Influencing Reviewers
mcwomble-ING
Posts: 43 ✭✭✭
Does this count as an Influencing Reviewers rejection criteria.
Your thoughts?
(I skipped it rather than reject)
Does this count as an Influencing Reviewers rejection criteria.
Your thoughts?
(I skipped it rather than reject)
Comments
I cannot read what is in the supporting photo, but if it is actual criteria pages and recent comments from Niantic employees on these forums, then I do not see it as influencing reviewers. There is nothing wrong with pointing to criteria, the help section or clarifications.
No, that isn't influencing. Just a statement of the guidelines with supporting evidence. There will be a lot of reviewers out there who are unaware of recent changes.
It seems that instead of explaining why that's a gathering place, he wasted that text and photo.
Not abusive but not helpful.
Supporting info should explain why the nomination is important not reiterate that we should accept important ones.
I wouldn't consider that influencing reviewer.
--
I have few times omitted the support photo and instead used area maps and/or information leaflets as support photo, but hadn't considered doing collages. Might use this idea in the future. :)
It does not influence anything, because the evaluator reviews the photos and the satellite or 360 ° view to corroborate if it really exists and the waypost is valid
I've often linked this forum or criteria pages and mentioned that I believe something is eligible for reasons shown in links. I don't think that is abuse at all.
I'd also say if it was a nice coffee house, I don't know why you'd only mention skip/reject as options because those are more likely to be eligible now!
The submitter implied they'd spoken to Wayfarer admin already to confirm this was a "done deal" and was directing the reviewer to accept the submission "fait a complis"
It felt like coercion towards accepting, other than that I didn't see any grounds for rejecting, so I passed the buck and skipped.
I can't see if that text is really an explanation from an "admin"... seems a bit too long.
I do often see "this is eligible by Niantic's rules!!!" in supporting information for nominations that are clearly not eligible. I usually just reject those but I do think it's considered an attempt to influence reviewers (by lying, basically).
This does not seem abusive.
Most likely a screenshot of NianticCasey's post
https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/45941#Comment_45941
I don't mind when a submitter expresses it from their perspective-- "I believe this qualifies as (X) because it meets (A) and (B) criteria." That's useful because it helps me understand why the submitter thinks it's interesting or important. I also don't mind gentle helpful information like, "On (date) Niantic updated the criteria to allow public pools again."
It's generally the case that there is an inverse relationship between the vehemence of a submitter's assertion and the accuracy of it. If their supporting info insists that something qualifies then it probably doesn't. If they strongly emphasize that there's pedestrian access then it's in a roundabout with no crosswalk. If they swear it's not on private property then it is.
"I can't actually justify this being more than just another generic store so I will fill up the supporting info with a lot of text in the hope people feel sorry for me"