Heyo everyone,
I have been running into a lot of nominations that have identical titles, descriptions, and supporting information, as well as using the same picture in the photo submission and supporting picture. How do you guys usually respond to nominations like that? Always seems to be a gray area for me when the submission looks fine but there was obviously no effort put in on the nominators part.
Example -
Title: Public Park Playground
Description: Public Park Playground
Supporting Information: Public Park Playground
Im usually skipping these out of my own morals, like why should i put effort into reviewing if there was no effort made to nominate, but I was curious if there is a better way to handle these submissions.
I would lean towards rejecting on the basis of a bad title. Itās not hard to describe the official name / road / village / suburb / whatever. Itās just lazy, and frankly there are enough crappily named wayspots in the game alreadyā¦
fair point, maybe a bad example then lol.
What if it was a perfectly fine title, like āJohnson Park Wooded Playgroundā, but copied into every field
This is bad practice, but is not specifically a rejection reason. It is a red flag that they may have only used the one photo because they only had the one photo and it was third party. I would use Google Lens and check Google photos to see if the photo was published somewhere else.
Also bad practice but also not a rejection reason imo. But this will be a judgment call. If it isnāt wrong or irrelevant, I would recommend an accept. Maybe with an āI donāt knowā under accuracy in the text box. They are missing a chance to explain their nomination if they do this.
That would be OK by me. Descriptions are not terribly important and thereās only a limited amount of stuff you can say about a playground. As long as the title is distinct, correctly spelled and uses Title Case (for English) then Iād have no problem with it.
i have seen cases where people i know are not cheaters have forgotten to take a second photo, or found one of the photos to be unuseable after getting back to submit remotely, so it can be legit, but those should be checked very carefully!
i didnāt even think to mention ai, and that is a big reason something would only have one photo.
Personally, I intensely dislike lazy submissions. Examples are things that might well exist, but the submitter has made absolutely no attempt to help the reviewer confirm the location, and has either pointed the supporting photo away from the POI (which is always a red flag even though it could be out of idoicy/misunderstanding) or has made it impossible to match up the photo or supporting photo with anything visible on streetview or āsatelliteā.
For submissions with no streetview (most trail markers in the countryside), but an good-enough narrative, Iām either accepting or skipping.
I know Iām a harsh reviewer and think people should just but a tiny bit of effort in, not be quite so slapdash, but donāt expect every submission to be as good as I hope mine are. I donāt see a problem with this - not everyone has to review the same way.
Thatās what edits are for. If the submitter found something eligible and submits the basics, Iād prefer to accept, and then someone else passing with more attention to detail can improve it later.
āLazyā could also be dyslexic, forgot to update before it went into voting, or lack of knowledge. Better to encourage and develop the map Iād say rather than reject
We can rely on some unknown random person to at some unknown point in the future have the inclination to look at the description let alone care to edit it, instead of just spinning it as yet another pokestop.
I am not going to accept something on that basis.
Part of improving the map is making sure what gets added is legitimate and decent quality. This is possibly more important than just /more pokestops/.
I would edit it. So would you. It takes a couple of minutes. And in fact it sounds like we are going to get the option to do that remotely too soon, so even easier!
I never said to accept ineligible things. I said to accept eligible things that you deem lazy and I say meet the minimum standard. Even Aaron has told you that youāre being too strict as cyndie showed above.
I am aware of that. He did say to vote accordingly, which is open to interpretation. I care about the quality of what I submit and care about the quality of what I review, but to a lesser extent.
