Eligibility vs Acceptance

Our community has recently got into a heated discussion over these terms, and I thought I'd lay it out here for the Wayfarer Community to weigh in.

The argument briefly goes like this:

+ Everything listed on the "Eligibility" page should be a wayspot. This includes stores, coffee shops, etc.

- Not necessarily. Things on the eligibility page are fair nominations. But each individual nomination needs to also a) meet "Acceptance" criteria and b) NOT meet any of the "Rejection" criteria. This comes directly from what Niantic says on the Eligibility page (https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/criteria#eligibility):

A note on eligibility: if a Wayspot nomination meets one of the below criteria, that's great! But remember that eligibility alone isn't sufficient to turn a nomination into an accepted Wayspot. Carefully consider the eligibility criteria, along with the acceptance criteria, rejection criteria, and content guidelines, when evaluating nominations.

+ No. Eligibility = Acceptance. Niantic themselves prove this, because when a nomination is approved for inclusion in the game, they send you an email saying the nomination is "eligible."

The "-" position seems crystal clear to me, However, a lot of people don't agree with this (and vociferously disagree). What do people here think? Can @NianticCasey-ING weigh in?

Comments

  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 1,679 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Eligibility and acceptance are two different parts of the criteria. And object has to meet both and not meet the rejection criteria to become a valid Wayspot.

  • flatmatt-PGOflatmatt-PGO Posts: 217 ✭✭✭

    I'd also say that if someone thinks the criteria page says that stores and coffee shops should be accepted because they appear on the criteria page, then intentionally or not, they're leaving out some words. The criteria page lists "Unusual or unique local shops," "Popular restaurants," and "Favorite coffee shops." Nowhere does it say that a shop that is not "Unusual or unique" or a coffee shop that the submitter hasn't demonstrated is a "Favorite" would meet criteria.

  • Mescheryakov-INGMescheryakov-ING Posts: 6 ✭✭
    edited January 13

    if someone thinks the criteria page says that stores and coffee shops should be accepted because they appear on the criteria page

    This was part of the debate in this specific case. The "Eligibility" page shows the picture of some movable outdoor tables in front of a nameless cafe. It was therefore argued that since such a photo is on the Wayfarer page, anything that looked like that should by definition be accepted.

    Post edited by Mescheryakov-ING on
  • Kroutpick-PGOKroutpick-PGO Posts: 237 ✭✭✭

    If your community is talking about this picture :

    It's simply an example of what could look "A great place to be social with others", it doesn't mean that any random generic cafe/restaurant with tables and chairs could become a wayspot.

    Remember these Rejection Criteria :

    -"The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting."

    -"A generic business, chain, or franchise that is not locally unique"

    -"Location, place, or object is temporary, or highly unlikely to be permanent" (If the submission is clearly aiming at the summer/outdoor tables and chairs and not the restaurant itself)

  • holdthebeer-INGholdthebeer-ING Posts: 14 ✭✭
    edited January 13

    By the way, if it's this location:

    https://goo.gl/maps/PWrBd7xYUQapVPnYA

    https://colectivocoffee.com/cafes/state-street

    then it's not a portal on intel map. Perhaps because it's not "local" enough, and rejected as "a generic business, chain, or franchise that is not locally unique".

  • gazzas89-PGOgazzas89-PGO Posts: 517 ✭✭✭✭
  • Alanazam-PGOAlanazam-PGO Posts: 14 ✭✭

    I would like if there were separate rejection reason options for "Acceptance - Eligibility", "Acceptance - Other", and "Rejection Criteria - Other". Eligibility is a substantial criteria to merit its own category (currently, title/description, pedestrian safety, photo, and temporary have their own rejection reasons). It could be a visual reminder that eligibility is only one part of the Acceptance Criteria.

  • Mind if I jump in, @Mescheryakov-ING? Although some of you already clarified the instances when a nomination is eligible and the criteria that follow to get it accepted, I would like to add a few pointers too. Taking Plazas as an example, it should be eligible as it meets the eligibility criteria however there shouldn't be any Wayspots nearby that may trigger it to get duplicated and rejected during our automated review. In the same way, an eligible nomination should meet its acceptance criteria as well to avoid its rejection. I hope it pretty much sums it up. Let me know if there is still anything that needs to be clarified, I will be most happy to pitch in.

  • Mescheryakov-INGMescheryakov-ING Posts: 6 ✭✭

    Thanks for dropping in @NianticGiffard. It would have been better if you had addressed the initial question head-on, though, namely confirming that nominations should a) meet Eligibility criteria, b) meeting Acceptance criteria and c) NOT meet Rejection criteria for it to be approved as a possible Wayspot (after which your internal automated review will decide whether it is actually populated into one or more of the games).

    I'm also not sure why you've decided to raise Plazas. Any nomination that has existing wayspots that are too close to it will get rejected during automated review, correct?

  • MarcoGD9-PGOMarcoGD9-PGO Posts: 2
    edited January 23

    Hello @GaryExtrem-PGO thanks for your help, but still neither me nor my local wayfarer community have a clear idea about how the criteria for plazas works. There shouldn't be any wayspot near it, in order not to trigger any duplicate, that's fine. But do Plazas still need to have an identifying plaque with it's name for them to be accepted? If the plaque was indeed composary, does it have to be a special plaque or could the general street name plaque of the area be sufficient for the plaza being accepted?

Sign In or Register to comment.