Russia Wayfarer Challenge: Earn double the rewards, plus 10 Upgrades, by reaching 7,000 Wayspots added by 16 June, 2021! Learn More

Playground

Since when does a playground need to be "historically or culturally significant."

Both me and a friend Nominated the same playground without realising it. She sent me a screen shot of her rejection email. I told her I submitted the same playground and sure enough, I got exactly the same reason for my rejection of the same playground. I'm just a bit baffled as to why this particular playground is required to be "historically or culturally significant."

It also suggested I improve the photo. I don't think it's a bad photo, seen plenty worse than this....

Just interested in what other's think.

Comments

  • LukeAllStars-PGOLukeAllStars-PGO Posts: 3,472 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think 5*.

    Thats a playground which has a special design and looks super clean.

  • Nadiwereb-PGONadiwereb-PGO Posts: 539 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This happens when reviewers give low grades (1 or 2 stars) to the "Historic or Cultural Significance" of the nomination. In other words, bad reviewing. It is unfortunate, but it happens - renominate and hope for better reviewers.

  • Kellerrys-INGKellerrys-ING Posts: 502 ✭✭✭✭

    Partly bad reviewing, but most of the blame should be directed at Niantic's not-so-well explained voting scale.

    "We recommend taking a better photo" is part of the automated answer, pay no attention to it. Your photo was very good, (though with landscape photo you could fit the whole playground in the frame).

  • yuureey-INGyuureey-ING Posts: 29 ✭✭

    I rate such places as 2-3 stars in "Historic and Cultural Significance", depending on the originality of a playground. As written in rules,

    "Historic or Cultural Significance

    How much historical or cultural significance does the nomination hold within the community? A local library built 100 years ago is certainly more historically and culturally significant than exercise equipment in a park. Use your best judgement and rate the nomination accordingly. "

    So if I rate them as 2-stars significance, does it lead to rejection? May be it's better to rate them as 3-4 stars?

  • Nadiwereb-PGONadiwereb-PGO Posts: 539 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yes, as far as we know, 2 stars is a rejection.

    Also, just because an ancient library (which is 5 stars, definitely) has more cultural significance, it doesn't mean that playgrounds, exercise equipment, sports fields etc. have low (2 stars) or no (1 star) cultural significance.

    Culture doesn't only include high culture like arts, literature, music etc. Culture is what people do together, culture is what links people together. Sports are culture. The tales you tell your children to help them go to sleep are culture. A graffiti on a wall that everyone in the community can relate to is culture. Children playing together while parents talk is culture.

  • yuureey-INGyuureey-ING Posts: 29 ✭✭

    I agree with you, but really there is a huge difference between gigantic stadium, or ancient stadium and small playground area. So i thought, like, "ok, i just would use my best judgement" as written in rules but won't rate it as 1 star and portal will be added anyway. Now i understand that if think that portal is good and could be added to network, i won't rate it less than 3 stars in any position.

  • LukeAllStars-PGOLukeAllStars-PGO Posts: 3,472 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Also, just because an ancient library (which is 5 stars, definitely) has more cultural significance, it doesn't mean that playgrounds, exercise equipment, sports fields etc. have low (2 stars) or no (1 star) cultural significance.

    All kinds of sports are normally very cultural and has its own history. For me, its a 4-5*.

  • PoMaQue-PGOPoMaQue-PGO Posts: 202 ✭✭✭✭

    That's due to Reviewers not being aware of what the Cultural/Historical question refers to.

    Aside from the clear items like historic items and art, it also refers to the Social aspect - social interaction is part of a community's culture.

    Playgrounds are considered high quality nominations, as it is a place where people come together and socialize.

    public playgrounds should always be 4-5 stars.

  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 736 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Your also missing the part where 3* is supposed to be neutral, so anything less than that you are saying has no culture.

  • Theisman-INGTheisman-ING Posts: 577 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Never heard the last paragraph of your post before but you do raise a good and interesting point. Playgrounds as areas do have a pretty big culture aspect especially with the local youths.

  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 736 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Culture is a very misunderstood concept that needs more diving into. People automatically assume art, music, history... but its so much more, its sports, its food, drinks, deserts, socializing, anything that unites people.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 1,526 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I've also heard the similar argument for how playgrounds provide value for parents, as well. Taking their kids to a playground can give them valued time to relax and often engage with other parents. This can be especially important for "full time" stay at home parents who might not otherwise have as many social interactions. I wouldn't necessarily go as far as to say the playground facilitates social interaction, but there definitely can be a cultural connection.

  • mortuus-INGmortuus-ING Posts: 51 ✭✭
    edited June 7

    Looks like a valid playground. Not sure why ppl vote like that...


