Location rejection addition.

Goddess1974-INGGoddess1974-ING Posts: 212 ✭✭✭✭

Couldn't verify location.

You know the reviews where you can't possibly find the submit.

It's just a suggestion and perhaps it could have some sort of educational benefit instead of the confusing rejection emails where others think " Huh why that reason ". Perhaps they will in those forest submits learn about 360s some how maybe through these forums if rejection reason was Couldn't verify location submitter posts on here with that rejection reason and forums suggest 360s to them.

I just thought about it when reviewing one of those famous satellite view over a forest reviews with no 360 or roads for street view nearby.


  • aleprj-INGaleprj-ING Posts: 562 ✭✭✭✭✭

    When things are rejected because of the location section (1 or 2 * there) the message is actually pretty clear, so I don't think there's a reason for that.

  • Goddess1974-INGGoddess1974-ING Posts: 212 ✭✭✭✭
  • sophielab-INGsophielab-ING Posts: 266 ✭✭✭✭

    For trails, I usually link the map in the support statement. A 360 of trees doesn't do much .

    Most of the nature preserves are submitted with just parking lot entrance and if you long press it will do a Google search and pull up that street address more than 50% of the time.

  • cyndiepooh-INGcyndiepooh-ING Posts: 649 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I actually thought this would be handy several times today. I am currently using "Mismatched Location" under "Location" rejection reasons for this since the description of that one reads, "Use for nominations that may not exist at the submitted location based on the comparison of the submitted photo and map views." That's as close as I could get to "I don't even see a trail there, much less a marker."

  • Euthanasio2-PGOEuthanasio2-PGO Posts: 267 ✭✭✭

    Photospheres are not a requirement, when something is in the wood in the middle of nowhere, I give the benefit of the doubt the majority of the time and photospheres have nothing to do with Niantic

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 1,259 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I have become more and more wary of ones like this.

    As cases pop up of fake or manipulated areas I have become more concerned at seeing areas where all there is is a satellite view and a growing number of POI. Apart from concern over the database I am also concerned as to what might happen if it turns out that it was a faked area and those who made positive reviews are then sanctioned.

    I know currently photospheres are not compulsory and can be faked but I would be more confident about assessing if provided. They don’t take long and I always do them in situations like this.

  • jhenstridge-PGOjhenstridge-PGO Posts: 37 ✭✭✭

    If you're following the guidelines, it seems unlikely that you'd be sanctioned. If the nomination is plausible but the satelite/street view imagery isn't enough to verify it, then you should give it 3 stars for location. What counts as plausible will depend on what the nomination is and the location it's in.

    If they were going to sanction users for a cluster of fake nominations, it would be those who nominated them and reviewers who had a pattern of giving unjustifiably high ratings (e.g. 5 stars for location when it can't be verified) in that cluster.

  • Euthanasio2-PGOEuthanasio2-PGO Posts: 267 ✭✭✭

    They can take a long time in a crowded area. You are supposed to 3* the location unless you believe it does not exist. Educational panels and trail markers in the wood are things that are easy to give the benefit of the doubt. Faking photosphere is incredibly easy

  • Nadiwereb-PGONadiwereb-PGO Posts: 1,057 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The instructions are clear.

    "Rate 3 stars if the Wayspot nomination is likely to exist in the real-world location if obscured by trees, or if you are unsure of the real-world location."

    If you're rejecting stuff because you can't find the object on Street View, you're explicitly going against instructions.

Sign In or Register to comment.