Russia Wayfarer Challenge: Earn double the rewards, plus 10 Upgrades, by reaching 7,000 Wayspots added by 16 June, 2021! Learn More

Advice on nomination

Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 314 ✭✭✭

Hello i get this nomination rejected for false reasons:

I would like to have your opinion on this because the system give me theses reasons:

Not permanent or seasonnal: It's false, i have nothing to say except that this sign is permanent. Impossible to proveit's permanent because it's not writed somewhere, but i think it's obviouly permanent. Someone (Municipality or the owner of the wind turbine? i don't know) won't install a sign like this one to remove it a few days after... It's design to be here for many years (as long as the wind turbine is here i think...). It's maybe not the most beautifull sign in the world, but it's still permanent.

The submission is false and don't exist: heu lol. That's a false rejection reason. The submission exist. I don't know how i can submit something that don't exist. We can clearly see it on the supporting photo and on the photosphere.

Don't meet validation criteria: it's a sign about nature. It's educationnal, it's eligible. Again it's a false rejection reason.

Should i re-submit this one without changing anything? Maybe without amelioration (this one was ameliorated by force by Niantic, that's unfair)? Do you see something to improve on it?

This rejection really upset me as it's full of false rejection reason... And it's once again a loss of one nomination. 15days losts.



  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 714 ✭✭✭✭✭

    looks like a simple piece of paper anyone could have printed and taped onto the turbine, or anywhere as your supporting photo doesnt even proof that its on the turbine.

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 314 ✭✭✭

    the sign is clearly visible on the supporting photo… if that’s not a proof, i don’t see what can be a proof.

    it’s not a piece of paper, it’s a little more elaborate, but impossible to show that with a photo. And i don’t know the word in english to explain that. (In french: c’est une affiche plastifiée et collée de façon durable. Clairement pas le genre de feuille imprimable pas n’importe qui. Ca se sent au toucher, mais ça ne se voit pas sur une photo.)

    anyway, i still don’t understand why it was rejected

  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 714 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I dont have a full res photo, but from little i can see, I cant spot the sign on it. But Im basically telling you what it looks like and why it was rejected. #1 It does not LOOK permanent, looks like a piece of paper. #2 for the same reason, its looks fake so it "doesnt exist". #3 does not meet criteria, im not sure if it does or it does not as i cant read what it says.

  • flatmatt-PGOflatmatt-PGO Posts: 443 ✭✭✭✭

    I'll be honest, whoever put up that sign didn't do you any favors. The sign itself looks very unprofessional. It's printed off-center on the paper/sticker/whatever it's on, the text boxes aren't lined up with each other vertically, and the arrows are placed somewhat haphazardly. Overall it looks like something someone could make in Word in 5 to 10 minutes. Regardless of whether it's actually eligible or not, it's hard to see it making it through the voting process under any circumstances.

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 314 ✭✭✭

    So what i’m supposed to do the next time i go there to nominate that?

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 314 ✭✭✭


    it’s éligible with the current criterias. Niantic don’t say that sign MUST be ultra elaborated. Ceiteria just sau that they have to be educationnal sign and it’s an educationnal sign.

    I don’t know the meaning of haphasardly.

    but the arrow point the things witch are described in the boxes.

    it’s really upsetting me to get this kind of things rejected. I ask advice to get validated , not people who defend the rejection.

  • Thor3381-INGThor3381-ING Posts: 89 ✭✭✭

    you state it was rejected for wrong reasons.

    Someone explains why it probably got rejected. To me it also looked like a piece of paper attached to a wall.

    I guess the answer Rolli wanted to give you: there's not much you can do, except for trying again.

    I'm not wild of this submission either. Assuming it's a sticker these things can fade quite fast

  • iN8rbe-PGOiN8rbe-PGO Posts: 109 ✭✭

    I honestly don't see that poster in the supporting photo.

    In addition, it looks like a simple sheet of paper put there for the photo and nothing else.

    Be careful, I am not saying that it is not real, but that it seems temporary ... yes

  • Stephyypooke-INGStephyypooke-ING Posts: 170 ✭✭✭

    The object can be seen towards the right side of the pole, beneath the first section line. I could not see it at first either.

  • Eneeoh-PGOEneeoh-PGO Posts: 98 ✭✭✭

    Wayfarers are generally expected to submit two different photos. This submission appears to use a cropped version of the supplemental as the primary photo.

    It is very difficult to find the nominated sign in either photo, as they are identical. These issues, together with what others have stated above, may have set reviewers against the nomination.

