Totally misleading rejection reasons

Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭✭✭

In the morning I got this rejection mai:

I was very confused about the given "reason", since this should normally be a no-brainer, since it's a infoboard at a hiking trail about the trail, that has been a merchants route for trading salt to Bohemia during medieval ages.

So I posted this in social media groups, and the answer i got is, that few people rejected it as duplicate, but that isn't mentioned in the mail. I still can't believe, that enough people have poorly chosen low ratings in historical-value-category ending up in the strange rejection mail from above.....

So what happened here, @NianticCasey-ING ?

Are the duplicate-mails messed up?

Or didn't there appear enough duplicate-votes to give me the unique duplicate-mail? And then further single votes with obscure low votes on historical/cultural value were enough to nethertheless reject this candidate?

If it's something like that, you should introduce a sentence like "The candidate could be a duplicate of an existing wayspot" as part of the usual rejection mails, maybe a more vague wording than the duplicate mail.


The point why I got duplicate-votes on this candidate:

There is a similar infoboard 470m away, same board, same content, older and weathered mounting:

It's at least plausible, that this info board exists twice, because there is a parking area for hikers between those places (marked red in the map). So there is a sign for both possible directions of the trail. I used this parking area too, and I used only the trail, that headed to the south. I saw one board on my route, and I think that is the intention behind this....


  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If you got a rejection for a duplicate it would say that in the rejection email. This looks like some people rated you low on cultural/historic value rating.

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    thanks for that, you didnt get rejection for a duplicate”Did U rEaD tHE rEjEctIoN eMaIL?” I’m saying if it was rejected as a duplicate it would say so in the email. No reason for it to be rejected as a duplicate as it isnt anyways. Yours was rejected based off of rating for cultural/historical significance. To me if it talks about something thats cool like you mention it seems to be eligible so just try and submit again🙄

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You dont get my point. I know few people, who voted for duplicate on this. Choosing duplicate is at least reasonable here and shows, that the persons who did this have been thorough - without questioning whether their decision is correct or not.

    Before I asked around I didnt know, that the other infoboard is exactly the same. Only based on the rejection mail I would have wondered only how it could be possible, that so many m0r0ns dont see historical value in an infoboard about medieval stuff. An additional statement, that duplicate-votes were involved would have been very helpful.

    And now I'm questioning, whether duplicate rejections (although not enough to be a full duplicate) nethertheless carry other minor important rejections....

    And that's stuff only Nia can answer. And depending on a possible answer there could be further points discussed like: should duplicate be treted separate from other rejection reasons, etc.pp. ....


    Submitting it again is planned for sure. Maybe I'll wait until 5 other candidates south of the locations are approved, so that the duplicate-infoboard is hidden behind 5 other closer wayspots in the list.

    Btw it's not the first time, that this happens to me:

    the maypole on the right side was altready a portal. The townhall was rejected for only not being visually unique. I changed then the picture to this one, where less of the townhall is in the picture, and then the townhall got approved. So for sure here the fast-clicking-faction caused this with choosing duplicate for sure too .....

    I think this is stuff, that Nia should have a look at....

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    duplicate is a rejection reason though. If you get enough people who chose duplicate it will say something on the lines of the poi already exists and your picture gets added to the data base. Highly doubtful you will get any answer from niantic as they never discuss the numbers behind rejections/accepted pois.

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭✭✭

    But not like the others. It is said to be "mark as duplicate" not "reject as duplicate" ;)

    And dude, I'm totally aware, how a pure duplicate rejection mail looks like. That's why I'd like to discuss this. And Nia statements are possible here, even without numbers. I'm fully aware of all this stuff you are talking, but you still dont get the point ....

  • flatmatt-PGOflatmatt-PGO Posts: 2,079 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Short of a Niantic answer, I don't think we really know if votes for "duplicate" count as votes to reject in cases where the overall result is a normal rejection, or if they strictly go into a third category and don't influence the process unless there are enough duplicate votes to mark the submission as a duplicate overall. Either way, I'm not sure that "possible duplicate" would be a useful message in cases where only a minority of reviewers marked it as a duplicate.

Sign In or Register to comment.