Influencing Reviewers - Do you reject it?
SeVero2k-PGO
Posts: 68 ✭✭
Do you really automatically reject nominations when the supportive Information asks for votes like " too little pokestops here", "please accept this" , " thank you for accepting" "please vote positivley" and the like?
According to criteria it should be rejected...how do you adress these?
I recently rejected some nominations that I was pretty sure of were fakes, Including a "playground" wich - in my opinion - was situated on private property of a Single family home and my rating susequently dropped from "excellent" to "good" (which I've since been unable to recover). I shouldn't worry about that but probabley I'm beeing to strict?
Is it better to give the benefit of doubt or in case of doubt to reject right away?
Comments
If it’s in supporting information, Niantic don’t make it overly clear to a Pokémon GO submitter what should go there.
The app says;
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.
For some trainers, the “important” is that they want a PokéStop they can spin from their sofa. So unless it’s clearly not an eligible thing, I don’t blame Pokémon GO players overly for that section.
If it's just the usual "more stops please", I don't count it against them. As @PkmnTrainerJ-ING said, there's nothing really telling the submitters not to.
There have been cases of people writing things like "accept my stop or I'll reject everything I vote on!" Those I would reject as influencing/abuse.
Some people will also reject edits that write "select the left point" for the "description" as influencing. I haven't seen an edit like that in a long time myself, but I'm sure they're still out there.
I agree, and I consider influencing more things like “Guidance says to rate these 5 stars” or “but sir, Mr Giffard said this”.
“Need moar pokey stops” is not grounds for rejection, IMO. I ignore that and review the rest of the nomination on its own merits as if there was no supporting statement.
“Back in my day we didn’t have Supporting Information or a Supporting Photo!” 👴
Get off my lawn, it’s PRP!
*starts to create a LFL at the edge of it*
”MAKE ME!”
Ok, thats exactly how I would Do it 99,9% of the times. I ignore that sort of comment. Recently I came across a Submission that looked a lot like a 3rd Party Photo and there was exactly nothing to suggest the wayspot was acutually really there. As I could not Tell for sure from the Photos AND it was asking for positive votes in the supportive Information I decided to reject for this "lame" reason....
*changes signage to a little free pantry while shaking clenched fist in the air*
Third party photo and mismatched location/fake are all totally fair rejections based on what you’ve said.
Edit: Thanks everyone for their help and your elaborations which gave me a better understanding what could actually be meant by "influencing reviewers"
for the sake of completeness I quote the rejection criteria according to niantic that made me think of rejecting such nominations in the first place...
‐------------------------
Influencing reviewers
Nominations with content that tries to sway and influence votes, such as dropping a codename or codewords in the title, description, or photo. Or making voting requests in the title, description, supporting information, or photo
I do my fairness in judging, but I often reject candidates who write "because there aren't many PokéStops" because they have some kind of flaw in the first place.
I sometimes use "unpleasant" when the investigator forces me to approve or threatens me.
I would have to reject 80% of what I review if I rejected for "needs more pokestops in the area."
Only 80%? I don’t think I would have any accepts.
From what I see is, usually its a horrible nomination paired with the "We need more pokestops/gyms" or "There are no stops or gyms nearby".
If the nomination meets the some of the criteria then I will vote on it and not just 1star it.
In my opinion - the whole point of submitting a nomination is to influence reviewers to vote Yes. There is a point, though, where simple persuasion crosses the line into exerting undue influence - lying about eligibility or location, making your text so personalized that it's easily identifiable as a submission from a preferred voting bloc, threatening repercussions, or insulting reviewers are all good examples. I won't reject a candidate for choosing to use the need for more pokestops/portals as a supporting statement, but I won't approve it unless the candidate has its own merits and meets criteria.
I'd say linking the actual statement would be fine as these are clarifications of messy criteria, but empty statements may as well be lies so these are bad
Usually I try to just ignore it as long as it's just a "please accept" or so. Codewords or such I don't know anyways so if I already had some I have not recognized them anyways.
It's the wayspot which gets to the database and therefore to users. And honestly, most of the submissions with an "please accept for poke stop" have issues with other, real criteria anyways.
"Need more stops" is just a waste of words IMO, just like, "Many people pass by here", "popular location", etc. I pretend those words don't exist and they have no impact on my reviewing.
Calls to action are more difficult, and how I respond depends mostly on the specificity of the request. If it's something vague like "Thank you for voting positively" I'll treat it like "Need more stops" and pretend it doesn't exist. If the request is specific, like "Please do not move the pin" or in the case of edits "Please choose the pin to the west" then I will reject it for influencing reviewers.
I am more tolerant of the vague requests partially because Niantic does a very bad job of educating submitters about influencing reviewers and other things that make submissions good/bad, and so lots of people think that things like "thank you for accepting" are perfectly OK.