When reviewing potential wayspots, I know mentioning a game (usually pokemon) is not allowed in the title or description.
However, sometimes when reviewing spots a nomination looks perfect & I’d love to approve but the supporting information mentions something about pokemon.
Previously I was rejecting on basis of “influencing reviews,” however, I’m not sure that fits.
I would like clarification on if any mention of a game reference in the supporting information is cause to reject the spot. I assumed if so, eMiLy would do a better job at auto-rejecting, yet here they all are in community voting.
Simply mentioning stuff like “we need more Pokéstops” in the supporting info is not against the rules (it is against the rules if it’s in the title or description though). However, it’s also not useful for the submitter to say things like that in the supporting statement, as it’s wasting space that should be used to justify how they think their nomination meets criteria.
Influencing reviewers is saying stuff like “give this 5 stars” (obviously we don’t have the star system now), or “don’t move the pin because it’s in an empty S2 Cell”.
Simply mentioning one of the games in the supporting information isn’t abuse, even a reason for rejection. It’s useless and irrelevant, but not something I would reject. Rejecting as “influencing reviewers” isn’t something I would do either. Things like “I need more Pokeystops” or “My Pokeymans are lonely and need spins.” is redundant, fluff information that’s irrelevant and distracts from the nomination itself.
Influencing reviewers is things like “Hey it’s Joe, approve this.” or description edits that go along with location edits that say “Pick the North pin because it’ll move it into its own cell.”
Now mentioning the games in the title or description is reason enough to reject a nomination, as it’s not allowed. Reject with the reason “Bad title” or “Bad description” or both, depending on the situation.
Just want to chime in that similar dialogue exists from the Ingress app.
“Please select top Portal location”
“I need a place to hack”
“Frogs/Smurfs/Resistance/Enlightened occupy here and we need something for my team!”
It can be really hard to decide what is intentional or accidental “fault of not knowing better” when it comes to “influencing,” but I try and reserve such rejections for abuse for things that the OP knowingly and maliciously is trying to slip through.
I agree that game references in the supporting are irrelevant but not a cause for rejection. A little history lesson on how some people began using this rejection reason for that, and why you may have been advised to vote that way previously:
Aaron did make a comment that suggested game references in the supporting could be “influencing reviewers”, but this was in reference to a specific nomination on the old forum. We never saw the statements he was addressing because the OP never showed us their supporting information. Even though it was on the old forum, I was able to find a link to the post on the Wayback Machine: Rejected Pokestop Nomination — Wayfarer
He said:
"I had a look at your nomination and I would make some adjustments to it before I decide to resubmit it:
I would improve the description and supporting text to show how is it important to the community or how does it meet one of the eligibility criteria. Being the only restaurant of its type does not make it eligible.
I would also remove the game specific references. They fall under ‘influencing reviewers’ and it disqualifies your nomination
These would increase the chances of your nomination getting approved."
Again, we did not see the supporting statement he was addressing. The prompt literally asks why the nomination would be good for the game you are submitting in, so I only consider game references a waste of the supporting statement.
And who knows if this will ever be changed in any game to reflect that users are nominating Wayspots, not stops/gym or portals.
So yes, if someone says in their supporting info “I believe this would make a great [insert Pokestop or portal] because…” I don’t reject it. Most of the time they still are saying why it would make a good Wayspot, just going about it in more words than what’s needed.
I try to keep my supporting info to why it meets critera, such as being safely accessible, being publicly located, describing details that I didn’t include in the description, etc. I’ll even provide a website or social media link for further context in the supporting info.
thank you all very much for your speedy responses. I appreciate your thoughts and answers! I’ll continue approving good and eligible stops even if the supporting info mentions something about pokemon/pokestop, if the actually nomination is of value & the title/description don’t have game references. <3