Conundrum With Fake Rejections
HaramDingo-ING
Posts: 1,725 ✭✭✭✭✭
Help me guys to figure this out. I'm stuck in this vicious cycle where reviewers (often from upgrades) are rejecting many things I try to attempt with various reasons. A nomination that:
- is clearly visible in satellite view but not in street view is being rejected for mismatched location and fake,
- has a photosphere created to support its location is still being rejected for a fake nomination and location mismatch, and
- is also being rejected for submitter identifiable, despite the name being completely changed and altered not to reflect my identity whatsoever.
I really don't seem to have any solutions regarding this. It's very hurtful when you are alleged by reviewers that you are attempting to fake a nomination when it can be easily supported with views such as satellite, and despite trying to change my Google account name which hosts the photospheres, I can't get out of the submitter identifiable problem, which strongly makes me feel that I'm being unfairly targeted.
Examples are:
Jardin Way Playground
This is a tiny little playground which is used by the locals who don't want to walk all the way to the larger park over 400 metres away. It is accessible by visitors and all houses, as I had also accessed freely. Without the photosphere in place, the following reject reasons were given:
After this was rejected almost immediately, I had this photosphere generated at the location.
Upon resubmission with the photosphere now in place, it was resubmitted, but with no good.
How can it STILL be fake when it is clearly visible on satellite view and the photosphere above still exists?! I am really trying to make an honest nomination and getting it rejected for these bogus reasons is extremely disheartening.
========================================================================
Second example: Penrith Lookout Trig Point
When the pin IS already on the actual trig itself! How should this be even considered fake?! It is even available as a Geocaching item on the Geocaching website, which WAS provided! Admittedly, the trig is in poor graffiti'ed shape, but all the reject reasons are uncalled for.
So help me God in believing that there is any sort of hope in clarifying these reviewer's minds that they are absolutely NOT fake or at least rephrase the term. It seems that 1-starring a nomination for mismatched location is the trend instead of actually looking through the entire nomination and information, which I really do try to present as honestly as possible.
P.S. If you're wondering about the speed of these nominations, Sydney is undergoing a real cleanse of the queues due to lockdowns.
Comments
Well, the first one definitely looks like a backyard and the second one appears to be a forgotten concrete pylon in the middle of nowhere, so I get the rejections, though not for the reasons listed.
I also have had a few recent nominations rejected for nonsense reasons, and it is very frustrating. Definitely wish there was a better system for feedback, and/or a secondary review from Niantic.
You would have a hard time convincing me that the playground was not either on private residential property or so close to it that it could be problematic for nearby residents.
Just like the reviewers have their own interpretation of location inappropriate as this is not the correct location but the text spits out that highly offensive explicit activities text, I think the reviewers have an unintended interpretation of fake. They most likely believe it's ok to select when they think the nominator is lying. They think you're lying about the playground not being in a backyard of a regular house. They believe that trig station is just something you're making up to get a pokestop and it's just a random concrete pillar with grafitti. I'm not saying they're right to select fake and/or reject but I think that's how they're thinking if there's an increase in that particular rejection reason.
Use a different Google account to upload the photospheres in the future if you believe you're being targeted.
The reasons for the most part are all erroneous (I guess, except for the private residential property one). I really do want a better system for feedback, but doing what I can to prove that a location exists is fruitless because it instead borderlines abuse and encourages the 'submitter identifiable' rejection instead.
It's difficult to convince because of culture and legal differences. The area is limited to all these villas, bungalows and townhouses, like I've previously sought for feedback in another post a couple of months ago. I've had a couple of those accepted but a few others are being knocked back for being on private property. And while I was able to say a friendly hello while doing this photosphere, probably the same won't happen with someone who is less community-oriented. But what it isn't is fake. And maybe it borderlines the same line of thinking as 'inappropriate location' but fake a little bit... well, it's a very sharp accusation.
Why would there even be a difference in whatever name appears on the photosphere? It has been changed a few times, but it's was often the same story: submitter identifiable. If I was a name like, Yoshi or something, maybe it would be better? Maybe people are just too accustomed to custom photospheres being faked (it used to be a fairly big problem before) and as soon as they see something that doesn't say "Google Street View", it's potentially the submitter. Unless the name appeared on many places such as nature trails or had the name of a business, it would have much less of a probability.
I'll move off the playground, but the trig point fake rejection is annoying me the most right now in a city where survey marks in front of houses reign supreme.
Looking around for what I can see with Street View, I suspect that the playground is on private land that is "common property" of the strata body covering that block of town houses. It's not at all clear that people who don't live in one of the town houses are free to use the playground.
As for the trig point nomination, the photo just looks like a graffitied concrete pillar. If there is any non-graffiti writing on it that could help support it's purpose, perhaps that would have made a good support photo?