Legit looking for advice - Also rejection reasons.... LOL
Oakes1923-PGO
Posts: 419 ✭✭✭✭
OK Wayfarer's, I'm taking this one a little personal as this is my new favorite spot. I had lunch her last week and got take out for the family on Sunday for dinner. This place rocks.
I mean I get the photo isn't 100% at 90 degrees, I'm thinking one side of the building is like 2 degrees from perpendicular so I guess they aren't wrong, but is that the spirit of the guideline?
Honestly though looking for some good feedback as this needs to be a stop. The place it too legit not to be recognized. And before anyone asks, no they are not a national chain. Also this wasn't upgraded, first restaurant in a while that was rejected through the normal process.
Comments
The primary rejection reason there seems to be "does not meet criteria". "Low quality photo" is unfortunately a go-to rejection reason for people who, for some reason or other, don't want to use the correct one.
That being said, I think you made a mistake by calling this restaurant "new and upcoming" in the description. Restaurants and other businesses are very hard to get accepted in general, and you yourself stated that your nomination has almost no history. Reviewers tend to be extremely critical when it comes to restaurants (in my opinion way too much, but that's a sidenote) and you will have to provide lots and lots of proof that your nomination is significant. You will have to show that it has won awards or that it has major cultural ties to the local community.
Even people on this forum usually say that without major awards (think Michelin stars) and/or articles describing the cultural events held at this place, you have no chance of getting it accepted. (Which, again, is completely unreasonable in my opinion, but my opinion makes no difference in that this is how reviewers work.)
Sorry that I have to say this but I'd probably give up if I were you. Try to find something that's more unquestionably eligible.
Agree with @Nadiwereb-PGO. I would've accepted this, but a lot of reviewers hate restaurants (because of previous guidelines and/or personal biases). You could still make improvements on the nomination and people may still just reject it because restaurant...
If you do decide to submit it again, I would omit the part about pedestrian access. It's obvious from both photos, so no need to take up room mentioning it. Same thing with open to the public... it's obvious. I feel like a restaurant like this is more eligible than some others because of the hibachi aspect. Usually at hibachi restaurants, if you have a light party, you will be seated with strangers at the hibachi. The chefs are also performative, and it's a very lively and social kind of atmosphere. Perhaps surprisingly, not everyone knows what a hibachi is, so you could lean in more to that. If people can book events, may be good to mention too. The things you mentioned like socializing and Friday live music are good, so I would go into more detail and give specifics about those and skip the self-evident aspects. I would even say make it sound less like the restaurant marketing itself ("enjoy your next night out!") and focus on specifics...rated 4+ stars, the name of head chef or founder, etc.
If any local papers or maganizes covered the opening of the restaurant and hyped it, maybe you could link to that. If it opened within the last year, though, may be unlikely.
Is there by chance any art inside the restaurant? Sometimes that has a better chance of being accepted... (And I know it can be super awkward trying to get a photo.)
Agree with previous comments.
This place has received raved reviews since it opened.
Try to give more evidence other that this statement since reviewers may be skeptical about any "popular, hot spot" claims.
Thanks, I like the idea of emphasizing the hibachi aspect of it. They really are performers, and one of the reasons I go there is cause my kids love it! Hadn't thought of that, I will definitely submit it again.
On a side note, it saddens me that every single broken down gazebo fly's through reviews without question but this unique looking restaurant is rejected by jaded reviewers who claim the picture is sideways. I have a personal beef that reviewers require a TripAdvisor style write up when reviewing local businesses. It's clearly not the intention of Niantic to require us to go to such lengths. Folks straight up ignore how to rate things. I cant wait for the revamped review process, hopefully it deals with the "holier then though review crew".
I also hate that as reviewers we have decided that we are the police when it comes to what is considered popular. If a reviewer takes the time to submit a business and everything looks legit, assume its popular people. It literally does nothing for you if it goes through and "gasp" its not popular. The term is so indefinitive and subjective. If they tell you its popular, and everything else checks out, assume they aren't lying; at least that's how I look at it when reviewing.
Yes, I agree with your take on how local businesses (especially restaurants) should be approached in reviewing.
Out of curiosity, I googled the place and looked into it more. It looks like the description in your submission was more or less copied from the restaurant's website's meta description. I doubt many reviewers noticed, if any, but this is technically a rejection criterion (see attachment), so try to avoid it. Besides, as a customer and submitter, you can make a much more relevant description than what the restaurant uses to try to get clicks from google searches.
On the restaurant's website, I saw a photo of a hibachi table with what looked like a large scroll with kanji on it hanging on the wall. If you are able to snap a decent picture of that (without being discourteous), you could submit something like "Calligraphy Art at Kobe Buddha House." That way, those reviewers who go by first impression or gut feeling will think "cultural art, possibly at a religious establishment" and not "new-ish restaurant in a **** mall."
If you decide to go the "Calligraphy Art" submission route and want to strengthen the submission, making a photosphere as a customer is likely unfeasible. However, you could snap a normal photo and upload it to Google for that place and tell reviewers to Google the restaurant to see a photo of the mural associated. You would have to time your upload well so that it's the first (ideally) or one of the first showing, since it looks like people really like to add photos of their tempura ice cream. So upload it when you upgrade the nomination (if you upgrade) or when it goes into voting (if you don't upgrade). Also, knowing the artist's name and including it in the description helps. I feel like this is probably not known for that scroll, but you can always look at the bottom edge or maybe ask the owner or manager (especially if you're becoming and recognized regular).
I feel weird enough taking pictures of buildings from outside, doing so inside the restaurant crosses a line for me personally.
Regarding the copied text, I get your inclusion on the copied text but I for one disagree with this premise for many reasons.
