It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
OK thank you @oscarc1-ING will leave alone ;-)
@AScarletSabre-PGO I am assuming Niantic is following their 2019 U.S. class action lawsuit settlement, item 7g, which says:
"Niantic agrees that it shall manually review a statistically significant percentage of new POI submissions via a Niantic employee or contractor for the principal purpose of trying to avoid POI that are more likely to lead to issues with nuisance or trespass."
Hey @wbguy88-PGO,, @oscarc1-ING , @Jtronmoore-PGO,, @pinediablo-PGO thank you for your insigh
A thank to eveyrone else. I have provided a response as much as I can to each of you
A big thank you to @HaramDingo-ING who not only provided input but also reposted my nomination and saught input from other. Much appreciated. And to @oscarc1-ING ... Comments such as mine don't make life easy so the extra effort is appeciated. Thank you
The outcome of all the feedback leads me to this. I need an anchorpoint - I will probably go for the water bubbler (I have seen these by themselves as gyms/pokestops/waypoints on the beach, public squares, train stations). will shorten the text a bit and tiwdy up the photos. We shall see what happens next ;-)
To @fungasman-PGO thank you. yeah I get that. My point was it was the pocket park itself as the way point. In fact Niantic don't say you can or cannot do it - hence my trying......... I tried to use all sorts of other evidence to support its existance and the local governments registration of the park and the local governments definition. But hey good point.
@VladDraco-PGO . You say it is offensive. Por Que? Hmmm to long. Too many bullet points. Not letting the reveiwer make his own choices. Trying too hard. OK I get it. Was trying to help. As indicated I like this spot. Hyper local. Pocket Park. Seating. Share. Water. Recognised by council. Anyway I get you but otherrs have said it helped. Sigh.....
@Theisman-ING It is not ridiculous . It maybe your definition of park and I can understand why. I do volunteer work in a National Park. 250,000 hectares of land.. Now some would say that is a park. But and this is critical, Chaleyer Street Reserve is an urban pocket park. Recognised by council and listed by council as a local park and defined as one that caters to the immediate residents. It is an open green space for passive recreation with green spaces to walk through.
And @sogNinjaman-ING - if using the local goverment description and definition makes me a spammer then so be it!!! It also is a definition and description used by local goverments nationally and globally.There are parks and reserves outside of metropolitan areas that are vast. Even within metropolitan areas there is a huge difference in size and functions of parks. In this case Waverley Council (The local Government Authority (LGA)) has 4 definitions of parks. And local is the smallest with the least set of functions. but one that meets the needs of immediate residents and provides green space for passive recreation. Spamming - well state survey markers yes. This no.
@WheelTrekker-ING that is hilarious ;-) you are so right. Hence why the government lists the park as local and for immediate residents. Still laughing.
@rodensteiner-ING - that is just rude. I have many nominations rejected.Some accepted. And I have reviewed a fair few. A rejection is what it is when the reason given explains why.. My complaint was based on the original rejection criteria. Which I disagreed with as it was wrong and misguided and indicated just a random act of rejection.. You give no reason. No explanation and just go on the attack. If you have something to share that will ensure I and others can nominate better go ahead. But, sarcasm alert, thank you for your helpful insight.
@MargariteDVille-ING - nice insight. And that goes to what Niantic says is objectivity. Which means we will not all agree. We will see and judge things based on our experiences and surroundings. If I lived in the middle of woop woop my acceptance criteria might just be less judgemental than if I live in the Sydney CBD. But by following the guidelines and seeking and taking on board advice I hope we can a fairly common set of objectivity between us all.
Re the original rejection excuse. "" The nomination appears to contain extraneous objects or identifiers not representativve of the nomination. Nomination appears to be a natural feature (waterfall, mountain, lake, etc) that is not connected to a man-made object.) Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria."" Which had me lost for words.......The nomination was a hyper local community park. Not a national park like Yellowstone or the Royal National Park. Or a large multi functional park like Centennial. It just seemed the user saw the word park and did word association without consideration to all the addressed and met Niantic criteria. Hence my grump.
