If you make me work too hard in the nomination I am reviewing my logic says you have failed to prove it is a great place to exercise, socialise or explore.
Simples.
Of course I do go beyond 20 mins as I end up in a rabbit hole digging for as much as I can to prove it is good or not 
But yeah. If you make me work that hard you are not proving the great in anything
Am I correct in my conclusion? If the information is insufficient, should I reject the nomination, as this will further alert the nominator that the information in the nomination is incomplete? As far as I understand, a refusal to nominate is more instructive and will probably teach the reviewer to accompany nominations with enough information for an accurate assessment. If I click IDK, it could lead to the acceptance of a possibly incorrect application, thereby essentially showing the author a positive result of his probably small efforts.
Yes but no. If you don’t know you don’t know. I would click those and then click not a great place for the three greats.
It is a community led review process. So what we all see may differ. And whatever we pick others may go the other way. Whether we like it or not.
The reality is not everyone is as diligent or as concerned as you. People review for different reasons. Whether they enjoy it or they just playing the game to get a medal or to game the game working to get noms in or or or or.
In the end. You have to do what you feel is right. Not everyone will agree with you on your process. Frustrating sure. But just do what feels right. I re-iterate if you reject ensure you do reject really appropriately.
In the past there used to be the option to give a quite detailed reason why rejecting. I loved this as I felt I could validate my reasoning. However you can imagine for the system if everyone did that - probably break it by making everything take too long. But I miss it!!!
Good luck reviewing… and keep posting
That is too broad a question to give a blanket answer. From New Onboarding & Review Flow
For example, if I am certain the nomination cannot be where they put it, I have used 
if I can’t just move the pin. If I am not certain, but it seems plausible, I have used IDK. Each nomination requires unique consideration.
Extending the timer won’t affect the quick reviewer, nor will it affect your detractors who can allegedly do enough research within 20 minutes. It would only affect the hyper gung-ho reviewer in a positive way (though they would undoubtedly be an extreme minority group).
Plus it won’t be some huge technical overhaul to implement (unless there are other things tied to the timer).
Since we have the skip button I really don’t think a timer is necessary at all.
Extending the review time, specially by 24 hrs would have tremendous consequences… either it Increases the resolution time of nominations or the person taking 24 hrs potentially wastes 24hrs for something that could have already resolved 23hrs ago.
What will change from this? If there are people who can evaluate it faster, then so be it. If the nomination had enough votes without someone who didn’t have time to evaluate it, then so be it. In my opinion, if a person understands that his nomination may be delayed for a long period, it will give him an understanding that it is necessary to provide a sufficient amount of information for voting.
I failed to see what is this point. I do not like waiting my submission to be on a jeopardy because someone can not vote for 24 hours.
And I think some of old veteran in Wayfarer community, who have seen their submissions stuck in voting for 2 years, do not like see their submission stuck for 24-48 hours just because one person can not decide or decide to troll and put a submission on timeout.
I would rather get the submission rejected fast, so I know what to be improved, other than getting my submission stuck on the limbo for 2 weeks.
Perhaps in your area, the lack of reviewers isn’t a problem. You might think, “If I don’t rate it, someone else will,” but in my region, there aren’t that many reviewers. Skipping nominations by some reviewers may result in them being stuck indefinitely in voting. In this case, it seems to me that longer is better than unknown when.
Don’t you think that it’s precisely because many people skip voting that the nomination process is dragging on for so long?
Essentially, those who are most active in evaluating nominations are the first to skip the nominations. Consequently, with each skip, more and more time will pass until the next vote.If someone who rates every day skips, then the next vote will be made by someone who rates once a week. The one who votes once a week will skip the vote, the one who votes once a month will vote next, and so on. I’m exaggerating of course, but the meaning is clear.
No, when this was happening, people only had 3 skips available to use with 24 hour resets on them.
Not many times, but many people.
Many people didn’t skip because they couldn’t, skips were more selective.
Why not? If the same nomination causes difficulties for many people, then it’s obvious that many people will have to skip it. This will cause the delays I described earlier.
Yet every nomination in areas had the turnaround time issues, not just difficult ones.
Also another way it will impact turnaround times is that it’s essentially going to halt people’s reviewing sessions, instead of keeping someone moving along reviewing multiple submissions… they’ll be stuck potentially at 1 review per day.
So you think that while one person is reviewing a nomination, no one else will be able to review it at that time?
Im not sure how the system works, but it’s either that, or people are going to wasted their time reviewing things that already resolved.
You seem to be ignoring that it is the submitters job to make sure that they give the reviewer what is needed to confirm the nomination is correct and meets criteria, if they don’t then it is perfectly acceptable to Skip or use the IDK.
I probably skip more than most here, mainly because I refuse to accept “it could be at that location”. If I am not confident then I skip and probably review 20 other nominations within the given 20 minutes. Leave it for others that are either happy to accept the “well, there is some trees in the photo so it could be the correct location” or know the location and know that it exists.
People that nominate POIs that are harder to confirm are aware that it may take longer to reach a decision than something that is more obvious, shown on streetview etc.
The only time I have had a 20 minute timeout is when the next review is “buffering” so I visit another website and forget. Personally it would not effect me (and IMO the majority of reviewers) if Niantic made it 10 minutes.
That’s what I was getting at.
“I am convinced it is at this location.” = 
“I am certain it does not exist at this location.” =
There is a lot of space between those two statements for “IDK” to cover. If you can’t choose any of the three comfortably, then skipping is what I would recommend.