A lot of fall rejections

Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 440 ✭✭✭

Just for Niantic to know that several players just reject everything without valuable reason.

Just in the last month:

Rejected without any explanation in the email. Just a "does not meet criteria" with is false.

Rejected for "photo à l'envers" (don't know how we say that in english). That false. We can see this photo have a good orientation with the weels of the car...

I would like to precize that's is impossible to take a better photo (with a better angle) because of parking here: every other angle of photo would inclide immatriculation plaque, witch is not allowed.

Rejected for being on a farm. I have nothing to say here: it's just false. The nearest farm from this foutain is about 1km away...

And that's just the more obvious examples of false rejections. But i can add all the trailmarker witch are regullary refused. I can also add information sign, and many other eligible item refused without any justification...

Hopefully Niantic, you will allow us to make appeal of rejection. Theses foutains will certainly be my firts appeal. But before that, i want to inform you that there is plenty player who reject everything without justififcation.

@NianticCasey-ING @NianticGiffard



  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 3,303 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The word "abreuvoir" translates to "drinker" in English, which I think means watering trough. I don't think those are eligible.

    The phrase "photo à l'envers" translates to "photo is upside-down". What reviewers actually chose in Wayfarer is "Photo Quality / Orientation" and the subtext is "Use for nominations where the photo is tilted, sideways, or upside down." I wouldn't personally choose this rejection reason but I can look at it and see why someone might think that it was tilted.

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 440 ✭✭✭

    « Abreuvoir » is here synonimous of « fontaine » in French, and that’s perfectly eligible. (Like every other public foutain.

    if people reject something just because i try to find a name more original than « foutain n°6 », it’s the proof of a false rejection.

  • Nadiwereb-PGONadiwereb-PGO Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm not familiar with the area, but these doesn't really seem eligible to me unless they're really unusual or special in some way. Just because there's a concrete reservoir next to it, a drinking fountain is just a drinking fountain, not eligible unless there's something special about it.

    The first rejection ("does not meet criteria" is therefore correct IMO. That being said, it's possible that with some luck and/or with some good extra information you can get it through.

    The second reason is interesting - the photo orientation really is weird, but it still is an incorrect rejection reason. However, I think it's the same as the first one: not really eligible unless there's something about it I can't see.

    The third one does look like it belongs to a private home. The flowers, the pink bucket, the lighting fixtures all shout "private residence" to me. Still, I could believe that it belongs to a business or community space of some sorts, but you need a really good nomination to make people believe it.

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 3,289 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yes, nominations 1 and 2 are drinking troughs for animals, of course humans can also drink from that water tap.

  • SiIverLyra-PGOSiIverLyra-PGO Posts: 952 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I've seen this translation issue before. For instance, a huge amount of the nominations I get from Cyprus (and existing wayspots I see on the duplicates map) are for drinking fountains.

    It's possible that due to inaccurate translations in some languages, nominators and reviewers think that drinking fountains are eligible.

    (Either that, or the local community has just decided to accept those anyway, of course.)

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 440 ✭✭✭

    All foutain like that are hictoric foutain here in Vosges. They were built during the Moyen âge, for the most of them.

    Now they are essentially decorative foutain.

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 440 ✭✭✭

    About 70% of foutain like that are already a wayspot. They are eligible for many reason (i don't post that to justify, i just post to inform Niantic of false rejection, so I won't argue too much for now), the most important of them is that's a foutain, and foutain are eligible according to the rules. (and many foutain in Vosges are like this one, because it's historical form of foutain here)

    And for the third one: it's a public foutain, i don't post the additionnal photo here, but it's open to public, near a public road. The municipality of the village install all the decoration on this foutain, to make the place beautifull (like every other foutain of the village... foutains witch are validated on the first try...)

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 3,303 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Based on this thread I would say that your submissions were unclear. I'm not the only one who thought it was a drinking trough for animals. There was no mention of the historic nature in the screenshots that you posted. Remember that your job as a submitter is to explain/document the submission well enough that reviewers understand what it is and why it qualifies.