    I don’t understand why the sticker/sign is affixed where it is. How would anyone know to look for it? Does this turbine have a special role of informing visitors about the technology? Perhaps there is a better sign elsewhere that invites people to come and look around?

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 1,306 ✭✭✭✭✭

    We're telling you what we see with your nomination:

    It looks like a sheet of paper that you printed a photo at home, then went there and attached it to the wind turbine, took the photo and thought that it was an easy 5*.

    Now you'll reply that this is not true, that it's real, etc... but it doesn't matter, we're telling you what your nomination looks like, not what it is.

    You might say that people don't fake PoI this way, but please look at this thread carefully

  • Oakes1923-PGOOakes1923-PGO Posts: 193 ✭✭✭

    Infrastructure submissions are tough. While Water Towers and Hydroelectric Dams are often accepted that tends to be the extent of it. A submission like this will likely take several non upgraded tries before it would gain acceptance, if it ever does. Keep trying but I think you're in for a uphill fight with this one.

  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 714 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I thought that's what it was but it's definitely not "clear", at least not without a full resolution photo.

  • Stephyypooke-INGStephyypooke-ING Posts: 170 ✭✭✭

    Definitely agree it’s impossible to be sure from these photos. Hopefully it’s easier to see in review.

    My only suggestion would be to maybe take the supporting photo from the wind turbine looking up to the trail so you can see the “sign” more clearly?

    I have to agree that from these photos, the sign looks like a plain printed piece of paper, it does not appear laminated which makes me think it would disintegrate in the rain.

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 314 ✭✭✭

    People are told to walk around wind turbine, because all wind turbine here are on some trails (randéole). Some Randéole trail sign and QRcode were already accepted as POI. All wind turbine on this wind farm have sign like that on them, so visitor will certainly look at them when the came on the wind farm.

    This sign is a point of interest of the "parc éolien du bois de belfays". It's seems wind turbine are ineligible themself (witch is very stupid from my point of view, but it's an other topic), but informationnal sign are eligible, so i think this sign should be accepted.

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 314 ✭✭✭

    I don't see the problem with this thread.

    I can present the thing on other way: why always think that POI can be fake? I have stricly no advantage to have a POI here, no reason to fake a POI, especially here in the middle of nowhere. The wind turbine is clearly visible on google map and the sign is clearly visible on the photosphere. ( ) So why people would think that's a fake?

    I always take time to find the best place to nominate and to create proper submissions. Of course, sometime i can do mistake like everyone and submit something not interressant or with a bad presentation. But creating fake? No! That's just stupid, i have enough places to nominate to not create fake. (and that's forbidden)

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 314 ✭✭✭

    Thank you for the suggestion, i will certainly retry in some weeks/months. The sign will always be there. It have resist of 3 years of rain, so i will be there for a long time ;)

    It's impossible to prove with a photo that the sign is protected from the rain.

  • flatmatt-PGOflatmatt-PGO Posts: 443 ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 9

    The nature of Wayfarer is that there are going to be some things out there in the world that should be eligible but that look "fake" enough that they can't get through the system. I'll give you an example: I have a park near me where most of the improvements are done by volunteers. Because of their limited budget, they depend on donations or "extras" from nearby parks for their displays. One such item is an educational sign for poison ivy. It would make a good wayspot... except that it has another park's name on it. Anyone who notices that would think that I'm trying to submit something that isn't there, and they would be fully justified in rejecting it. So I simply do not submit the sign, even though it's "eligible."

    I think you're in the same situation here. Whether you like it or not, people do try to make fake signs and submit them, often much more elaborate-looking than this. So reviewers have to be looking out for fakes. "Real" informational signs tend to be graphically well-composed, which this one is very much not (as I said, it looks like something someone threw together in Microsoft Word in 10 minutes). Add to that the fact that it doesn't contain any city, park, or corporate logos and that it's a simple white sticker on a surface rather than something more elaborate like a freestanding sign, and it looks like exactly the kind of thing you would see if someone were trying to submit a fake wayspot. Regardless of the reality of the situation, I don't see this going through.

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 1,306 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You're thinking as a honest person, please look here:,-4.2023909,3a,89y,82.66h,66.16t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipMTvWJSpfsK0l35qKZ8IGsT-zLuk22EgBWkXxzH!2e10!3e11!!7i10240!8i5120

    Does that seem to be a cycling path? Because that's what the sign says.

