It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
I had a wayspot photo edit earlier where one of the photos had the photographer's body visible in the reflection of the sign. The reflection was kind of blurry and the head wasn't visible.
Is that rejection criteria?
If the person in the reflection is identifiable, yes. Also if the reflections makes it difficult to identify/see the object in question.
If the person in the reflection is not identifiable and doesn't interfere with being able to see the object, then no, not rejectable.
Makes sense. I'm new here and I wasn't 100% on that. I appreciate the advice.
As a regular player in an area of few pokestops I am left Totaly gobsmacked at how someone can blatantly reject a submitted location, if the rejection is valid then 80% of all the pokestops would need taking down.
Rasons for rejection: blury photo? (images is actually clear and crisp)
Real-world location apears to be on private residential property or farm. (its one of the biggest caravan sales show room in the UK on the main road and yes probably back in the 1800s it was farm land)
So how many pubs, shops, commercial buildings now need removing as pokestops based on this rejection.
A lot of the time new submitters believe what they are submitting is 100% valid, but in reality it seems to be not eligible to begin with. We see a ton of posts of people being “wrongly rejected” and generally turns into a thread of people giving advice that the original poster doesn’t seem to care about anyways as they are set that what they submitted should be accepted. Not always the case but generally it is
Not sure what you're referencing here. I asked for clarification on current rejection criteria. I never mentioned rejecting anything.
As for your discontent, the criteria exists, but so do opinions and personal judgment. I'm sure many specious wayspots were approved from ingress, before PoGo or at least before PoGo's most recent eligiblity guide. Just because a currently ineligible spot was approved doesn't set an eligibily precedent for new nominations.
I would not reject that. It's nearly impossible to photograph some things without there being a reflection.
Most submitters like me think that poi are eligible based on old criteria (last year nearly same thing was not rejected) or existing poi ... this might be the reason for complaining. I try to use the answers but some rejections were not okay in the first place - only waste of one upgrade (second was okay and become a poi).
PS: i think every reflection should be rejected or the poi isn't eligible.