Title : Swings
Description : A swing is a seat or platform, suspended from chains, ropes, or bars, on which one or more people can swing back and forth for enjoyment or relaxation.
Although, I believe it is acceptable location wise(located in a community space) and by criteria for the waypoint, but I can’t see past the title and description.
I rejected the submission due to inaccuracies in the title and description. Is there anything else I should have considered? How would you have approached the review process
This description looks like a defenition given by ChatGPT what a swing actually is. The title is also really basic and doesn’t stand out. I would have rejected it based on:
Inaccurate or bad title
inaccurate or bad description
I don’t really know how you should reject otherwise. I agree with what you did @DoctorPinocchio
Generally speaking, while I do really dislike the presumed AI ramble, I don’t personally feel this sort of text is ineligible. It’s accurate coal and can be edited in the future by somebody else once approved. I don’t think titles have to be completely unique, just unique to the area.
I will point out the closest I could personally find (after a 5 minute search) within the guidelines as to why to reject, underlined by me for emphasis:
Ineligible text or description Title and/or description seems copied and pasted from other sources, includes emojis, tags, or personally identifiable information such as codenames, personal names or initials, or addresses.
It does seem to be copied form another source, especially if you understand how AI text is generated. But otherwise, I don’t generally reject for texts like the one shown, so long as the nomination otherwise seems to meet criteria.
It’s also the type I entirely respect others for having a differing opinion.
Wow. I had just written out a bunch about clarifications on what text and description should be, but then found that this is lifted straight from Wikipedia:
If I had discovered that, I would have rejected for third party text.
Thank you for finding that I would like to think I’d have reverse searched the text if actually reviewing (I usually do). In this case, at least, the rejection is absolutely appropriate.
I feel what I said before still stands if it wasn’t a direct copy & paste from Wikipedia and “just” AI ramble.
I would simply reject for inaccurate title and maybe inaccurate description. I’m never going to accept a wayspot with a useless title, even if the POI itself is potentially acceptable. The submission process does say “Enter unique, detailed title”, so that’s two out of two keywords that have been ignored.
When this is the title, the odds are high that other things are also wrong, but I’m not wasting my time on investigating those when there are other submissions that will deserve the time.
Bad or vague title: probably reject it.
Mis-spellings in the title: reject it. Description doesn’t matter so much.
Incorrect capitalisation: reject it. Submitters should at least make an attempt at Title Case, it’s not hard to do.
Unfortunately, I see approved Wayspots that fail all three at once. It may see harsh, but it gives the submitter an opportunity to work on the submission quality and try again. It’s all very well to say that someone can edit it later, but in my experience these bad titles can last for years and encourage others to make bad submissions.
I’m going to disagree, we can do that amicably
I’m not going to because of a lack of title case (which I understand is really an English language thing anyways ). If the information in the title is accurate and unique enough but not perfect it will get a vote under I dont know, accuracy, title.
Same with description.
I’m human and I make mistakes - I expect that of everyone.
Edits are there because mistakes happen.
What I do agree with is that ideally I would like to send feedback to the wayfinder to say something along the lines of…….
Your wayspot has been accepted. However please note that the quality of your title was not as expected so please review your practice for future nominations to provide better quality.
You get the gist of what I mean.
What I had written that I deleted when I found out that it was copied, was that it falls between the “do” and "don’t examples in help - it isn’t one or the other:
It isn’t a “do” but it also isn’t a “don’t” and it does not meet the rejection criteria already quoted. This would have been a “hold my nose and accept” situation if I hadn’t found the text exactly.
I would like to think I’d have reverse searched the text if actually reviewing (I usually do). In this case, at least, the rejection is absolutely appropriate.
because of a lack of title case (which I understand is really an English language thing anyways ). If the information in the title is accurate and unique enough but not perfect it will get a vote under I dont know, accuracy, title.