    Can you count how many info panes are surrouding that house? (all the appealed PoI in that thread and some more, check the photospheres)

    You should realize that people cheat, they create fake info signs, fake photos, misplace locations, etc... so reviewers are already tired of so many bad nominations, then they see yours: "a photo printed on a sheet of paper" and attached to a windmill. They are not gonna try to find out if you live nearby or if you work there, their first reaction will be "that's fake", and if you've already created other wayspots around that location they might be even more worried that you are trying to create some kind of farm, maybe you work there, they don't care.

    You're always claiming that you have tons of candidates. Go for the good ones, this one isn't a good nomination. And if you're nominating candidates in the middle of nowhere, they won't help you to create a community of fellow players, they won't notice that there's a pokestop out there, people need pokestops near their homes.

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 314 ✭✭✭

    This photosphere seems problematic because i don't see any acces to the sign.

    Maybe people cheat, but punish people who don't cheat because some people cheat is a very bad idea.

    I have tons of candidates, this one is a good one from my point of view: public educationnal sign. Half of my candidates are trail markers, and that's a pain to get them validated. I supposed educationnal sign to be more easy to validate...

    I don't care creating a community of fellow players, i only care about make pogo, ingress and all future Niantic's games playable when i walk i the forest. Maybe it's selfish, but i think i "win" the right to be selfish about that after waiting for more than 4 year to get a single one POI in my village. I always thing Niantic's game will be better the day we can walk in natural area and found POI to play. Having a POI near home is good, but having POI in place where walking is cool is better in my opinion.

    In addition, creating POI is, in my opinion, a good way to make other player to discover places i love.

    When ALL my candidates will be validated (or rejected for real reasons), i will try to submit thing that could help other players with no POI on their village. But every time i get a false rejection like that (and i will say it's a false rejection as long as no-one can prove me that's not eligible or as long as Niantic don't say it's not eligible), it's two week lost.

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 314 ✭✭✭

    That's not a fair system: punish honest player who try to submit cool things just because a minority of player submit fakes is a very bad idea.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,225 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 9

    No one is punishing you. Its just people review with an open mind and if something doesn’t look 100% solid to them.

    i do agree with others, the supporting picture is really hard to see where this sticker is placed. So hard in fact I can’t see it.

    It may be what you want to nominate, I get that. You want to nominate things that are interesting to you. Yes these things you nominate meet the criteria. But most of them are very borderline nominations in one aspect or another. No one thinks your faking nominations, we just are letting you know what we would see in the reviewers eyes. And if we aren’t 100% on something we are more likely to reject it to be safe vs accepting

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 314 ✭✭✭

    Ok thanks.

    just on the last point: i don’t agree on the fact to reject something « just to be safe » especially in area where there is not a lot of wayspot. ;)

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 1,306 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Everyone has his point of view.

    You want to walk into nature and keep on playing pokemon, if I go into nature I prefer to enjoy nature instead of remain hooked into my phone. Both are valid, but don't expect me to find out about any of the wayspots that you've created.

  • Oakes1923-PGOOakes1923-PGO Posts: 193 ✭✭✭

    Neither does Niantic which is why they suggest people vote it as a 3* if they don't know.

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 314 ✭✭✭

    An other false rejection about these kind of sign (on an other one witch is on an other wind turbine). Rejection reason given: photo taken from a car.


    How can i go there with a car?

  • Stephyypooke-INGStephyypooke-ING Posts: 170 ✭✭✭

    Yeah, that looks like 4 pieces of paper that someone printed themself. You can see the seems between each piece of paper.

    There is no municipality information on it either. Maybe we are from vastly different places but in my area, they put their information on everything they can.

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 314 ✭✭✭

    Stop say that just something print: that’s obvious that ALL SIGN are printed. And that’s not a rejection criteria (or we all to reject every sign in the world).

    I rarely saw a sign with municipality information here. Especially in this area where multiple municipality are involved on the wind farm project. And again it’s not a rejection criteria.

    The mail say rejected because of photo taken from a car…. That’s obviously a false rejection, and as the other sign i don’t understand the rejection.

    It’s an educational sign. It’s accessible for the public.

    So why?????

    And it’s once again a submission lost, and the obligation of waiting 15 days to submit something again… Just because reviewer chose to falsly reject something.

    If educationnal sign are not eligible, prove it with a Niantic official criteria.

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 1,306 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Please, read all the feedback that we have provided you.

    You're always looking at your nominations through your eyes, try to look at them as someone that has seen several fake PoI before your nominations and has no idea about that location that you're proposing: they don't look real.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,225 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That rejection also works for just bad photo/blurry. Doesnt mean jts been taken from a car. I can’t even read the info on this poster

Sign In or Register to comment.