So I created 2 nominations in Ingress on the 17th, hit upload later and to be honest, forgot about them until yesterday. I sat down at my computer, fired up Ingress and uploaded them.
When I went to my contribution page they were listed as created on the 17th, and one of them immediately went into voting before I was able to edit the gibberish description that I put in as a placeholder.
If you use upload later, the so called Grace Period, a delay of the submission entering voting by the system, is already started, so it has already counted down by now. Meaning that such a late actual upload can lead to a situation like this as you went around the safety net of not going to voting yet by accident
You learn something new every day…
Thanks for posting that this happened. I try to encourage everyone to submit with minimal acceptable text, even if they plan on editing in the Contributions page, just in case something like this happens. One time I did the edit, but it didn’t save, and my nomination was still accepted with the at least not gibberish description.
You would think the number of times I have had things go into voting with gibberish descriptions would teach me a lesson.
But here we are…
I do the same. I also did not know this could happen. I frequently upload later and then do it at home and reload the contributions page to put it on hold to edit my text.
Thankfully none of my nominations that I haven’t put any details in have gone to voting right away! Would be funny for something to get my nomination with description: “stuff” and supporting information: “supp” 
When I am out with the kids or in trying not to look too awkward by myself on the road this is all I put in.
same story by me, sometimes i just dont have the time to do it at the moment. Than i upload them and i see few “in que” - obviously rejected becouse of description. And in the moment sad story, when they were done in some village fewer kilometers from me (sometimes i drive 20-30 km to small villages to do them few pokestops if its possible) and then i recieve this kind of suprise 
I just did one of these. I just called it “12/1” with everything else as “Add”.
I use the numerical part of the official Public Right Of Way designation as a quick reference when taking the photo at location, because I know a lot of reviewers still seem unaware that they don’t need a name on the sign where they are official footpaths if you have the evidence online.
I then put it On Hold and wait to sit down in a quiet moment to make a high quality nomination with the correct government designation and location references, a new Title and a Description which often includes some fascinating history about it, etc..
I used Upload Later on this particular one as the data reception was patchy for my network, I was in a rush, and didn’t know how soon I’d get to write it up. Now, days later, I hit upload planning to do my usual, but it went straight into voting before I could put it On Hold.
To my mind queueing should only start when upload is done as if your time is short in a location then you may well do the bits that must be at the pin and then want to be adding references later. If you are trying to make high quality additions that the locals overlook, missing this chance to put On Hold for editing may deny them getting it as you cannot start again when you have left the area.
Also, there should be a Withdrawal option for such genuine mistakes. Even better would be a Recall one where it can be put to On Hold, edited, and removing the hold would put it to the back of the queue with voting reset. I don’t want reviewers wasting time on this one of mine, but such Recall option should always exist when In Voting anyway.
I’m sure, when any submitter gets reject feedback on one nomination that they realise also needs applying to others, they would welcome the opportunity to edit and correct them to improve the standard of nomination being voted on instead of waste voter time just to receive avoidable rejections.
Hello and welcome,
I don’t think Upload Later was designed to hold onto nominations for days at a time, but for only a few hours, as this should give enough time to allow one to get to an area with a better connection hopefully. This would make sense, since ML takes about 24 hours to decide on a nomination, and if it allows it to go onto community voting after 24 hours, then when a nomination is uploaded using Upload Later after 24 hours, it could go directly into voting.
We also have the option to put nominations on hold after uploading, but if ML gets a look at them while sitting in your Upload Later queue, this might not allow one to use this option.
Personally, I do try to upload all of my nominations at the time I create them. I do sometimes have to edit my nominations after submitting, or put on hold, but it’s usually within a few hours after submitting. I also try to do my research beforehand, so if I do find a potential POI, I might research it at home before creating a nomination at said POI. I use the Notes app on my phone for this, and it might be something to consider using to write down titles/description/supporting info before going out to nominate.
Being that this thread is over a year old, I would recommend posting about this in a feedback thread, such as the one below:
Good shout. The thread I posted on just came up when I was checking why it had gone straight to voting (I had loaded 20 others directly at their pins, and just forgot this had not loaded on first attempt).
I’ll look for somewhere suitable to put the suggestions as I truly believe a Recall option would be the best way to enable nomination improvements when realised as needed, instead of reject or withdrawal and then force either resubmission or wasting Wayfarer staff time with appeals…
What about the wasted time of the people who already reviewed it without a chance of them earning an agreement for their time spent on it?
