The problem with not being able to repeal a rejected wayspot

I submitted a nice wayspot suggestion of a park-bench atop a hill overlooking one of the biggest cities in the community. I described it as a popular bench for couples and young people to hang out along a frequented pathway.

It got rejected due to Location Inappropriate: Use for Nominations whose real-world location appears to be explicit or inappropriate (e.g. adult entertainment store, weapons shop). 

Somebody simply abused this rejection option to troll other wayfarers and

1.) I did all my review work for nothing

2.) that person will not be held accountable for what is clearly abuse of the system

I am so angry right now because this is a known problem with wayfarer, and you really need a failsafe that holds people accountable.

Comments

  • RooMarley-PGORooMarley-PGO Posts: 42 ✭✭

    And another thing that bothers me is that I am 100% sure that ONE SINGLE wayfarer made this claim and the wayspot was automatically rejected. You can't seriously tell me that more than one person looked at this wayspot submission and thought it was "explicit or inappropriate"!

  • PlutoIsSad-PGOPlutoIsSad-PGO Posts: 36 ✭✭

    I get the feeling that upgrade rejections take fewer people than upgrade acceptance. And yes, at the moment I think that getting that one person who is just plowing through reviews to get their own upgrade rather than actually reviewing will tank all the work put in to getting your upgrade. Gotta hope that karma strikes them.

  • RooMarley-PGORooMarley-PGO Posts: 42 ✭✭

    "Gotta hope that karma strikes them."

    Actually, it would be easy to spot this kind of behaviour by means of an algorithm, or giving some kind of appeal function to submitters that puts their waypoint back into the process and eventually leads to exposing people that behave like this. But at the moment, there is nothing you can do but re-submit, put in another two hours of hard (and fair) work and hope you're more lucky next time.

    It's a broken system, and niantic seems absolutely happy with leaving it broken. I certainly ain't going to waste another minute on wayfarer at this point.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If you want some suggestions on your nomination then post the full set of nomination text and photos in "Nomination improvement", a written discription is no help. Reviews need a lot of people to look and vote on them before they are decided. From your description, a "perk bench overlooking the city" does not sound eligible to me, I'm betting you rejection e-mail also included "Does not meet criteria".

  • RooMarley-PGORooMarley-PGO Posts: 42 ✭✭

    This is the hypocrisy in the wayfarer system and community that confirms what a broken joke this is.

    I'm so sorry that I'm not willing to commit to vandalism to spraypaint some kind of fake banksy stencil on one of the garbage cans next to the bench to make it fulfill your criterium of whatever a waypoint should be.

    It is a bench next to a jogging trail and hiking trail overlooking a large city that is commonly visited by youngsters and couples and therefore meets the criteria of exercise, exploration, community. It does NOT meet the criterium of being "explicit or inappropriate" which is the point of this post, not the fact that YOU dislike a bench being a waypoint. It's a much better waypoint than a boring old metal, mass-produced sign in my viewpoint, but who cares about my viewpoint?

    And this is precisely the type of condescending elitism I hate about this community. I know a guy who submitted half a dozen fake pokestops where I live that I am currently working hard at having removed (equally broken and arbitrary system) who actually told me the same thing you did, namely that a bench does not constitute a valid pokestop in his "opinion". Nobody cares about your "opinion", it's the rules that matter.

  • TheBwad-PGOTheBwad-PGO Posts: 29 ✭✭✭

    You are clearly frustrated and irate about this, but the above poster is correct. Park benches generally speaking are generic and not explicitly eligible. After all, it's the rules that matter right? I think you perhaps needs to let go of what reason was given (some people will just select anything) and focus on nominating things that meet the criteria and have a chance of being accepted.

    I too have been extremely frustrated with Niantic and walked away from Wayfarer, but this is just you totally blowing up over nothing. Person to person, if these things are affecting you this much, I suggest walking away and definitely taking a break. I wish you well.

  • ArabellaArdelia-PGOArabellaArdelia-PGO Posts: 101 ✭✭✭

    Also, I know I have reviewed something, rejected it because it genuinely either met one of the specific rejection criteria or didn't meet any of the acceptance criteria, and then after rejecting it I saw that a friend of mine in the same area reviewed the same nomination. So no, this was not a single person rejecting it that tanked your nomination.

  • The rejection reason (appears to be explicit or inappropriate) is just what you get when a reviewing selects "Location Inappropriate" as the rejection reason. This is the rejection reason some people select to convey "that location is not valid as a waypoint". You can understand the mistake caused by Wayfarers ambiguous language.

    But just because the reviewer was lazy and didn't select a different rejection reason or didn't 2* overall and then finesse over the other criteria, doesn't mean this is abuse or unfair.

    If you think the location deserves to have a waypoint, then maybe write to your local council about having a proper lookout or information board installed there, instead of just a generic bench.

  • RooMarley-PGORooMarley-PGO Posts: 42 ✭✭

    What bothers me is the way these rules are contradictory or extremely limiting..

    On the one hand, Niantic wants more focus on exercise, social interaction, exploration. And on the other hand, they tell you a Pokestop has to be "culturally significant", visually unique, while at the same time (obviously) fulfilling another board of rules such as K-12, private property etc.

    I'll give you an example:

    Let's say there's a lake (I get a bunch of these on wayfarer and it breaks my heart every time to reject them)

    People hang out at the lake, get sunshine, exercise. Great! But it's a natural feature!

    Okay, let's say I photograph a bench by this lake. Uh-uhh, that's a mass-produced piece of furniture, not eligible because not visually unique - never mind that this may well be the most visually unique lake in the country.

    Oh but look, there's a stencil graffiti of a pokemon on that trashcan, let's submit that instead! Acceptable and likely to get accepted. Although cultural and historic relevance = zero

    You get my point. The lake should already be a waypoint based on the fact that people hang out there, but it gets treated as if it's a random old tree in the forest.

Sign In or Register to comment.