It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
That is the worst suggestion I’ve ever seen (and coming from the guy who got postboxes accepted i know more about really terrible suggestions than most)
There is nothing special or interesting about memorial benches and I think under the new guidance I struggle to see what criteria they meet. They aren’t a tourist attraction or a social place or a place of exercise.
please remember the idea is trying to find genuinely interesting things to submit. Put yourself in the eyes of a local tour guide, would you tell a visitor about a random bench in a park when there’s plenty around everywhere.
the idea of wayfarer is to find special and interesting places and if there so happens to be enough interesting locations then you might get some pokestops and gyms
Still no answer on the discussion about the walking knot point or bycicle knot point in the netherlands and belgium
Still don't know if i should reject them or not
"Also on the horizon, although a bit further out, is adding appeals directly into Wayfarer. With regard to escalating incorrect rejections directly to Niantic, this is something that we’re thinking through."
Nice. Can't wait to appeal all my rejected trail markers ^^
One of the better AMAs, but some answers have only made more questions.
Removal of “Generic Business” as a rejection reason
This seems very unnecessary, a generic business is a store / restaurant that has no or very little cultural or historical significance that it doesn’t deserve to be a Wayspot, places that come to mind are Starbucks, McDonalds, Wallmart, Costco and other chains. These quite obviously don’t meet criteria and rather than listing DMC as the reason for rejection, it is a bit of feedback to the submitter.
Is “generic business” going to be split into more specific reasons like “generic sign”, “business without significance” or “retail chain” for example, or if we encounter some of the examples listed, do we just 1* and choose “doesn’t meet criteria”?
I’m also concerned by the update to “natural features”, no longer explicitly needing a manmade POI to anchor the Wayspot to.
This is completely against what @NianticBrian-ING has said about Portal / PokéStop scanning. It is best to have a clear, tangible object to represent the candidate, for stitching scans together.
If a lake is approved without the need for a sign, where does the Wayspot go? Obviously not on the water for safe access, at least a sign or something physical would help ensure that the Wayspot corresponds to a real world object, having no physical anchor could mean the Wayspot is edited a number of times to best suit individual players, than for the integrity of the network.
I can see the new natural features rule causing issues. For example the most famous lake in the UK is Loch Ness, home of Nessie the monster, but it's 23 miles long which is going to make dupe-checking next to impossible.
Oh, and am I the only one who had to google "cenotes"?
@NianticCasey-ING you didn’t answer this question, it received 30 votes and was clearly an issue the community wanted an answer to.
why did it not get answered and can we get some clarification on this subject?
The removal of the "generic business" rejection seems like good idea at first, but what will be done to stop people from just using the catch-all "doesn't meet criteria" rejection reason instead?
In almost every single instance where I have gotten a "nomination appears to represent a generic store or restaurant" rejection, the email has also specified the rejection reason for "Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria". Its never just generic business by itself.
Regardless of the reason the reviewer gives for the rejection, these Wayspots are going to continue to be wrongly rejected and that's the real concern here.
It is widely know that "honeypots" are used to test reviewers during the review process, and that user rating drops and cooldowns are utilized when reviewers fail these checks. I would strongly implore you to utilize the generic business button as a whole as a honeypot in the meantime, and redirect these users to the updated criteria. That's the only way they are going to truly learn.
With all due respect, this makes zero sense if you want to actually expand the wayspot network. Have you done any reviewing lately? The clear 1* submissions way outnumber the clear 5* submissions (if that's what you mean by "gem") in my area. We are rapidly approaching a gridlocked situation where very few gems of any sort will be approved because nothing is getting approved as the system is overloaded with terrible submissions.
Anything that can be done to cut down on the number of bad submissions, even at the cost of losing a few "gems" will allow at least some good submissions to be approved.
The terrible submissions are also extremely corrosive and damaging because of they are destroying the enthusiasm, energy, and morale of the increasingly few people who are reviewing and leading to fewer reviews being done. I suspect you currently have an 20/80 situation where 20 percent of the people do 80 percent of the reviews (or maybe even 10/90). Any prolific reviewers you lose because of the mountain of trash they have to wade through to get to a "gem" will have an outsized impact.
