But there’s still no begging here — only the reasons for reviewers that are being asked from me.
And the nomination’s description implies cultural significance that will be understood by all reviewers living in this country:
“Osh” is the name for one of the main dishes of Eastern cuisine — pilaf, which has become an integral part of everyday life and family traditions.
Would you copy your real used text and post it here? Everything else seems to be speculating.
It’s great that you included the word’s meaning in the description. But again, that doesn’t really describe the establishment itself. In our city there is a recreation area with a name something like “the best place” but that doesn’t mean that this place is the best.
I agree that it is useless. Unfortunately, it’s understandable because it’s what Niantic ask people to do, and it’s only if they understand the wayfarer system that people realise what they should be doing. Niantic ask people to explain why the pokestop is important, so people often explain why that pokestop is important.
What Niantic should ask is why the wayspot deserves to be added to the system, but they don’t want to confuse people with wayspots vs pokestops.
I will give my comment on this particular supporting information.
Not wayfarer criteria
Not wayfarer criteria. You need to explain how this fit exploration/socialize/exercise category instead
Not wayfarer criteria
You could do more than just this
Overall i am not rejecting nomination based on supporting info but i might pick generic business rejection. ,you definitely can do better supporting information. In the other hand i am also may not approving it based on limited information.
Personally i dont see any begging but just waste of word
Again, the original question was about this — not about explaining why the establishment itself is important:
I do understand this interpretation of your supporting information. Even if you are not explicitly begging, by talking so much about how this pokestop would work well in Pokemon Go (because you’re talking about pokestops), this is very close to begging for a new pokestop here. So a reviewer seeing this as begging is not being unfair.
Also, @DenialN1 is saying that the supporting information should be used to explain why the establishment itself is important.
I agree, perhaps that was a bad example. Unfortunately, I don’t have any screenshots of nominations in my archives that directly complain about the small number of PokéStops in the area. Before the example, I cited phrases I often see in accompanying information. The question was originally about these.
Thanks 
I’d really avoid that in future.
Your supporting information is framing a complete picture of your recent local pokemon go environment but it should be used to spot on your specific nomination. And at some point you’ll probably meet reviewers who will see it as “influencing reviewers” (rejection reason under accuracy → abuse) because your noted higher goal is to influence what will become a gym.
I’m really happy that you’ve found your way to the forum @DiezyEk
I think this is a 100% comprehensive answer for all of us.
I completely agree with you; the wording of the question we need to answer is very vague. I think if the developers clarify the information on the website, it will be much easier for everyone to present it correctly. And we shouldn’t rule out the fact that not everyone’s native language is English, and translation often partially changes the meaning of the sentence.
I agree that Niantic could have paid more attention to localization efforts and DST changes, but they are a small startup, so I would not blame them much for that
Hello. After all, what difference does it make what’s written in the supplementary information if we’re evaluating nominations? For some nominations from the city of Karaganda, I saw “Yes” in the supplementary information. How can this convince me that the nomination meets the acceptance criteria?
Since everyone is expressing their opinion on your nomination, I’ll also publicly evaluate it and, if you don’t mind, give a couple of my own tips.
1. The title: short but informative.
2. The description: fully reflects the meaning of the title. It’s immediately clear that this is a restaurant, what style of cuisine it serves, and it’s a great place for socializing.
3. Additional information (many don’t read it at all). I don’t see anything critical in it, neither whining nor an attempt to influence reviewers. But I would do this: write one of the reasons (research, communication, or sports) here.
Using your nomination as an example: it’s a national cuisine restaurant that fits the communication and research criteria (many people who find themselves in this area may never have tried the local cuisine, especially pilaf).
And frankly, that’s all.
By the way, I often add clarifications if the nominated property is new, because satellite images and panoramas on Google are outdated and are rarely updated in our region. For example, I write: the object is new and may not be visible on satellite images.
This is not entirely relevant to this topic. You can search or create your own discussion on this topic.
I’m not sure tbh. I’ve interpreted it like a submitter begging “vote for yes”
It’s difficult for me to judge, because I don’t see an example. If the word “Yes” exists without context, then I would evaluate it as useless information or laziness in writing accompanying information. In your case, you’ve extracted three words from one. I’d still prefer to see an example of such a nomination.
