Pubs and bars (discussion)
SiIverLyra-PGO
Posts: 952 ✭✭✭✭✭
I've had an interesting discussion in my local community, and I'm looking for more opinions on the matter.
The discussion was sparked by a nomination I found - a pub, that turned out to be part of a chain. I claimed that it's an ineligible nomination due to that fact. (To clarify - the nomination's location was a city, one that has other bars, so it's not a remote location and not the only place around.)
People have disagreed with me. They explained that nearly every bar (expect for really questionable locations) should be an eligible nomination, due to their importance as a social meeting place. They said that many bars often hold special events and activities, thus making them more than "just a place to drink".
I said that if the submitter didn't specify in the description or supporting information why/how the place holds special community importance, then I can't assume that it's necessarily there. The counter argument to that is that pubs and bars so commonly serve that purpose, that it can be viewed as a given for any pub/bar nomination.
The discussion ended and I'm still wondering. So I'd really like to hear more opinions on this subject.
Would you agree that (nearly) all pubs and bars serve a community role important enough to justify a wayspot? How do you judge this kind of nominations?
Comments
I do not believe all pubs/bars are innately eligible, as like you said, they could be a generic business. If a generic business bar was an active part of the local community and donated money or hosted events, I would consider approving one of the nomination highlighted that fact.
I feel breweries are almost always acceptable because most breweries are usually local. I still appreciate effort in the submission though.
If a nomination meets AT LEAST ONE rejection criteria, therefore, should be rejected.
And one rejection criteria that you can apply to the bar/pubs is :
Doesn't matter if the nomination meets ALL the eligibility and acceptance criteria.
If it checks one box in the rejection criteria, it should be instant-1*.
Edit: if the bar/pub isn't of a chain-brand, go for it. Enhance the unique things about those pub/bars
So for a pub/bar yes it can be eligible as a place to be social. If its a business generally you still have to probe that the business is not a generic chain and is still worth something to the community it is in like @pkmnsearch2-PGO mentioned above.
In my experience for business’ they generally have to stand out as very unique to pass. Let alone the fact it meets the criteria. If its the only pub/bar of its kind in a small town with no other pubs in it. It would definitely be locally unique but even that itself doesn’t sell the nomination. If its in a city with a bunch of other bars then you will have to back up your nomination. You’ll need to show how it meets what ever criteria you believe it meets, and also show how the business itself is unique from others like it
I accept bars/pubs/restaurants/cafes/etc, when there is a good reason to do so. And that depends on what information the submitter gives. Otherwise, I am normally rejecting gastronomical facilities.
The most important thing is to describe, why this should be an eligible nomination with showing trip advisors or other recommendations. Just saying "best cafe of the city" is subjective and doesn't count.
I'm in the UK, and have struggled with how to address pubs too.
It is common for a small village to have only a single pub. In this case, the pub is generally an important social "hot spot" in the village. Often the only one, plus maybe the church. I tend to give these a high rating, without needing it to have Michelin stars or the like. If it has been there for a few hundred years, even easier to score it highly.
If it is a pub/bar in a city with hundreds of them, I expect more justification of why this one is special, and if that isn't convincing, I score it low.
There are grey areas in between. Even in a city there are pubs which focal points for a local area.
And I'm far less likely to accept a chain e.g Wetherspoons. I'm not bothered about pubs which are tied to a specific brewery; these can still have specific local character.
In short, I agree they can all be considered, but they won't all meet the acceptance criteria.
i agree.
Using the nominations of bland-looking pubs/bars/restaurants:
pubs/bars/restaurants in Urban/city context need more arguments to incentivize me to approve them. Normally the unique dishes, ambiance or other quirky things about them, helps.
If even they are from small chain-brand company (maybe they have around 4-5 stores national wide and those 4-5 stores are all exactly the same-looking), i don't approve them (as it is in the rejection criteria)
Pues yo, salvo que vea que realmente es un pub/restaurante único en la zona, muy antiguo, histórico, etc. Lo rechazo,
Si me pones como nominación un Pub normal y corriente sin ningún tipo de interés mas allá que el de sentarte a beber o comer, lo rechazo. La publicidad hay que pagarla, no es gratis.