One: The description shows up in game, so if I want to know what a place is I can click on the photo an get more details. For business it should be as close to an advertisement as you can can without mentioning their free wings with beer promo.
Two: Who knows better the experience of a restaurant then the actual restaurant. It may sounds sappy to some but to me the description of a local business in game should make me want to stop and eat or drink or window shop at least; or keep it in mind for the next time I am craving something. So was it copied? Yes. Should it matter? No. To your point, I guarantee no one noticed. Maybe a little too sappy and that's what made people think it did not meet criteria. I will tone that down on my next submission.
Directly from the criteria page:
Ineligible text or description
*Title and/or description seems copied and pasted from other sources*, includes emojis, tags, or personally identifiable information such as codenames, personal names or initials, or addresses.
(*Emphasis* added.)
So was it copied? Yes. Should it matter? No. To your point, I guarantee no one noticed.
(*Emphasis on no one noticed)
Also they called themselves Kobe Budda House on the website.... is that copied? Some guidelines are intended for somethings and not others. The spirit of that rule to me is to avoid plagiarism. Not really a standard that should or was applied here.
@Oakes1923-PGO
For business it should be as close to an advertisement as you can can
This depends on person. For me the advert style feels false and is an immediate turn off. Also makes me do a search to check the possible cut & paste copying.
If copying two sentences that someone else wrote verbatim from a website and not crediting the author(s) isn't plagiarism, then I don't know what is. More importantly, it is plainly in the rejection criteria that a nomination with such a description is to be rejected (regardless of whether a particular set of reviewers noticed). I don't see how you can argue with that.
fact of the matter is it wasn't a reason the submission was rejected. More to the point the description shows up in game so it should accurately highlight/reflect what the stop is and this particular verbiage did just that. I've written it before and I will likely have to right it again, the guidelines are meant to be that, a guide, and this one in particular is meant to curb abuse, not provide a reason to reject stops. When this particular owner created their website this is the phrase they chose that best represents their restaurant. Its seems odd that I should need to rewrite it. Reviewers applying guidelines with a bit more tact would make a world of difference for many of the issues we see in these forums. As for the plagiarism remark, I am literally using the owners own words to describe their restaurant. Hardly what would constitute plagiarism. Sorry but this remark and the application of the guidelines are misguided at best
@Kellerrys-ING I'm curious why you would get this reaction. From most of the forum responses I've read around getting stops through, especially business, its almost a must that descriptions sound like your selling the place (likely to people that will never go their) to get it approved. What is it about an advertisement style description that you find is counter to what makes a good description?
It isn't a guideline up for individual interpretation; it is a clear rejection criterion.
Maybe no one noticed this time (or maybe some reviewers thought, "Yeah, I was on the fence about whether this one meets criteria, and on top of that, the description was copied, so 'other rejection criteria'"...who knows.) But what if people notice next time? Or what if a nomination gets approved and then a player sees a copied description and reports the wayspot? You're running a big risk, and for what? The field is not even mandatory.
Almost certainly, Niantic has this rejection criterion to cover themselves legally. Is one sentence copied from a restaurant website going to spark a legal battle? Probably not. But if a business finds players of Niantic games to be causing a nuisance AND finds out that Niantic (via a crowd sourced submission, but they don't know that) has plagiarized their content, it's not good. Some businesses hire marketing copywriters and don't want their content being used just anywhere.
It seems like there is some ambiguity when people say to "sell it."
For a business itself - convincing the target demographic to buy their products and/or services.
For wayspot nominations - convincing wayfarers that the business is a point of interest that meets acceptance criteria and would be a good contribution to the Niantic database.
It's nuanced, but hopefully you see now why I said earlier that you, as a customer of the restaurant and a wayfarer, are in the better position to write a description for what you're nominating.
This sub forum is for people (1) to give suggestions on how to improve nominations and (2) inform submitters of lesser-known or often-overlooked criteria. My thought on submitting the interior mural instead falls under suggestion (1)—the submitter can determine which suggestions are most applicable. However, saying "don't copy the description from another source" isn't a suggestion; it's reminding you of a non-negotiable rejection criterion (2). You may disagree with the premise of the criterion, but it is still a criterion that Niantic has clearly laid down.
If you want to improve a nomination, don't *give* people a reason to reject it (even if you think few will notice). @Kellerrys-ING and I are surely not the only ones who google nominated locations, especially if they're borderline. Just write why it's a great place to socialize. If you can add specifics, even better, and it will improve your nomination.
When you read a description, particularly for a restaurant or other business submission like a Gym, sometimes they just feel too "slick" like they were worded for an advert. That's the kind of thing that makes me do a Google search for the text, which the great majority of the time takes me to a website stc, so 1* - 3rd party text. Restaurants are a hard sell, so wrote the description yourself.
Restaurants are hard, especially new ones. The best advice I can give you is to look at it from the perspective of a reviewer and think about why they rejected it. In this case I think that you didn't clear the bar for it being a local hotspot/gem. Saying "this is a hotspot" is kind of cliche... you need to illustrate that. I don't like advertising copy style as much as I like, "Here are the cool things that make this place unique."
I wrote How to submit things that get accepted a while ago for exactly situations like this-- things that are judgement calls and that reviewers often look at with great skepticism. One of the key points is that there is an emotional component to reviewing, and the more appealing the overall submission looks the more likely it is that you'll get it accepted.
@Oakes1923-PGO Shortly. When I tell nominators that "they need to sell their target", I mean that they need to convince reviewers it's a worthy POI. I'm not interested in a sale pitch that aims to make me want to actually visit the restaurant.
The opinion above is personal preference. Plagiarism is another thing, if noticed -> automatic 1* from me.