Rejected for Harassment and Trolling?

TheMajinLegacy-PGOTheMajinLegacy-PGO Posts: 6 ✭✭
edited June 2021 in Nomination Improvement

While I understand this whole process is not perfect, I’m willing to accept a few rejections and move on to try again. However, my most recent upgrade on a nomination for Dog Park inside of a notable County Park, was just rejected for reason of: Trolling, Harassment of other players, Abuse, etc. (screenshot attached) 



I struggle to understand how a perfectly reasonable submission could have me flagged for such a thing with no fault or penalty to the ones abusing it. 


The wayfarer community NEEDS to do better, if not a serious change needed for the process of reviewing. 

Post edited by TheMajinLegacy-PGO on

Comments

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

    Could we see what the supporting info says as well?

  • TheMajinLegacy-PGOTheMajinLegacy-PGO Posts: 6 ✭✭

    @Jtronmoore-PGO Absolutely, I just realized I forgot to include that. Should update soon, but essentially it reads:

    ‘Newly built and along the path of other gyms, promotes community and will continue to extend gameplay for a large park. Thank you very much for your consideration!’


    I know the mention of specific games is usually a no-no for submissions, but this was made during my earlier days of wayfarer haha, but as you can see nothing that would qualify under harassment however

  • cyndiepooh-INGcyndiepooh-ING Posts: 1,248 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I am stumped by the abuse rejection. I was certain that it was a not showing it on the map situation and they meant to tag it as a fake nomination, but I did a google search and it is clearly there on the map and on street view. There was nothing wrong in your submission as far as I can see (except for the comma where the period should have been in front of "Promotes") and it should have been approved.

    My suspicion since this was upgraded and went to fewer reviewers is that one of them also had it submitted and wanted to make sure yours failed. But I have no proof of that.

    You probably know how to do better supporting info now. I hope no Ingress player would have marked it as abuse for the Pokemon Go references in supporting info, but do concentrate on why this is a place that meets the three criteria, not why it is good for Pokemon Go. If you resubmit. Which I think you should.

  • Melurra-PGOMelurra-PGO Posts: 421 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Many reviewers pick "abuse" or "inappropriate location" incorrectly. It's unfortunate but it's also pretty normal. Even if just one reviewer picked that reason, it can still be listed in the email.

    I actually reviewed this one (I did not pick abuse), so I'd like to explain my reasoning, as it hinges on something that other commenters here aren't aware of. One of the nearby stops is "Puppy Playground," the photo for which is the rock structure that actually appears in your supporting photo. It's unclear from what reviewers can see in Wayfarer if "puppy playground" is an unofficial name for the dog park as a whole or if it is a section within it. If it's just a section, it could be interpreted like the "playground is eligible, but not the individual pieces of equipment" rule, in other words, if the slide at a playground is already a POI, then the swings, or the playground as a whole wouldn't be eligible because they're already covered by the slide serving as the anchor for the playground. So it could reasonably be interpreted that "Puppy Playground" either is the whole dog park or is serving as an anchor to represent the park.

    I believe your nomination is stronger than "Puppy Playground," at least from what I could see of the latter, but as it stands, Puppy Playground is already in the games and people will see it on the duplicate list when reviewing. Also, if I remember correctly, the pin for your nomination was less than 20 meters from Puppy Playground, so even if your nomination passed in that location, it would not show up in the games.

    Since you know the area, you may be able to speak to how separate of an entity Puppy Playground is, if it is at all. If you decide to submit again, you could address the seeming duplicate in the supporting info. Best of luck.

  • TheMajinLegacy-PGOTheMajinLegacy-PGO Posts: 6 ✭✭

    @cyndiepooh-ING @Melurra-PGO

    Thank you both for the responses- yes admittedly it was an older sub that was unintentionally pushed through with a free upgrade, if I were at all to do it over I would definitely do that better!


    Melurra- in reference to your comment in specific, thank you so much for all of your insight. Yes, ironically I was the one who submitted puppy playground as well, which went through without upgrade before this one could.. it was my earlier days of submissions before my understanding of cell placements, but nonetheless I appreciate you for the response!

    My main concern though was the reason being pinged for this rejection more than anything. I’m just hoping my post can reach the right person so to speak that can realize there is an serious problem with how they handle this process.. all reviews should be carefully read as ingress or pogo, we’re putting something that will stand permanent as a representation for that landmark. Thank you again to both for your replies

  • Melurra-PGOMelurra-PGO Posts: 421 ✭✭✭✭✭

    We're all learning as we go with nominations and reviewing! Happy to help. (I've always wondered if something I reviewed "in the wild" would appear on the forums.)

    After my post, I was thinking... it's possible that a reviewer with a very uncharitable mindset thought that your submission was a duplicate but framed as a separate entity. I don't believe that was your intention, but if someone were to do that deliberately, it would be abuse of the system. I think that would be very harsh for a reviewer to do, but it's a possibility. (I would never mark something like that as abuse even if I suspected it without seeing hard evidence.) The possibility mentioned above that someone else submitted the sign and wanted theirs to appear in the game also jumps out at me.

    Others explained that mentioning in-game things in the supporting info is not problematic and should not be treated as such, and you mentioned that you would have done it differently. I'm not sure when the upgrade was applied, but it looks like the original submission was in January. If you haven't seen it, you can edit your submissions as much as you want (though it's best to do this before it goes to "in voting"). Just click/tap on it and scroll to the bottom to edit. It's also helpful for like if street view doesn't have the POI when you submit, but before the nomination goes into voting, street view is updated.

    I hope the corresponding person/people get to see this thread.

  • HaramDingo-INGHaramDingo-ING Posts: 1,725 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The people who vote against these with these awful reasons will never ever come to these forums or see the light of the day. They are just there to see everyone else get angry, and will reject EVERYTHING for the most inappropriate of reasons. But that's no big deal to Niantic, they really don't care. So nobody is accountable for rejecting everything for a live animal, explicit or abuse and everyone is left either scratching their heads or discouraged to further submit.

    Your nomination was a great candidate, but there are people in the world that hate dogs.

Sign In or Register to comment.