Influencing reviewers

PkmnTrainerJ-INGPkmnTrainerJ-ING Posts: 2,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited December 2020 in Criteria Clarifications

For this part of the new criteria, what does this exactly entail?

If submitters are asking for a new PokéStop in their supporting statement, or referencing what the reviewer should rate the nomination, should we then rate it lower? Or report abuse? What’s the step to be taken?

Post edited by NianticGiffard on
Tagged:

Comments

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 2,973 Ambassador

    Does it matter if it really is eligible? Or if you're explaining how previous AMA or criteria guidelines meant it was eligible, but now it isn't explicitly eligible?

  • pokestophope-INGpokestophope-ING Posts: 72 ✭✭✭

    Explanation of what makes you think it is eligible isn't referencing how the reviewer should review it @Gendgi-PGO . "Trailmarker 5*" or "give it 5* or you hate the NHS" however is

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 2,973 Ambassador

    Is it, though? I used to see a lot that are "Gazebos are well established as excellent nominations," or "Trail markers are eligible per the guidelines."

    It's mildly "making voting requests" but not really abusive, imo.

  • patsufredo-PGOpatsufredo-PGO Posts: 2,079 ✭✭✭✭✭

    How about one wrote this in supporting description:

    "Eligible, safe pedestrian access, visible in GSV, please rate it 5* thanks"

    Or this:

    "Need more stops so more people can play. Please rate it 5* thanks"


    (And that's what the majority of submitters from my country write in supporting description)

  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I would think that rule is more targeted to comments like:

    "Placed so it can become a Pokestop/gym. DO NOT MOVE IT TO THE OBJECT!"

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Here are just some of the comments I've seen, all of which would fall under "trying to influence reviewers".

    Can you please select the location on the right as this will open up a cell for a new stop its still on church grounds.

    Skate park in the village of Astwood Bank. Moving to the back of the park so that it goes in the next cell and allows the basketball court stop to appear. Thanks for reviewing!

    great place for a pokestop, busy area with a lot of foot fall. Players in this area are crying out for stops :)

    edit please accept spot to south as this allows more stops

    Wayfarer: please select the most western/left location. Very slight position change on the pub but will allow the war memorial to appear as a POI. Thanks.

    Pin has been placed in an ideal position as otherwise too close to other POI's to go live.

    I have successfully nominated a number of these signs and see no reason this should not be a stop.

    This submission will make an extra gym so please approve reviewers.

    Wayfarer note: Please choose location that is under the trees near the car park. It is within 5 metres of the library but also allows the poi to go live in other games. Thanks for reviewing :)

  • PkmnTrainerJ-INGPkmnTrainerJ-ING Posts: 2,820 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Appreciate the answer Casey. If we get submitters requesting specific ratings or any of the other things you mentioned they shouldn’t be doing, should we then report as abuse or rate lower? What’s the recommended action?

  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It should be reported, if you do anything. It shouldn't mean you give it a lower rating.

  • EcceAngelo-INGEcceAngelo-ING Posts: 16 ✭✭

    @NianticCasey-ING Your answer confirms what we have thought for a long time, but the problem is the fact that the guidelines themselves are really confusing on that part, and the new criteria pages are even more confusing on this, by not stating what is acceptable. Many reviewers think that an URL in the supporting info or a reference to the guidelines or AMA is trying to influence the reviewers, or, in the case of a URL, that they are to be treated the same way as an URL in the description.

    In other words, we’re glad that you make things clearer by posting here, but if the guidelines stay as confusing as they are on the “influencing the reviewers” part, we can never make good use of the clarifications you give us, by sharing them with the reviewers who don’t already read this forum... and this is bad for us, but it’s also a shame for all the work you put here to help us.

  • WandHerring-PGOWandHerring-PGO Posts: 139 ✭✭✭✭

    I think it's purely the criteria name that's an issue. The description is rather clear.

    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.

    Pointing out what criteria your submission fulfil isn't a voting request nor a secret code. However, anything you put in the additional info category can be interpreted as "influencing the reviewers" because, well, when you think about it, that's what it's for. It's a space where you put all the information you judge important to convince the reviewers your submission should be accepted.

    IMO the criteria would be called "Review Rigging" , with description reading something along the lines of:

    Content that tries to persuade reviewers to rate a nomination differently than on its own merits, such as dropping a codename or codewords in the title, description, or photo. Or making appeals to emotion or voting requests in the title, description, supporting information, or photo.

    That way, there's a clear distinction between information put to defend a nomination's qualities and attempts to bypass the proper review process.

  • Svizac28-INGSvizac28-ING Posts: 80 ✭✭

    If you see such edits go to Report Abuse, it's in the lower right corner

Sign In or Register to comment.