    By the way, not all fountains are eligible. A drinking fountain like this one doesn't qualify, for example. Neither do ones that are inside bodies of water like a lake or pond, since those don't have safe pedestrian access.

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 440 ✭✭✭

    I stop writ very long supportive information since the day i get false rejection and give informations that nobody reads.

    In this case, it's was write in description.

    I would agree to improove again nomination the day when reviewers don't reject everything with false arguments. It's not the case for now because even with a very good supportive information, some nominations were rejected. (the foutain with flowers have a very good and long explanation, that's don't prevent the rejection.

    I don't want to loose 1h per nomination if there are reviewer who don't read information and just click for rejection because it's quicker...

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 440 ✭✭✭

    The other foutain were accepted in the last few weeks, so criteria haven’t change. I know reading. I’ve read the rules. I know that foutains are eligible. So theses foutains are eligibles. The fact that many other foutain like that i’ve nominate were accepted is a proof of their eligibility. That’s all.

    and i don’t ask any opinion here about theses nominations (i already done that some times ago), i just inform Niantic about false rejection as someone on this forum suggest me.


    It's not a bad place to explore, it's nice. There are people who would just need a time to evaluate to relax how to see things and mind.

  • TennRaider-PGOTennRaider-PGO Posts: 7 ✭✭

    To me there are two questions here.

    First, we ask if this nomination is an eligible and interesting submission making it a worthy Wayspot.

    The second, much more serious question asks if by rejecting this nomination such an action constitutes fraud that Niantic needs to address with particular reviewers independent of the first question.

    Honestly, following this stream, my thoughts are that there are good arguments to suggest that this would make a great Wayspot, However, one the other hand, several very experienced reviewers expressed doubt about the nomination’s legality and it’s worthiness.

    I am most concerned, however, with the idea that giving a more full explanation of this nomination constituted a waste of time and that such comments are never read by reviewers anyway.

    If you really want to built a case for abuse, how can you submit a nomination that fails to fully explain what we are seeing and why it is important and is interesting?

    To allege abuse, the minimum you have to do is show that no reasonable person would reject such a site. That only works if everyone knows what the site is and why it is so important, Do not assume others, especially from places with different norms and different cultures, will automatically understand your nomination. If you fail to explain, then you are, in part, responsible for the failure of your nomination.

    While no one asks that you spend an hour explaining your nomination, a reasonable attempt can, and should, be made to describe your nomination to someone not familiar with the items you are showing them, or is ignorant of the historical valve.

    Abuse only exists in the light of full disclosure. If you fail to take the time to explain your submission, do not be surprised if people misinterpret it, A lack of full understanding is not fraud. It is a preventable tragedy that is only fixed with more information.

    Good luck!!!🍀

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 3,303 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I second what @TennRaider-PGO said.

    There are two components to a good submission. The first component is finding a highly-qualified candidate. The second component is presenting the candidate well, such that reviewers can easily understand what it is, why it's eligible, that it's in an accurate location, etc. I'm not at all convinced that you've accomplished the first goal here, and I'm quite certain that you haven't managed the second.

    The fact that something similar is in the games doesn't mean that it's eligible. The thing already in the games may have been accepted under earlier rules, or it may have been incorrectly accepted. Reviewers make mistakes all the time, and it's entirely possible that the other things you submitted were incorrectly approved.

    You still haven't convinced me that this is a fountain and not a watering trough.

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 440 ✭✭✭

    I already lost my time to try to explain why this should be validated on this forum, some weeks ago.

    I don't want to do it again on the same forum. I've just made a list of false rejection to inform Niantic as someone suggest me to do it. If someone from Niantic came and ask more information, i will give them. Until that, i won't do anything more, except waiting for the appeal process.