    Niantic says playgrounds are expellents POI so ppl need read the rules, culture has nothing to do with playgrounds.

  • Innerlize-INGInnerlize-ING Posts: 5 ✭✭

    Can it be seen on Streetview? this is usually the only reason I got public playgrounds turned down

    If not, time to make a sphere.

  • SubDude596-PGOSubDude596-PGO Posts: 4 ✭✭

    Things like playgrounds get a 3* from me for cultural/historical significance. As someone above mentioned it's a sliding scale with 3 being neutral.

  • Maxyme99-PGOMaxyme99-PGO Posts: 599 ✭✭✭✭

    I also got some of mine playgrounds nominations with this rejection, it also was the only rejection reason mentioned it mail.

    Just resubmit it, it looks like some reviewers voted too low on "Historic or Cultural Significance" part of review.

    With differents reviewers it will get accepted (like mine nominations did after some time).

    Good luck, I hope it will be accepted soon :)

  • LukeAllStars-PGOLukeAllStars-PGO Posts: 3,472 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I just received the third rejection on the same playground. After "not meeting eligibility criteria" and "duplicate", now I got "not historical/cultural significant". Honestly, getting a playground rejected is frustrating, but getting the same playground rejected three times is only an indicator of how unbelievably bad the current system is.

  • HaramDingo-INGHaramDingo-ING Posts: 450 ✭✭✭✭

    Oooh, I see what's happening.

    There's an existing wayspot called "community playground" with a pretty poor photo. It's barely focusing on the sign, so people might be encouraging to vote it down as a duplicate. I'm noticing when people duplicate something erroneous but not enough people duplicate it for it to happen, it's like a 1* all across the board. Which I think the best practice is:

    • Upload a new photo of the sign so that the photo is actually showing the sign, at the moment it looks very ambiguous.
    • Once that sign is approved, upvote it so it becomes the main photo.
    • Submit a title edit and call it 'Toogoom Community Playground Sign'. It's important to emphasise that it is the sign and not the playground.
    • Then once the edit is approved, submitting the playground should be a cinch, although there will be instances where it will still be duplicate.

    By similar experience, I had this playground rejected twice also for not culturally significant and duplicated because the pergola in front of the playground was just called "__ Playground", but after renaming it to the "__ Playground Pergola" and submitting the playground then, it was better received.

    Hope that is helpful.

  • flatmatt-PGOflatmatt-PGO Posts: 446 ✭✭✭✭

    I appreciate you putting in the research. Unless I'm missing something though, the sign is not eligible separate from the playground, and attempts to edit the current wayspot to only represent the sign would be considered abusive.

  • HaramDingo-INGHaramDingo-ING Posts: 450 ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 11

    Abusive?

    Jesus Christ. Some communities are really haywire and so quick to jump on the abuse bandwagon. It's like people rejecting the park sign even though there is a playground entitled "_____ Park", when it's obviously a playground (and should be _______ Park Playground). And the whole church sign proximity to the actual church mumbo jumbo duplication.

    Referring back to a time where there were two wayspots called Club Summerwood. A duplicate portal report was rejected (they were both identically named) and then Niantic made an adjustment to one of them to call it "Club Summerwood Sign" and left it in-game instead.

    Consider whether Niantic is above abuse.

  • flatmatt-PGOflatmatt-PGO Posts: 446 ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 11

    (EDIT: I have decided to remove my comment and come back to this tomorrow, as I have realized I should look into this particular case in more depth instead of commenting right away.)

    Post edited by flatmatt-PGO on
  • flatmatt-PGOflatmatt-PGO Posts: 446 ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 12

    Okay, yes, so I've checked into this particular situation further. The sign is right in front of the playground. The sign does not represent a larger group of playgrounds; it just represents the playground that's right behind it. It is only eligible as a proxy for the playground itself. So @HaramDingo-ING is suggesting editing an existing wayspot for a playground (an eligible wayspot) into a wayspot that only represents the sign (an ineligible wayspot) strictly in an attempt to get an additional wayspot approved. I do not see how that can be classified as anything but abuse.

    As for your example from Niantic, I don't really think I should need to justify every random questionable decision a Niantic employee has made, but at the very least, that was a situation involving multiple existing wayspots. In addition, the sign in that case could arguably represent a complex of multiple points of interest (whereas this is just a sign for a single playground). If we are to draw broad conclusions based on singular removal decisions made by Niantic employees, would you say that UK reviewers should start approving submissions of ERII mailboxes just because of that one time that a Niantic employee decided not to remove a wayspot that was submitted with a falsified photo? I wouldn't.

Sign In or Register to comment.