When you submit a nomination the final step is to agree all the information provided is accurate… submitting place holder gibberish is on you, not the system.
To my mind;
What about the other point - only starting the queueing clock from actual upload it to the Wayfarer database instead of when Upload Later is hit?
Upload Later is there as an acknowledgement the game can be played in signal areas which are too weak to enable uploading decent quality photos before time out. For the same reason the signal is too weak to download supporting information sources like council Public Right Of Way designation lists and maps.
Having the current system starts virtual queueing at the instant of hitting Upload Later means, when doing the upload it can go straight to voting. This gives zero opportunity to add the supporting information that could not be accessed at the pin. Changing it so queuing only starts when the nomination is added to the Wayfarer database instead of when Upload Later is used would avoid this entire loss of editing opportunity.
I see no downside to this as it;
The point that Roli is trying to make, and one I made as well, is doing your research before submitting, instead of using place holders for title/description/supporting info to prevent this from happening. There’s no guarantee that how Upload Later works will change, and it hasn’t in the time being, so changing how one submits is really the only option at this time.
Doing research beforehand helps me quite a bit, and I really don’t do much editing afterwards to my nominations when keeping some notes on my phone or bookmarking links with info (and allowing them to be viewed offline).
Keep in mind, too, that someone could see one of these nominations with the place holders and think they could be abusive, and mark them as such. Someone could see them as fake nominations, not just low quality and/or inaccurate, and then there could be an abuse review done by staff. Even having a good deal of these rejected for low quality and/or inaccurate titles/descriptions could lead to a review.
Is it really worth possibly getting a warning or ban for, since accuracy is highly important when it comes to Wayfarer?
I think if it is obvious placeholder text ( and it is usually very obvious) , then it should not be viewed as a malicious act.
I certainly would not mark it as such in review.
@silverfoxkes
If one accidentally goes into voting that you forgot to put on hold you can ask the help chat if it would be possible to withdraw.
If you are visiting an area and see things then often you just have to nominate there and then.
I have empathy as it can be very difficult to get everything done on a small screen in a short amount of time, poor data reception and in poor weather. So some of mine are extremely minimal.
But the important part is to remember to upload as soon as possible. And yes an auto hold in contributions.
We are all human so we make mistakes. And sometimes we forget to do a step in the process.
Would it be nice if the system was foolproof against those mistakes - well yes it would…….
It would be lovely if the auto process or even reviewers could send it back saying your text is gibberish do you want to amend and resubmit.
We can but dream. Nothing wrong in expressing ideas.
Until that point it is a case of lesson learnt and try to avoid it happening again.
Admittedly it was a relief it got rejected without any abuse warning. Hopefully I get back there some time in the coming months to start again. It is a POI with a fascinating history that very few locals under the age of 70 would know.
Place holder text is not obvious to every reviewer, and we have a lot of new ones right now. They could mark as abuse.
I agree, minimal text > gibberish
When I find things on the road, I put “tbc” as the description and supporting. My typing on the phone is just too bad to write up properly. That’s a fairly obvious placeholder 
Again, that’s not accurate, and could still lead to a warning/ban if they keep getting through to voting.
Yes, not everyone is great at writing on their phones; I myself can’t use both my thumbs on smartphone keyboards, so I just use one finger. I do take advantage of predictive text on my keyboard often, which does help to make my descriptions a bit longer, but I also know that they don’t need to be long all the time. However, like noted, you don’t need to have much of a description, just something brief. We have many who keep their descriptions brief when first submitting, and if they are able to edit before they go into voting, they do; their brief descriptions at still accurate though.
Brief and accurate is better than “TBC” and inaccurate. I really don’t like when submitters just put in the description the type of restaurant being nominated (such as “Local Mexican restaurant”), but it still usually describes the POI accurately, and if I can find more info than what was provided by the submitter that it is a popular, locally-owned restaurant, I will approve it.
“tbc” should only get a warning if reviewers report it as abuse, not if they reject for incorrect description/title.
I’ve come across a handful of submissions while reviewing that had obvious placeholder text (“tbc” or “tba”) and just reject them. I’d never even consider reporting it as abuse or anything like that, because it’s clearly not an attempt to abuse the system.
A couple of times I have put in a full title, description and supporting text while on the road, only to have the upload get rejected or stall, due to the text having /something/ not allowed, although obviously you never get told what is not allowed.
In those situations. I put placeholder text in, so that I can put in the full text after uploading (at which stage it is a lot easier to copy-paste multiple times on a computer until the offending text can be identified).
