How does this happen?
The26thDoctor-PGO
Posts: 4,171 ✭✭✭✭✭
Submitted a year ago, left in voting without an upgrade for almost the same amount of time. Automatically upgraded after I get 10 upgrades from the Russia Challenge.
The26thDoctor-PGO
Posts: 4,171 ✭✭✭✭✭
Submitted a year ago, left in voting without an upgrade for almost the same amount of time. Automatically upgraded after I get 10 upgrades from the Russia Challenge.
Comments
Have you not just answered your own question? you got some free upgrades and 1 of the 10 upgrades applied?
An upgrade causes reviewers to lose the ability to accept something?
I see, your nomination was ‘in voting’ for a year, but it wasn’t actually shown to a sufficient number of reviewers to reach a quorum, for some reason or another. It was stuck in limbo until an upgrade was applied, or until upgrade plus manual intervention or behind-the-scenes over-ride occurred.
It doesn’t seem right or fair, but we don’t really understand how the system is supposed to work in normal circumstances. Perhaps your nomination was offered up to one Wayfarer per week, and kept getting No, Yes, No, Yes, No... until an over-ride knocked it out 26-25 against.
I see from another thread in the forum that it may have been low votes on the Historic/Cultural maybe.
It's located in one of the biggest parks in London so I think it's an acceptable nomination?
It's just a bit disheartening to be rejected after 18 months for incorrect reasons.
You are in the U.K. and there appears some active reviewers who give a straight 1* to nominations that should be acceptable.
I have many that are in the stagnant ponds that formed over a year ago in some parts of the U.K. I wait in hope that being in the slow flow track means that they may make it through some day.
The potential for upgrades from Russian challenge to be applied randomly put me off taking part as I did not want this scenario to happen.
For a bit of context the trail marker is in here,
I may be completely incorrect in assuming it is a valid submission?
The other options are that there are enough bad reviewers out there or the way Niantic have weighted the voting is completely messed up?
it is a trail marker. if something is in voting for such a long time, expect it to already have amassed some negative.
Niantic changed the plot a while ago, and people do not like trail markers. the times do have changed a bit, but i would say this just didnt make the cut when you upgraded it.
Also, personally, i would not make such a fuss about a rejected trailmarker. it is a trailmarker indeed, and not a beautiful one, and if i remove the pole, i can put it wherever i like. THAT is my 2 cents.
I am a UK reviewers and I'd have accepted this but a lot do not. I get trail markers similar to this (named trails) rejected about half the time. Submit it again, and don't hold out too much hope each time. It'll hopefully get through eventually but they are usually a waste of an upgrade, yes.
I usually find with trail markers the trail is the most important part, obviously the actual markers themselves are not much to write home about usually
Ironically the upgrade was applied automatically after helping Niantic get more poi in Russia... :)
I'm currently at 20,000 reviews thousands of agreements and 160ish poi accepted. I'm not even salty about rejections anymore just losing the will to help the game or the playerbase anymore.
Yep, I'm going to have lots of things upgraded that I wouldn't normally choose to use an upgrade on, including a trail marker. I'm sure I'll have a similar experience to you ;)
Hopefully not :D
Any reason given for the rejection? (Sensible reason, that is. Not the usual live animal or explicit activity nonsense)
Apart from reviewers without knowledge of the eligibility requirements, the only reason I could see this getting rejected would be if there was no way to confirm that the wayspot existed at the location. There's very little in the supporting photo to help confirm the location so unless there was a photosphere, it might get rejected for that reason.
Apart from that, I would have said the supporting information would have been better used in the Description field. As it stands, the description contains no information about the trail - which is essentially what you are submitting. The Supporting Information field should explain how your submission meets the eligibility criteria and also possibly reference the AMA that describes how trail markers should be rated
There is a photo sphere. Only reasons were didn't meet criteria and not historically/culturally relevant.
Thanks, though I disagree. My description locates the marker on a specific section of the trail and adds a nearby reference point on the trail. If I swapped them around the description would be long winded.
Do you mean I should try to influence reviewers by telling them why to accept something?
Tbh I don't even go there that often. I passed it by while out walking in the park and figured it's a great place to exercise and explore but obviously not :D
If you shared your rejections reasons we might be able to answer that. But as of now thats anyones guess.
The nomination does not appear to be historically or culturally significant.
First trail marker (Thames Path, with the name on it) rejected just now. "Does not meet criteria" :)
:( I just had a Thames Path Trail marker accepted. I guess it's just a few votes either way that can sway it?
Yeah I have had one accepted in the past (same style as the rejected one), and two that have been rejected once or twice each and are still outstanding. I use the same supporting information as the accepted one too! I will keep trying them. Its such a nice route for a walk, run or bike ride!
It is pretty amazing. I cycled about 1/4 of it a couple of weeks ago and it took me 6 hours there and back. I'll keep trying them since the trail is long, varied and probably deserves to have them added.