@EdeImarzipan-PGO ha hahaha.... LOVE IT. Maybe I should have called it the ugly park ;-) Thanks. Re the vandalism. I agree the utility box has been tagged. Photo angles and all that. FYI the utility box is a post box. The postie will pick up the mail from the box for the mail rounds so they don't have to carry the mail all the way from the Post Office. A van drives round and fills all the boxes up. Just in case any one wonders what the seemingly random box is.
@pinediablo-PGO - my point exactly ;-) But there is that objectivity point. You like the descriptor someone else said it was too long and somone else insulting. Thank you. I wanted to make sure I had all bases covered and that I met and exceeded the Niantic criteria. Which I still believe I have.
@AScarletSabre-PGO No way they could afford to pay staff to review on a global scale. Just no way.
@wbguy88-PGO Thank you... I put effort into my nomination. I put effort into my reviewing. I expect the same.. I do know people who just want to get their nomination badge so race through the nomination process. I cannot comment that has happened here as I don't know who rejected it. My point has been that the selected rejection criteria on many a rejection does not match the nomination which has indicated a lack of attention. fortunately in this thread many people have provided great insights and help that will contribute to me doing a better job. I hope :-)
@WikiBlue-ING and @Zuddy1-PGO I will leave you to it. But I did not know you could review too many too quickly. Wow. And I cannot see anyone who reviews a 100 getting 100 approved. That might be statistically possible but I think really makes more of a good reviewer myth
ahhh @DirtyFootHippie-PGO thank you. I agree. Objectivity and why people approve or don't/ I will not rely on google earth or google street view. I try to be objective. Use search. Double check supporting information. The care and desire I have for some of my nominations means I consider the same for others. But as hinted by a few others there is a feeling that some people are reviewing for other considerations - and I know people compete to get the most nominations and or the most reviews. So that competitiveness points to quantity not quality. But I will leave that for others. Nor should you get badge for reviewing X number of nominations. It just encourages quantity v quality.
@androgogika-ING . That is a bit rude and a bit hurtful. Any chance you can provide some more information why you say that. This is a local park for the immediate users. It is kept tidy, has a bench for chilling, water bubblers, trees to sit under and is listed by council as for the local community. If you feel it is trash heap please provide the insight. I think we all agree that not everything is a Mona Lisa or Banksy or Caravaggio. A Frank Lloyd or Corbusier. A Yosemite or Picadilly Circus. But the Niantic criteria do give us a much wider range of possibilities than those. This is one such possibility. It meets the criteria and as said many times is listed as a local park by the local government authority and is for users within 250m providing green space for passive recreation. So another sarcarsm alert - thanks for the useful, meaningful and thoughtful insight.
Thank you everyone again. This has been quite a ride. I initially did this as I was grumpy on a rejection reason not just the rejection. I have been provided with a lot of help and seen a lot of effort by one or two. That is community at work! I apologise for my original title on my post. Being grumpy was not the best. And I certainly did not want to cast aspersions on the great effort so many make when reviewing.
In the end it is what it is. I enjoy the game. I enjoy the process of reviewing. And getting cranky or vindicative will only take the feeling of enjoyment away from me. And I don't want that to happen.
Now if only I can take a photogenic picture of this park and if only they had a generic place sign or generic don't do list of things sign I can hang the park off ;-)
Later peeps and thanks again.
@OP rude would be if i say something that i wouldnt because my grandma doesnt want me to.
What would you expect on a grumpy rejection rant?
Today, I have presented to me a familiar nomination of a certain Chaleyer Street Reserve, this time it's The bubbler.
Title: Chaleyer Street Reserve - The bubbler
Description: This a classic example of what Waverley Council defines a local park. It's name is Chaleyer St reserve. It is listed by Waverly as number 66 in its list of public parks. Waverly defines 4 types of park. This is the smallest type with the least facilities. It's is defined for use by immediate residents within a 250m radius and is for passive recreation (IE non sport). Trees to chill under, bench to watch sunset, water bubbler for you and your dogs.
