should have said that “i think” this is the one, because the email didn’t say, but it is the one i addressed in my appeal.
1 Like
What would you do?
Assuming it wasnt sfprp which it does appear to be
Accept, because an edit will fix an otherwise great waypoint, and there’s an edit challenge going on!
Or reject because the name is wrong?
1 Like
Assuming it wasn’t a SFPRP, I would ask myself if this was an official plaque or just a plaque that pinned to a wall. There doesn’t appear to be any markings to say who is sponsoring the wall plaque. Also, it doesn’t appear to have any nails or screws fixing it to the wall. The latter doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not permanent, but I would consider it in the totality when considering it. Doesn’t mean it’s not eligible, but I have questions.
1 Like
That particular style is quite consistent on historic buildings where someone famous lived, so I wasn’t actually doubting the plaque. Now you made me think 
The support image was the exact same, so that wasnt helpful, presumably because it was on someone’s house and they wanted to hide that fact. I guess they were hoping for ML to take it.
Would the autowrong have bothered you?
I am not overly familiar with all the historical building plaques, but this is where the supporting information could help me decide favouribly towards the plaque. I have approved a few in the past, but I think there was enough information for me to approve them.
It’s like with the Mark Wallinger art on the Underground. Without the evidence to prove it’s a genuine art installation, it would most likely get rejected.
If the supporting image was an exact mirror of the supporting information, I would have more questions. 3rd party photo would come into my mind or SFPRP. That’s why I try and take a photo of the main subject as a main, and surrounding info (including the plaque, if I can) to help give context.
It’s not necessarily an autowrong, it’s a case of has the submitter convinced me to approve it.
1 Like
Also, it’s almost a copy and paste of what’s in the plaque. Should have been a bit more creative in the description.
Almost except “founder” vs “found a”
When I initially read the title I thought “oh this famous person has a name that’s almost the same as the famous computer guy” … oh, nope, their phone just didn’t like “Turing” and “helped” them out by “correcting” it
1 Like
It was almost certainly sfprp and I did reject it for that
They should have included in their support picture and text a reason why it wasn’t sfprp to avoid that, but didnt. Hence my skepticism based on the street view was enough to reject. These plaques are often on SFPRP because they’re about someone who used to live there.sometimes the houses are later subdivided or become non residential but have to check
Was just really interested with people’s take on the typos here
3 Likes
I would have let it through in terms of the typo……auto correct is the stuff of nightmares. It’s easy to edit.
There is a fairly common style to the plaques but I don’t think there is a set standard. I wonder if you need planning permission:thinking:
2 Likes
Thats what I was leaning towards, that the typo wasn’t enough to invalidate the submission?
Plenty of other things to reject this particular one for, but was really interested in people’s take on whether they’d be rejecting for low quality title/description or not
Wanted to know how much I’d be risking a disagreement for saying its okay
It’s only 8 miles I could go and quiz them …
But this is what I turned up instead
Keep scrolling to find a familiar picture
1 Like
Hahahaha that’s kind of hilarious isnt it
Beautiful home though!
I’m now also wondering…
If you reject for PRP and someone else rejects for 3rd party photo, and someone else rejects for low quality title, do you all get an agreement if its rejected?
Knowing our luck, someone will buy it and make it into Flats or a house of multiples and resub the nomination. 
1 Like
We dont know the answer, but I do t think it likely that whatever algorithm exist that it will distinguish between rejection types, just rejection.
It’s an area that has gone up in the world since Turings time. Certainly the sort of place that can afford their own plaque.
2 Likes
Years ago Niantic said it’s an agreement even if you gave different rejection reasons. Even if duplicate is in the mix, since it’s a rejection too.
They could have changed their algorithm since then, but I don’t feel like the agreement/disagreement code has changed - or we’d get agreements for edits by now. Which we don’t. (OTOH maybe the code changed, but not its corresponding documentation, which would be quite normal here.)
1 Like
Good to know, thanks!
I don’t think this is true.
Duplicates did not used to be recorded shown as a stat on your “profile” page until just before PoGO access and the product was rebranded from OPR (Operation Portal Recon) to Wayfarer, but even then I don’t recall that as ever been established.
I thought that was just me. I don’t know if it’s good or bad to see that others have the same problem!
Fortunately, I was able to upvote the photos I did add. (Gosh I love automatic ML approvals on photos and seeing them instantaneously in PoGO). If only text edits were so fast!
2 Likes
I suppose the more people affected, the more chance it gets fixed?
Yeah photo acceptance is almost instant, although the ML doesn’t always take all the photos. Then you can almost immediately upvote if that screen is working, which is nice!
For misspells I have a 3 strike rule. 1 or 2, ok someone should hopefully fix that. 3 or more, come on, you should have paid more attention. Unless of course they misspell a person’s name that is critical to the submission (i.e “John Smoth Memorial”) those get denied cause you should be paying attention to that part. Just make sure to do “i dont know” on accuracy and select description.
Edit: I totally missed that they misspelled the persons name and only saw the “founder” misspell…oof
4 Likes