Ahora, si me justificas un negocio de este tipo, indicando que tiene (por ejemplo) mas de x años, o es único en la zona por determinadas cosas, etc, lo acepto.
Ya si me pones un franquiciado ni te cuento,,,
The disconnect between my local community and what I read here is truly staggering sometimes.
Because see, I totally agree with all of your replies, and that's my approach to these nominations as well.
But when I bring it up in front of the local community (in this case, it was because the submitter claimed the pub was unique, but a quick Google search proved that it's part of a small chain, so I wanted to let others know), then people hurry to defend it as a place of social importance.
It's part of a chain - "but places that are part of a chain are still eligible if they hold local importance."
The submitter didn't explain that this place holds any kind of unique community importance outside of serving socializing purposes like any other pub - "you can't reasonably expect all submitters to know how to write well, you gotta think outside the box."
So if all pubs serve as places of social activities, then all pubs should pass? - "generally, yeah."
And just like that, it's a dead end.
Talking to my local community and talking on this forum is seriously like talking to aliens from different planets.
Yeah they can definitely try but if all they say is “its an important social gathering spot for the community” and nothing else I can almost guarantee it will get rejected lol
Pubs are social places. And the same applies to cafes.
So they are a great place to meet.
I think we can all agree on that.
The question that is then asked seems to be about deciding on a pubs merits. This is easy if you are local not so easy if you are not.
I live in an urban area. We have a very high density of pubs. I guess many would be described as bland or very ordinary. They nearly all belong to various breweries Most could do with some refurbishment.
When reviewing we need to set aside our own bias and consider does it serve the community it is in. The fact that it is in business means it does.
Would a local person be likely to take a visitor there. Yes they would.
if we apply too much of our own values and expectations on to other areas we start to exhibit a form of discrimination.
Often when I read some of arguments that take place here I do get concerned that one set of cultural values is being imposed on others.
with very few exceptions pubs are great.
You'd think so, but not in this community. I can almost guarantee it will get accepted. Especially since there's a ton of precedence with other businesses becoming stops, ever since the criteria refresh took place.
This is what I mean about the disconnect.
The MoAr StOpS mentality is extremely strong in my community. And sometimes it leads to good things. But sometimes...
The cultural point is a good one, but in my case I can assure you that the social approach to pubs and bars in my country is very similar, if not identical, to the one in other western countries such as the US and the UK.
The other points are exactly the ones that this entire discussion is revolving around. After all this time, it still doesn't feel like there's a reliable way to objectively judge the social/cultural importance of a business vs other aspects that might make it ineligible as a wayspot. (Not in all cases, granted, but still.)
Its nice and bad at the same time I guess lol. Makes you wonder what else they pass. Ive put some effort into some really unique business’ in my area with no luck except for a butcher shop. Atleast they aren’t fake poi’s if you can think of a positive.
My previous thread was also about business nominations/existing wayspots in my country, funnily enough (although it was triggered by a different event). There's a strong aspect of abuse to that particular case, but you can get an impression nonetheless.
Other examples of things that are commonly accepted around here are graffiti tags and playground facilities (as in, making different wayspots for every slide/swing/etc that are located in the same playground). But unlike this discussion about pubs and social importance, there isn't really something to talk about with those two cases. That's just "more stops at all cost".
Seems like it and unfortunately once they are passed its pretty hard to get them removed unless it meets the removal criteria.
Um, do you read anything NiantiCasey has posted? Applying your method to this particular rejection criteria is clearly not Niantic's intent.
Entonces lo que dice Wayfer que cafeterías favoritas, es una mentira, porque veo que nadie lo respeta... Cuando NO es cadena, no existe mentalidad para rechazar, solo por envidia, nada más.
Asi me dais la respuesta que con el mismo motivo, todos los graffitis, rechazados, xq hoy están, y mañana se pinta la pared y hasta luego maricarmen. Verdad?
Gracias por la info y confirmación que puedo rechazar todos los graffitis sin temor...
To me, pubs and bars would make great nominations, as long as the photo is in good quality and the pinpoint covers the majority of the building. Even for those who like to hang out, eat, drink, and spin a stop, any pub would be no problem for nominations.