The only way that anything you folks are doing makes sense is if your main priority is to get a lot more wayspots in rural areas that fall within the review areas of large population centers. Those submissions fly through. The trouble is that the people submitting them don't need to review to get upgrades and that most of the reviewers are in the large population centers where things can take years unless upgraded. You are alienating this group of people.
There is a ton of hand-wringing around here about "bad rejections". However, most of those are good, or at least justifiable, rejections that at least one reviewer has chosen a bad reason for. There are a few exceptions like the occasion head-scratcher that we all get or regional issues (e.g. trail markers in certain places in Europe), but on balance I honestly don't see bad reviewers as anywhere close to the biggest problem.
In my opinion, the biggest problem that Wayfarer currently faces is the torrent of garbage submissions that you are apparently not interested in staunching and it is going to destroy the system.
OK, great clarifications in general, but I'd like to address this one:
This does not help, but rather hurts, the point I think you're trying to make. Reviewers are going to take your line about "a specific location you can direct people to" and interpret it in the context of the current status quo, which is essentially "no sign, no stop." If a lake is notable in its own right, and has an official name/history/etc., but it DOES NOT have a sign or informational board, is it eligible or is it not eligible?
I may be interpreting too much, but I think the answer is that it depends. You need to have both (1) a significant natural feature and (2) a well-defined, significant point to drop the marker.
So assuming there is no sign for these natural features:
A famous tree: Probably good.
A famous lake with no features around it,or with a trail/road encircling it: Not good, as there is no specific place to put the wayspot.
A famous lake with exactly one access trail/road that dead ends at the lake: Could be good if you place the wayspot at the shore where the trail/road ends?
A famous lake with five different roads that dead end at the lake: Probably not good, but if one of those access points is particularly notable compared to the others, it could be good?
Again, these are just guesses. I am also still confused.
Too specific of a discussion to dedicate an AMA question to it, but I think the hiking and biking trail question already answers it. These knot point routes are basically just trails, but even if they weren't they're still a great place for exercise. The only condition that they need to meet right now is that there is some kind of visual indicator of the Wayspot, so you can't just submit a footpath, but a trailmarker or trail sign is eligible. Even if they have no name on it. So all those wooden trail markers for hiking trails with numbers and arrows but no name, eligible. All those metal signs for biking trails with numbers and arrows but no name, also eligible. I know there are a bunch of the latter, but from how it is explained here in this AMA these simply should be acceptable. It is a visual indicator of a trail. I wonder if you would actually get them through though, I don't think a bunch of people read the AMA's, and even before that I couldn't get my named trail markers accepted.
Well it would be easier to get them through if they would specify it because 90% of the people they think they aren't eglible because of no real name
And some will still reject because they are mass-produced.
Well, hopefully that will be fixed in one of the next updates.
Good submissions beings swamped by garbage is 100% the biggest issue in my area too. Currently I have to upgrade pavilions and playgrounds in public parks that can be seen on satellite in order to get them though ( or wait four months plus) which is extremely disheartening.
Every week I see generic chain restaurants, schools, sports fields on school property, grocery stores and people's houses much more than I see cool independent restaurants/cafes/murals or other things that meet criteria.
Simply having a screen that says, I am not submitting something on school or single family property with a checkbox prior to submission would have to help this.
A great AMA. Very informative, and provided answers to some issues that bugged me, as well as hope for future solutions.
As others have commented here before, I must add my own worries about the removal of the "generic business" rejection reason. I can understand the sentiment behind it, but I still think this is a very valid and relevant reason for rejection, especially now that business submissions are actively encouraged.
Just the last few days I've had to use that option several time. For instance, a submission of an electronics store that is part of a massive country-wide chain. Or a submission of a grocery store that's part of a small chain, in one of the countries' largest and most populated cities.
(The chances that those submissions actually had any "local importance" are extremely slim - and even if they did, the nominators proved no information to support that.)
What rejection option are we supposed to use for future cases?
Memorial benches are typically more unique and interesting than unnamed trail markers, which are now eligible.
The ones I'm thinking of often feature unique personalised poems written by locals.
When the level of permanence/uniqueness is higher on these benches than some other newly-eligible items, you get the gist that the expansion of acceptability likely affects them too.