    Took time to justify again the eligibility of theses foutain won't change the fact that stupid reviewer reject them and the fact i will have to losse some hours again to submit them again i some weeks, or some mouths. That's also won't change the fact that instead of having them in game now, they will be in game in many months and that's not cool for the game.

    It's not easy to explain why it should be validated in English, as English is not my mother language. Even in French it would be difficult to explain why it must be accepted because too many people here always want proof, but reject proof that not on an official website on internet. They reject explaination. For example: for the foutain whith flowers: they ask proof that's a public foutain: i explain that's a foutain decorated by the village, i show a photo where we see the foutain is just near a public road, without any farm or private thing, and people here just said "that's not a proof". I can't do more, it's just impossible. If every time i explain something, someone answer: "it's a not a proof" i can't do anything, especially in english.

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 440 ✭✭✭
    edited August 2021

    The candidate is well presented as i took time to present all my submission. (i took 15-30min to describe and add additionnal information for every nominations... But reviewer don't took time to read it...)

    I just don't want to loose my time to find words in english to try to explain something here to people who won't change the fact that nominations are false rejections.

    The fact that many things similar were acceted some weeks ago (under the same rules) is a proof that's eligible. A mistake, one time, ok. A mistake made about 25 times, no, mathematicly impossible. And the fact that foutain are an example of eligible things in Niantic's rules are an other proof that foutain is eligible...

    I don't understand your last sentence. A fontain is necesseraly with water?

  • Luxm90-PGOLuxm90-PGO Posts: 18 ✭✭

    Except that unwanted refusals are more and more common:

    Recently, Wayfinders have rejected an old building (on the public road) on the pretext that it is in "private property".

    Likewise for an athletics track accessible to all, with the pretext "It is a" seasonal posting ", (there is a maintenance (not regular) depending on the budget of the municipality for grass).

    Since when are asphalt athletics tracks a seasonal display ??

    Even more recently, a Book Box, which is not yet visible on the street view of google maps, was refused on the pretext that "the proposal does not exist".

    As for the premises of a municipal football club, which had the right to the pretext "Explicit content".

    There is clearly abuse in the choices of some Wayfinders who systematically refuse (and abuse) the wayspot!

    And the worst is when, at the same time, some people managed to have pokestop / portal in their garden, but also managed to pass temporary or even non-eligible elements.

    Where is the logic in some cases?

  • Luxm90-PGOLuxm90-PGO Posts: 18 ✭✭

    What you have difficulty understanding is that at the moment, there are rejections, on perfectly VALID proposition, with more than correct description.

    It is not that with the worries of the author of the post, it is with EVERYTHING!

    Even with a perfect proposal, there are abusive refusals for illogical reasons.

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 3,289 ✭✭✭✭✭

    No, I know perfectly that there are many valid nominations that have been incorrectly rejected.

    Also there are many incorrect nominations that have been rejected with wrong rejections.

    If you want to discuss your nominations, open a new thread for each one so people can provide you their points of view about how to improve them, and if you are willing to hear and act on the feedback you'll have better success in your nominations. There are many things that we don't realize and another person can provide us with their point of view and clues to get the nominations accepted.

    In this case, the OP did put a minimal effort with some nominations that are really borderline at best, and so they got a rejection as a result. This isn't abuse in any way.

  • auntergoaf-PGOauntergoaf-PGO Posts: 159 ✭✭✭✭

    I don't think there's anything wrong with the photos or the location. But these would be water features rather than fountains. Either way, if you can't describe these characteristics, your nominations will be rejected as generic.

  • Nadiwereb-PGONadiwereb-PGO Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭✭✭

    There are lots of obviously incorrect rejections. I myself have had tennis courts ("not culturally significant"), playgrounds ("no pedestrian access") and 140-year-old city boundary stones ("temporary or seasonal display") rejected. I can't wait for the rejection appeal system to go live.