In Japan, quite often when I nominate something like a statue in front of a pub, it gets rejected with the inappropriate/explicit activity location rejection. People don't seem to like objects even near any location that serves alcohol, and treat such locations like K12 areas. I can't even imagine getting a pub itself accepted, no matter how unique and local it is.
The answer here is review with a forgiving eye. If the submission is for a Buffalo Wild Wings (for those outside the states a popular chain wing and beer joint typically set in more Urban areas), Chili's, Applebee's, then reject for being a generic chain business. But if its part of a small regional chain I am in favor of approving.
To the folks that discuss showing the charity work or community involvement; one most folks will not know about it; two nearly every pizza joint or local bar does that in some form or another (heck nearly every Applebee's I've every walked into has a picture of a local girls softball team or men's hockey team they supported from years past); three is fairly hard to work that into a writeup, with any validity, when you are limited by characters and frankly what reviewers will focus on when reviewing let alone take the time to read. Half the time I doubt most folks read the entire write up.
Most reviewers:
Good picture, its a POI that's in my standard yes pool, approved.....5*'s
Don't care for the picture, don't really know if its locally relevant. 1* REJECTED! Abusive/Live Animal/K-12
yeah, i think that is also like that .. or 5* or 1* (there is no middle ground). some reviewers are still stuck to the past. "where is the generic business reason to choose in the table?!". Even with the mentality of .. "those businesses have to pay for that".
Overall, businesses are the most uncertain nominations. can't blame the wayfarer system for that.
Good picture, its a POI that's in my standard yes pool, approved.....5*'s
I think people often underestimate the importance of the picture and how it subconsciously influences the reviewer. I would bet a lot of iffy things get accepted with great pictures, and lots of good nominations get sunk because the submitter was lazy with the picture.
Spend a few minutes to get the right angle, crop it out (use the trapezoid crop if your phone has it), increase the HDR/brightness/contrast a little if the lighting wasn't a bright sunny day, etc...
For example, here's the picture I used (and was accepted) for a nomination a while back. It was pretty hard to line up the angel on this one, but I think it was well worth it.
I have a whole ton of images like this still on my phone, and I bet my nomination would have been rejected if I used one like this:
Lazy is really the wrong term, also I don't know how you are submitting your nominations, with that app and what technology, but in PokeGo, specifically on the iPhone, there are no editing options. No crop, no ability to change contrast or brightness.
would bet a lot of iffy things get accepted with great pictures, and lots of good nominations get sunk because the submitter was lazy with the picture.
What I read with this one sentence is the acknowledgement from the community that people are reviewing incorrectly. Granted not entirely of their own fault but more because Niantic has not given us the tools in a way that allow us to submit or review things in the way that is helpful.
In a silo the individual tools seem adequate. The criteria seems straight forward. The system should work but once you put it all the pieces together but instead its a rickety waterlogged raft that keeps taking on more and more water. The inadequacies of each preceding tool stack on top of each other and everything starts to unravel.
Niantic needs to created tools that allow users to submit things in the way reviewers need them submitted and provide a platform that guides reviewers through the proper process the review things based on the guidance of the criteria.
I generally submit from Ingress, because you can select photos from your phone, and place the pin remotely from home at a larger distance.
I'm not saying people are intentionally reviewing wrong. Just that there will be unavoidable subconscious affects based on the how the picture makes the reviewer feel.
LOL maybe I should level up my Ingress account then, this sounds like a way better set up then what is currently in PokeGo.
I honestly wonder if this is another underlying reason for some of the ridiculous rejection issues. If Ingress players have a better submission platform with the ability to cleanup or "doctor" images to be more appealing to reviewers.
I'm assuming that Niantic could look into this and see what percentage of ingress submissions go through vs PoGo submissions vs some of their other games.
@NianticGiffard @NianticCasey-ING is this something that has been looked into? If so are you seeing a disparity in these numbers?
Many of the people currently submitting Ingress are pokemon go players who leveled accounts to submit. If people spend that amount of time playing another game to submit then generally they're hard core about it and probably have a better than average rates for acceptances. By the time nominations came to pokemon go, I had a lot of experience and overall acceptance rate was higher than Ingress account because I learned from my mistakes and could do the nominations very well at that point. Plus, I got have the supporting picture and explanation which got previous rejections from redacted through mostly with simple statement "look on satelite for baseball field obscured on streetview by trees or the like".