Updates - Kudos added, generic business rejection gone
SiIverLyra-PGO
Posts: 952 ✭✭✭✭✭
From the Wayfarer main page:
Kudos!
Featured Wayspot contributions now credit the submitter
Niantic will display your in-game codename. If you don't wish to be credited across Niantic's products on your Wayspot submissions, you can turn this feature off in your Wayfarer settings.
Additionally, "Generic Business" seems to have been removed from the list of rejection reasons. "Doesn't meet criteria" now says "Other Rejection Criteria".
Anyone notice any other changes?
Comments
The Featured Wayspots have changed, now we can see who submitted the terrible nominations lol
However they still seem to be originating from the first s2 cell in the region
The "What is it?" categories appear to have changed significantly.
You're right! It seems to be VERY different.
Do we really have to fill out our reason for rejecting now btw? It says you must but lets us not.... :D
Looks like this isnt just a translation issue.
I have already reported it here:
https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/10503/translation-mistake-contradiction-of-text-and-implementation#latest
Sounds good? There's something that bugged me:
@NianticCasey-ING why the category list still includes things that were ineligible, such as police station, fire station, and most anticipatedly, military base?
I would like to know too
Because Niantic are looking to build up their database of Waypoints, even i they are rejected. THey are still on the list of places that are a reason for rejection:
Why is this an ineligible Wayspot nomination?
Use for nominations that obstructs the driveway of emergency services or may interfere with the operations of fire stations, police stations, hospitals. This also includes Nominations in military bases, industrial sites, power plants, and air traffic control towers.
Some of these are well needed.
And others feel like a joke.
Tying this to Wayfarer settings restricts Pokémon Trainer Club members who don't have Facebook of Google accounts to opt out.
What is it and the subject of approval are separate.
Just because it's on the 'what is it' list doesn't mean it has to be approved unconditionally.
I think it's simply to identify what this is.
That's certainly always worth repeating.
The problem is newer reviewers who might not realise that nuance and even abusive/misguided nominators who add things like "Eligible candidate under 'Education > Preschool.'"
"Waste bins" can be perfectly valid submissions if they have some kind of cultural or historical value, such as a unique painting. "Nude beaches" would likely meet criteria with a sign (so long as they are not adults-only). They are already covered by the more general "beach" category, but I don't see the issue with making a more specific category.
In other words, I fail to see why these particular categories would be "jokes," any more than any other category that can be, but isn't always, eligible.
In your example, the "waste bin" itself is not eligible and should be categorized under "Art > Drawing," "Art > Mural," "Art > Graffiti," "Art > Painting," or "Art > Other."
That's a good idea, but in the case there's a unique painting on a waste bin, wouldn't it be more accurate to tag it as a unique painting rather than a waste bin? Since it's the painting that has value, not the bin itself.
Writing this reply, I noticed they finally corrected the spelling of "Graffiti."
Good job, Niantic!
I suppose this is a fair point. Still, I don't think it would be that hard to imagine a unique, artistic waste bin or perhaps even a historically significant waste bin that would be best classified as "waste bin." I would generally lean toward including more categories, but I agree that making it clearer that the categories have nothing to do with eligibility is a necessary improvement.
Of course. The "Waste bins" has just always been a bit of a joke to me, but the bigger concern is something like "Education > Preschool" that should never be eligible. I think going too precise runs the risk of people viewing the categories as being eligible, which we've seen people do, when you could take a step back and consider the somehow eligible waste bin as "Site > Historic" or "Structure > Unique Architecture," etc.
Then again, if we get a School site, it should be rejected immediately as a 1* nomination with "Location - K-12" selected as the reason for the decision. Done this way, we never get to use the new "School" in the "What is it" question.
A school is not an eligible nomination
My doubt is whether there are works of art and other indications that are eligible near a school? Can they be eligible?
I have this doubt because we will be indicating the work of art or another object that is eligible. Should this be at a minimum distance from the school?
As long as they're not located inside the school (that's including outer/security walls of the school), they are eligible.
Maybe I've an example of that "waste bin":
By the looking, it's 'uniquely' different from most generic waste bins, but again, it's just a "waste bin".
There's something similar in my country - waste bins in many playgrounds are shaped like animals (always the same three identical models - either a bear, a frog, or a dolphin), and people nominate them as "special playground facilities" even though they're just waste bins. Now these wayspots all over the place.
But my personal opinion is that waste bins don't hold any special value, and I reject them.
This waste bin made it in
Why would being adults-only disqualify something? Being accessible to everyone at all times was never a requirement before.
Because its always been a no no for adult only places, it still is in the new guidelines, it says
Location is an adult-oriented store or service, such as a liquor store, **** range, firearm store, or provides **** and/or adult content.
I know categories "don't matter," but this was a yuuuge QOL update to stumble upon tonight!
Rest in peace, "Structure > Shade"