They have also posted this
1 Like
There can be multiple patterns present and our duty as helpers is to address any loose threads so that reviewers don’t have anything to pull on and reject a nomination let alone report for abuse.
That could have happend because one of your submissions was flag for abuse so every outstanding nomination will get rejected as a processual result.
I think this could be the case, as their other thread seems to have issues with location as well as not using the official title, if available.
@ImAgInArIuS Also, if you feel more comfortable using a different language, please feel free to do so. The forums do have a translator.
Its common practice for staff to reject all pending nomination if abuse is detected. If you missplaced wayspot by 30m that could be reason why abuse isdetected
We don’t know if staff or ML rejected for abuse. We believe that ML may be able to use the abuse reason when rejecting these days.
That’s the first I’ve heard this mentioned… when did this come about? I’ve never seen any reports of this.
I found that the OP did ask about this POI prevously:
This was for the Nov 5th submission with the official title.
@ImAgInArIuS I don’t see in any of the threads you ahve started that you’ve been provided with this info, but there is criteria and guidelines to be followed. You’ll want to review the Wayspot Criteria to understand better what may or may not be eligible. It’s also good to take a look at How to Review Wayspots, as there are guidelines on what make for good titles/descriptions/photos. The Criteria Clarification Collection is another great place, as it covers some of the most discussed POIs.
I can’t find an example, but I know that I have seen others say they have gotten this as the rejection reason less than 24 hours after submitting, and being that it says “our team,” we think it may be coming from ML. Typically, staff reviews take longer than 24 hours (I had a couple last week that took a few days for staff to make a decision on).
Staff has not confirmed this to be true so I would not speculate that ML could determine abuse.
2 Likes
It could be possible though.
Pretty sure staff has confirmed they DON’T determine abuse with ML.
1 Like
And where is this? I don’t need a long response, just proof that staff has said this in the forums.
Obviously this is a specific thread scenario and may not be the best for this situation.
You said:
I’ll be frank and don’t want to derail this thread more, but,
This goes counter to what I’ve seen and heard from staff with how the ML review and automated rejection system works. Maybe there’s a different route or path that can trigger such a response.
If you want to start that as a theory, please leave out “we know” to avoid speculation being taken by others as fact.
1 Like
That just means that ML doesn’t dole out warnings/bans, not that it rejects for abuse. So no, you don’t have proof that staff has said that ML can use the abuse reason to reject nominations.
Edited. Next time, just ask for an edit, ok?
I wanted to know if I was missing something before attempting to imply you were incorrect 
I really don’t like the “pointing fingers” thing though. Asking for an edit is much nicer, imo. I’ve had too many fingers pointed at me in the past, and it can be hurtful.
No fingers were pointed during this discussion. I asked questions and have moved on.
While you may not see it that way, some do, and I’m not talking so much about you.
I think the important thing here is that no on had yet to provide the OP with any info on the criteria and guidelines in any of their threads, and I have done that, so I do hope they go through them.