The most annoying thing about reviewing...
...is when someone's "supporting statement" is "WELL ACCORDING TO X, THIS IS A FIVE STAR CANDIDATE"
I'm well aware of what things are accepted or rejected or something of which I may need to think. A supporting statement of "well you have to vote this way because so and so said so" is not only condescending and dumb, but like, it doesn't support your submission at all. It's like saying, "my mom said you have to let me play". go away.
I'd prefer your supporting statement be a single word, like "fork". Great. This gazebo is important, because fork. That makes sense. At least I don't feel talked down to.
It's also a good way for me to skip your submission or give a four star out of spite (just kidding, I don't do that. *or do I?*) with a snarky comment. So there.
(ps I promise my ego is not that fragile - but just know, if your supporting statement is something like "well krug said its a five star", i've already said "shut up" to you through my computer monitor :) )
Comments
Posted basically the same thing a little ways back. A random telling someone how to do there job has never been recieved well
Considering how many people did not even bother to check the new guidelines even after Niantic converted the WHOLE reviewing site (I've seen many people say "I thought pools are supposed to be rejected?' Since Wayfarer and so many people don't understand PRP doesn't mean apartments), can you really blame them? All the bad rejection reasons, knowing a lot of people don't read AMAs or forums, and Niantic saying that's what that comment box is for, are all good reasons to get over the ego involved. You might be active in seeking more knowledge but not everyone is and the supporting statement is the best people can do to try to avoid having to submit valid candidates over and over again.
If the nomination doesn't warrant further explanation than the description, then there's really not much else to say in the support statement. I don't take it as "talking down," but as why the person submitting it thinks it qualifies.
I find it extremely unlikely that Wayfarer help site will ever include tips such as "do not ask for pokestops" "do not refer to nomination rules". So I make a point of getting an overview of the nomination before reading the "extra text" and grade it by what I see. It's not like the text is present in the final portal, after all.
I personally find it extremely inspiring to be told to 5 star something. Yup, inspired me to press skip button and then take a break. I don't have review and I don't have to vote exactly as you tell me. You have volunteers helping you get your poi's approved hopefully. Phrase things in a polite and useful way.
As a submitter it’s far more annoying to get a valid portal rejected for invalid reasons than it is as a reviewer to have to read some supporting text that I already know.
When you have to submit the same valid candidate two, three, or even four times before it gets accepted - despite official guidance saying that it’s a good candidate - just because many reviewing are not familiar with said guidance, then you might understand.
So no I don’t hold supporting statements against anyone. All they can do is help. After all we are judging the candidate and not the one who submitted it.
Also just want to mention, you might be someone who would prefer they say "fork" in the supporting statement but I guarantee there are people who would ding the submission for that too.
I have gotten quite a few otherwise valid submissions denied. I just re-submit with a better description and picture. When people don't objectively look at their own submissions and realize that the reviewer may have trouble finding it or differeniating it other similar near-by objects so giving additional information may be useful. Instead there appears to be a trend of "this is totally a five star submission, you have to approve it" used as a supporting statement.This really isn't helping reviewers.
This doesn't bother me.
After having playgrounds rejected repeatedly, I've come to the conclusion that some reviewers actually do need to be told how to do their job.
Excuse me? These people are quoting the guidelines and Krug's AMAs in hope people will follow the rules and not get a denial and have to submit 5-10 times before it gets approved they are doing the right thing. If it is begging it is one thing but if they have valid criteria or quotations that is what the support text is for the submitter to give the reviewer information on why it is important. I mean you can't blame them for actually taking the time to look.
hmm I use Andrew's AMA quotes all the time when he clarifies something. Don't think people don't do it right after an AMA to give an update to reviewers things have changed. The ones that annoy me is the pretty please or this area is low on stops or portals. If they give me quotes from AMAs I look it up to see if it is true and give them credit where credit is due. I just quoted the pedestrian bridge update on my latest two subs that are pedestrian bridges so yes they are helpful.
The only time I think we should even consider straight 1* a submission based on the supporting statement is when they tell us oh the submission was denied so I moved it here so it would go online. That should be a 1* and possibly a report to niantic. Supporting statements should NOT be used against the submitter but I mean if they are telling us they moved the location because it was denied before due to portal location proximity is that not abuse?
I don't think that's abuse if they're still putting it on the POI
Same here. But I have seen it not even be close and they moved it far away from the point of interest. I couldn't even find the location as there were so many portals but where the pin was dropped it did not even exist at the location and they used "I moved the pin here because it was too close to come online" That is pretty blatant. I even checked street view as well.
I'm well aware of the guidelines and rules.
I understand why people do it, and to an extent, it's probably necessary (lord knows I complain enough about bad reviewers), but I don't have to like it. From a literal standpoint, it's not really a supporting statement, imo. "Why should this be a portal", and your response is pointing to an AMA and saying "because". Give me a reason.