Supporting Statement: The POI is the Reserve. The water bubbler is being used to hang the nomination on. This is a social space to be- a space that encourages enjoying a public park and or getting out. It is a space for fresh air - to stretch legs - supporting of exercise (water to refresh with) and a destination of local interest. These Niantic criteria are supported by how the local government (Waverley Council) defines its parks. Parks are listed as Public (Bondi/Bronte), Sports (Waverley/Williams), Neighbour hood (Diamond Bay) and Local. This is a local park -- Local parks are defined by Waverley LGA as: Providing open green space for primarily passive recreation, green spaces to walk through. Includes small parks and caters for immediate residents in the area. It is physically tangible and is listed on the Waverley Local Government Map https://bit.ly/3hxq1Wm ((#66)). It is a permananet place, publically accessible and safe to access. Easily verified on Google map (listed as a reserve) and street view. Nearest other water bubblers are 1K away at Dudley Park otherwise a longer walk to Lyme Park in Rose Bay or Bondi Beach. Water bubblers exist as POIs in their own right (for example Newtown Station Water Bubbler).
While I must admit that is a fantastic photo of a water bubbler, I must add danbocat's recent analogy for brand new context.
The dog owners meeting is a reference to OP's first explanation for this little park laneway, that consists of a single bench and a bubbler.
For the record, I skipped this during my review.
I was told to hang it off something in the park. So I did.
I have seen bubblers themselves as POIs and Poke stops. From Manly to Newtown. So hey I hung it off the bubblers
This is a legitimate park. That meets every single Niantic criteria is still rejected. Whose description by the LGA is the same as the Niantic Criteria.
AND the rejection now states I am blocking emergency vehicles blah blah blah and ALSO states the Title and description is not relevant. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. You try every bit of advice and someone finds another flippen reason to reject.
I want to cry
ARRGGHHHHHHHHHH, PS - Sorry for the whinge and @HaramDingo-ING ... Thanks - it was damn fine photo of the bubbler - wasn't it ;-) Did not realise it comes out SO big in the review section though...
This is not a park, your continued instance that this is a valid POI is both amusing and sad.
You have been repeatedly told that its a trash candidate, what else is needed for you to accept that you are in the wrong.
The bubler is also a 1* candidate.
Seriously give up on this, the amount of effort you have wasted on this non starter of a submission could have been put to better use on nominating an actual valid candidate, assuming you know what a valid candidate is.
One mans trash is another mans treasure. It is NOT TRASH. It is a treasured local pocket park. I have many a time sat on the bench be it by myself, with my wife or kids. Got water from the bubbler. Taken my dog there. Had my children play there. Meet their friends there. Meet my friends there.
I do not live near there now. But I do go past and guess what. Other people still use it. To meet there. walk. Take their dogs.
So before you start throwing opinions of trash be careful.
Also I don't need your abuse on calling me sad. So **** off on that one . Do not need that here.
And Please note. THE very criteria that niantic list as being relevant for the POI are THE SAME description given to this type of pocket park by Waverley LGA.
IT IS LISTED as a POCKET PARK by the government. It is a local amenity used as a PARK
As I have said decision making is often arbitary. And therefor your opinion of what a park is or is not has no bearing here except to be stirring the pot. Successfully it must be said.
The bubbler is not the candidate it was the thing to hang it off as I was advised to do.
There are numerous bubblers as POIs. So this would not be the first. Half of sydneys street graffiti ends up as a POI. You all seem happy to accept state markers. So something that actually meets the criteria should stand by itself. And not be subject to personal opinions as to what a park is or is not.
I have read this thread a few times over the last several weeks and I have yet to see anything related to this pocket park that I would be inclined to accept. If there was a shelter or a play structure or a sign or a statue, then you’d have something. But a spigot, a fence, a sidewalk, a patch of grass, a bench, a couple of trees? No, no, no, no, and no thank you very much.