    That being said, the nominations OP is ranting about are not obviously incorrect rejections. In fact, in 2 out of 3 cases, even thr rejection reasons seem to be correct (or at least understandable), based on the information we have. These nominations are borderline at best (unless there's something else special about them, but @Aeryle88-PGO seems to be completely unwilling to provide any more info).

    And this is a problem, because this only strengthens the - far too widespread - narrative that wrong rejections are very rare and it's just people overestimating their nominations.

  • SiIverLyra-PGOSiIverLyra-PGO Posts: 952 ✭✭✭✭✭

    And this is a problem, because this only strengthens the - far too widespread - narrative that wrong rejections are very rare and it's just people overestimating their nominations.

    Had to put additional emphasis on that, because it's extremely true, and I can only hope Niantic are seeing that as well.

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 3,303 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Aeryle88-PGO "A fontain is necesseraly with water?" Yes, but not everything with water is a fountain. A lake is not a fountain. A bucket of water is not a fountain. If I look up the definition of fountain I see:

    an ornamental structure in a pool or lake from which one or more jets of water are pumped into the air.

    I think that definition is slightly wrong because fountains can also cascade, but it's a pretty good approximation. So let's look at your submission. Is it ornamental? No, not really. Does it pump water into the air? No. Does it cascade water? No, not really. It's just a watering trough.

    @Luxm90-PGO writes:

    It is not that with the worries of the author of the post, it is with EVERYTHING!

    Not everything. I've attached my recent track record. I am very picky about what I submit, and I only choose things that are highly qualified and I am careful to present them well and make it easy for reviewers to understand and accept them.

  • Eneeoh-PGOEneeoh-PGO Posts: 536 ✭✭✭✭

    Except @Aeryle88-PGO ’s nominations do cascade. These covered areas are always cool and pleasant, with the sound of flowing water that flows into one basin, trickles through a channel into another basin, and then flows out a gap and falls to ground-level.

    I think they are very old, yet were well-thought-out and designed to be hygienic and appealing. The OP feels frustrated because when he walks around in the countryside it is easy to tell public areas from private, but this apparently is not always the case for his fellows online.

    Its not clear to me why the French reviewers liked some nominations and yet gave weird reasons for rejecting others, but what about my fellow Wayfarers?

    Do you feel the country folk must install bronze plaques for all their ancient works? Don’t they stand on their own merits?

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 3,303 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2021

    @Eneeoh-PGO I think it behooves the submitter to clearly explain to non-local reviewers what the object is, what its history is if that's relevant, and why it's a high-quality wayspot candidate. To me it seems obvious that submitters should do this, but some people seem to expect reviewers to figure everything out on their own... and then they get upset when reviewers don't do that much heavy lifting and instead reject their submission.

    For example, it's not clear to me that the object in the OP cascades. It looks like water flows into it from a faucet then just drains out an overflow at the other end. When I said cascading fountain the thing I had in my mind was something like the fountains of St. Peter's Square in Rome.

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 440 ✭✭✭

    It's ornemental.

    Many people here ask me why i don't want to explain, and that's a reason: I give some explaination and you decrete the exact oposite. I know the place, i know my region, i know what is important and good places. And you, who are certainly not from my country, decrete it's not important or not true???

    Plus the fact it's not easy to explain something in a foreign language...

    That's excatly why i don't want to loose my time by explain things in english to people who don't believe me. It's just a waste of time.

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 440 ✭✭✭

    It's not true: i took a lot a time to write great descriptions and give as much as additionnal information i can in every nominations i do.

    I'm just upset about that because reviewer don't read additionnal information and just reject everything. And it's not rightfull to reject a foutain. Foutain are ELIGIBLE. This is not subjet to debate. Niantic explicitly classed foutain as eligible things.

    And i don't abuse the system (and will never do that)... I took time to find the best places to nominates. But when i read this fourum and the amoung of suspicions, the among of proof people ask... i understand why so many people try to abuse the system to get their POI in their town... It's just easier for them. And that's the reason why Niantic should do something about false rejection.

Sign In or Register to comment.