But to your point about "please put a pokestop here" and assorted begging, I agree, I dislike that also.
Question "why should this be a portal"
Answer "because it meets this criteria as stated here"
Why is that so offensive? You say you don't have an ego about it but that's exactly what this post is.
It's really not though, and I'm just going to disagree with your last point. I feel I've been pretty clear in saying that while *I feel* it's obnoxious for a supporting statement to be comprised of someone telling me what I already know (which, if that's what you want to call "ego", then fine), it's also *unhelpful* in me understanding why something is supposed to be important, as a reviewer.
And yes, I want to know. I do seek knowledge on some of these things. As you say, others may not, but I do.
With a gazebo or something similar, whatever, but if it's a business, plaque, sign, etc., I need to know that kind of thing.
Personally, if I feel like something is controversial enough to cite criteria I give as thorough of a description of the nomination I can in the Description section of the submission and use the supporting statement for the guideline it fits.
You can say it's not helpful to you because you already know but the utter pettiness and feeling of being disrespected conveyed in your OP seems misguided. You weren't specifying certain types of submissions at all. Yeah if someone is trying for a local hotspot and isn't using that space to prove it that's unwise but for the most part everything that needs to be said should be conveyed in the description.
"You weren't specifying certain types of submissions at all."
Looking back at my original post, you're right. Although I intended to separate the two, I did not. And it does look petty, in hindsight.
In any case, I still maintain that is frustrating to get told how to vote, rather than told why something is important.
I don't suppose I would have an issue with someone giving a short refresher on an AMA, and then also including why something is important/hotspot/whatever, but "this is a five-star portal, it's in the rules, so you have to" is dumb.
Although OP comes across as petty and irritated, I do feel there are lot of pedantic replies in this thread. Is this post about OP's supposed fragility, or is it in regards to lazy submissions? Both may be true, but I can understand how it may be draining or defeating the purpose of a support paragraph when it only says you must vote this way. Personally, I enjoyed reviewing portals because I would get to look at cool art and restaurants and things, and have people tell me about them. Now, you will see a fountain, or a little library in someone's yard, and they will say "the AMA says it's a five star, so you must give it a five star".
There is a distinct lack of quality all around - in many voters, and in many submitters.
I am tempted now though, to use "fork" as my support statement though.
C'mon guys, when you are submitting your are SELLING! Who will win the customer, the deadpan guy who corrects the customer with a very correct fact QUOTED FROM THE PRICE TAG , or the enthusiast who is all about getting on the customers level and the customers need.
Your submission is not that unique. I have hundreds in queue. Next!
I got one last telling me don't be a (curse word) on trail marker. They didn't use the exact word but they used a slight variation that was insinuating what they meant. Normally my local submitters don't sent in ratings. I put it "promotes exercise" as a generic description on most of my park submissions or for shade structures "promotes social gatherings" I have never given a playground is a 5* but honestly even if annoying they had to put something down. AMA questions I think have actually helped with a few of my own submissions. Now it is annoying when I get there is no stops or portals nearby. I got one last night that had the park sign as the picture and the supporting statement photo was a portable restroom and it was a duplicate and the support statement was this is a low stop density area. Then I got another one that said this is the only portal in town when I saw two with in duplicate check range.
I've seen enough comments now that say "5 stars as the OPR guidelines suggest" when the OPR guidelines directly contradict their submission to know that it's all just irrelevant fluff. The submission should stand up on its own merits and reviewers should be familiar with the guidelines. Even if one or two don't know them all, en masse we should be able to determine whether it is a valid submission or not.
This is just silly. You are not selling a product to a consumer, you are selling it to a manufacturer. You are on "Shark Tank". Tell me why I should invest in your portal. Why is your portal cool?
If it's not an automatic five star, as we all know, then you need to explain why it's worthy. "Because" is not an answer.
The trees should be portable! What a concept!
Those are fine. (I'm assuming the first one is for a bridge and not the trees). There's a bunch of things like trail markers that are difficult to find where it's "trail marker 5 star" as supporting statement. A link the the website to show importance of submissions or help verify location is important helps borderline or non-clear cut submissions. I had to wait over a year for Prime to be available so I could tell the reviewer "use satellite to see the baseball field" because they were too lazy to do this and constantly rejected. People aren't using resources properly if they want to get it approved.
LMAO seriously? Of all things, THAT bugs you? smh
I mean if you're going to make a post claiming that the way people use the supporting statement isn't helpful which way would you go?
1. Mocking, derisive commentary about how it offends your superior reviewer intelligence
2. Guidance of how better to use the space
Mocking commentary is more entertaining to read, which is what I thought was the point - it's intentionally over the top for comedic effect. That is how I took it in any case. It got a reaction and discussion going, no? No one wants to read a tut-tut post.