You also see why we would benefit from niantic stating in plain english that the old "be notable" criteria ended with regards to them to. I mean, they've already said the old criteria is gone, but the message isn't getting through apparently, as people continue to quote it!
** To clarify how they meet the current criteria, many fit in "a place to exercise"》"a place to get fresh air/spend time in public space". This is because they are commonly located (in my area) along cycle/walk trails - the idea is you use them during your outdoors time, it encourages old people to get out and walk further if there are regular rest spots, and many of the personalised messages encourage exercise (such as being dedicated to local athletes who used the path). That said you might classify the plaques in "a place to explore" instead 》historial plaques 》things that "teach about the community and those who live there".
I have another question if there is a december ama - we really need niantic to tell us if they consider playgroups eligible.
They are very common meeting places for parents.
I just got one rejected as GB (not a business), doesnt meet criteria (its a place to be social), and k-12 (that one's debatable - hence the need for clarification).
So yeah, really looking to know if they are considered k-12.
And if anyone knows what the current guidance is on scouts, shout out, I assume they are k-12 still.
It would be great to get some more clarification on this. I can think of a number of scenarios:
1) A mountain hiking trail - the trail twists and turns up a mountain. There are several markers for the same trail that are relatively close together in a linear sense (say 40-60 yards), but it takes some steep trail hiking to reach each individual one. Most of the markers are simple direction and distance markers at important key points, and there is also a trail head sign.
2) A long trail through a state park - The trail is relatively smooth and flat, and features about half a dozen elaborate but very similar signs all featuring the same trail name at various key points.
3) A tourist trail through a small town - Most markers are mounted to a street sign post and are similar to the street signs they appear alongside. These markers occur on the corner of every other block passing through a historic retail district and also a park. There could be 15 signs that are all positioned along a 30 minute walk.
”RESIDENTIALLY FOCUSED LOCATIONS” = ineligible if POOL is on homeowners associations, clubhouses, small neighborhood pools ? these don’t have lifeguards.
and the eligible pool examples of were all athletic/exercise/even potential chain gym base right?
im okay with this. It will encourage exercise but curb the more dangerous pools
Thanks. For update @NianticCasey-ING
This is great, but I disagree a lot with the whole park should be the only wayspot. Some people live in rural areas and nominating individual games in the parks is the only way they can have many waypoints. It drastically improve the game for people who do not live in big cities and plenty of parents are happy to play with their kids SAFELY without going downtown where it can be hard to check their kids. The park next to my home has tons of pokemon players because each game was submitted individually and if people did not do that... well we would have a lot less players in my area.
And I am sorry, but going to a place with only one waypoint is boring. I don't get why you are saying it should be only one waypoint. Pretty much all reviewers accept individual games already...
Súper, pero en latino América sigue la discusión con las k-12 ya que por ejemplo en México no se maneja el sistema educativo como en USA, ya que en la versión en inglés se mensionan las preparatorias y en la versión en español no sería bueno aclarar ese punto
@NianticCasey-ING there are big translation errors into Germany, since 1 year. Why dont you correct these errors? Basicly there are things that get accepted because of these errors, and things that are getting rejected.
There is no way you can submit separate structures in a single play area and make them all appear in-game while being in their exact location.
Those structures are usually only a few meters away from each other. You'll need to do some serious location abuse to get several to appear. (It's common practice in my local community so unfortunately I'm very familiar with it.)
Additionally, separate structures don't nearly hold the same community value on their own compared to the whole playground.
I think you are confusing a playground and a park. A playground is potentially a feature within a park. The jungle gym, swings and slide are all parts of the playground, but the basketball court, and horse shoe pits are also acceptable separate features of the park.
Ok thank you. I misinterpreted the comment.
The knot points mentioned are not part of a trail, which has a beginning, markers and an end.
Knot points are part of a network, spread all around and people use them to make up their own routes. You could for example decide that your route goes from Point 1 to Point 2, walk only 10m and decide that this is your "Trail".
The minimum for me would have to be a fixed trail, that was designed with a specific purpose, i.e. guide you through cultural landmarks and specific sights. Those also have a unique name on them.
Muchas gracias por estas aclaraciones. Enriquecen mucho nuestra labor como verificadores. Y motiva a seguir dando lo mejor para ir mejorando la comunidad.