “Pikachu Mural” for title that’s fine. If the description says “This will make a great PokéStop for trainers to spin” then it goes in the reject pile.
If you read the influencing reviewers section of rejection criterias, you can see the text "Or making voting requests in the title, description, supporting information, or photo". I specifically want to highlight the "Or making voting requests in the supporting information" part. So a text like "This would make a great pokéstop for trainers to spin" in the supporting information would be a rejection, according to the text part I highlighted.
It would be a rejection at least for non-Pokémon related objects/places.
I take that as someone saying in the supporting to “Rate 5 stars due to this” or “Rate location as 3 stars”.
Niantic say to explain why it would be a good PokéStop to Pokémon GO submitters, so I don’t think saying it would be a great stop to spin quashes that. It’s just a waste of time and irritates me, but no a reason to reject?
"Stop" and "spin" are the codewords referring to Pokémon Go in that case and should be rejected for using codewords. It could depend on how you define the codename or codewords rejection criteria. Sometimes the submitters uses the words in a way where it's not too obvious, at least for me. It depends on how the submitters uses the codewords with the supporting text if I feel like rejecting or not.
Unless the supporting text is abusive or harassment, it is a frustration but not a reason to reject.
Taken to the extreme, "content that tries to sway and influence votes" is anywhere between "more stops" to actual verifiable evidence.
There's also the "pinned out of zone of play to not obstruct sports while interacting with waypoint/stop/portal" supporting text which is incredibly helpful to prevent accidents from happening (plus helps consider the placement for the reviewer's future submissions).
The app tells them;
“Explain why you believe your PokéStop nomination is important and what Trainers will see there. Effectively communicating these points will help reviewers evaluate your nomination and understand its value.”
So to someone who has no experience of the Wayfarer system, saying “This stop will be great for trainers to spin and they will see an information board” meets the request there.
A code name for me would be initials or some other item in the photo (Resistance agents in Ingress would sometimes use a Smurf toy for example) as it’s a way of letting local reviewers know “Oh hey, this is my nomination. 5 stars please.”
Niantic should change the nomination process to a game neutral language but until they do, Pokémon GO submitters aren’t discouraged from mentioning gyms/PokéStops in the supporting information.
As said, I would and have rejected if it’s in title or description.
The critical part is what you are asked to assess.
This is the main photo, title and description.
A poor supplementary photo does not form part of the assessment
Poor supplementary information does not form part of the assessment.
Both the supplementary photo and info are chances to help the reviewer see the context of the spot more and learn about why it’s great. If the submitter does not take advantage of it then that’s their loss.
It is Niantic’s fault that submitters say things like this would be a great stop. So it is not regarded as influencing reviewers. I can see why it looks that way but that’s not how it is regarded.
I see your point of view and feel like I perhaps have been to much into the codewords part. Since the "dropping codenames or codewords doesn't mention in the supporting information. I could perhaps start thinking about that more, to allow codewords being mentioned in the supporting text.
After I read that, I start feeling quite dumb for possibly rejecting stuff I shouldn't have rejected... 😕 I sometimes don't read rules 100%, perhaps 90% actually.
Codewords should be looked at, if in supporting information.
But I wouldn’t say things like “spin” and “stop” are code words. Every bloody Pokémon GO submitter uses them. 😆
Should supporting text like "This place would be great for a pokéstop" or anything similar to that be a rejection for making voting requests?
I wouldn’t think so, as the game asks the to explain why it would be. Pokémon GO doesn’t say a Wayspot or anything like that. It asks why it’s important.
If important for them is that it makes a great place for a PokéStop then fine. It adds nothing of value but is not a reason to reject for me.
That does not mean, keep doing it Pokémon GO submitters. Use the supporting information for something useful!
Why I may be confused still is: My agreement points for rejections keeps going up. I assume then other reviewers thinks the same way as me when to reject when it comes to codewords and voting request. I might be in a group in my local area of reviewers who don't fully understand the influencing reviewers rejection criteria fully. Perhaps 90% understanding of it. Perhaps my Wayfarer rating could drop down very soon as I'm posting this reply, but it hasn't gone down for months.
I sometimes personally see using codewords referring to Pokémon Go in supporting information being a way to make voting requests.
I can’t say I have seen them myself. Do you have any examples?
"This swing could be an interesting place for children to play in while they can spin the stop while playing at the playground".
"This object/place is an approved object/place for a stop according to the criterias".
I could take more time to think of more examples, but those two could perhaps be enough. Those are examples of nominations I've recieved which I've rejected because I thought they were making voting requests.
The "spin the stop" and "for a stop" being the parts that are making voting quests.
Requests*
If in Supporting I still think that’s the submitter (badly) following this;
”Explain why you believe your PokéStop nomination is important and what Trainers will see there. Effectively communicating these points will help reviewers evaluate your nomination and understand its value.”
and not an attempt at influencing reviewers.
Sorry re-reading;
"This object/place is an approved object/place for a stop according to the criterias".
This could be an attempt at influencing. A reviewer should know what’s eligible and what’s not and make that decision themselves.
This reads like people going “Niantic say this kind of thing is okay” which would fall under that for me.
You have a point which I know I could have thought of myself and will consider that in the future. I think I want to take a small break from reviewing as I'm posting this, because I feel bad for rejecting so many nominations.
I try to think of this as "is the submitter intentionally trying to get you to vote in a way contrary to Wayfarer guidelines?" (making voting requests) or "is the submitter trying to drop certain words or phrases for the specific purpose of sending a coded message to reviewers?" (code words).
If a submitter is just saying "need more Pokéstops," they're not really breaking either of those guidelines. Although that statement provides no useful information to reviewers, they're not trying to mislead the reviewers. They're not saying "please approve this even though it doesn't meet the guidelines." They're not trying to misrepresent Wayfarer guidelines. And as for "code words," the most that can be gleaned from this statement is that the submitter plays Pokémon GO, like probably an overwhelming majority of submitters. That's hardly enough of a "code" to think they're trying to mark their nomination for some nefarious purpose.
@Spinky108-PGO we all make mistakes, especially At the start.
The great thing is you are seeking some advice about theses decision points so you are learning and improving.
I don’t know where to find them but perhaps someone else does…there are videos that people have recorded of doing some reviewing it might be worth looking to these.