Low significance but great spot

Hi, i'm a new wayfarer, so my apologies if this has been asked before. I just did my first review. It's a sign that denotes a beautiful nature park/resort. Publicly accessible and a great place to exercise. I gave it a 5* rating as denoting a great spot, but a low *cultural/historical* significance. Did i do it right? Why do we have to rate cultural/historical significance when that's only part of the eligibility criteria.



  • Stephyypooke-INGStephyypooke-ING Posts: 344 ✭✭✭✭

    If I believe a submission I’m reviewing fits the criteria and deserves to be a poi, I will not rate it less than 3 stars in the historical/culturally significance section, or really any of the other sections.

    I would think of it more from a cultural aspect. A park where people from the community can gather or events are hosted would be important to the local community’s culture.

  • CipherBlakk-PGOCipherBlakk-PGO Posts: 209 ✭✭✭

    Yeah, there is a definite disconnect between the rating categories and what you actually need to be a good POI. A lot of things wouldn't have "cultural/historical" significance in the way anyone would normally interpret it, except in the very broadest sense. If the POI otherwise meets the criteria and you've decided it appears to be a real location with enough evidence backing it up, the general rule of thumb is to give it a 3* in whatever categories you're otherwise unsure of or aren't clear on, which the guidelines themselves recommend.

    For "cultural/historical" specifically, unless it's clearly some kind of cultural or historical spot and anyone off the street would call it that, I rate 3* across the board now as my lowest score. I used to do it the way you described, before I got worried that it might unfairly tank a good POI.

  • Arend79-PGOArend79-PGO Posts: 2 ✭✭

    Thanks for your advice. It's good to know that I'm not the only one struggling with this. I'll rate any spot that i consider eligible with at least 3* for cultural/historical significance from now on, even if it's eligible on other grounds.

    PS could this be a translation issue?

  • CipherBlakk-PGOCipherBlakk-PGO Posts: 209 ✭✭✭

    I don't think it's a translation issue, since it's English and I'm a native English speaker. I think it's just poor rating design. It could also be a relic of older criteria that really emphasized "culture/historic" as a primary consideration, which has since fallen by the wayside in favor of other primary criteria (social/exploration/exercise). Either way, it definitely doesn't reflect the current considerations.

  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 346 ✭✭✭

    One highly-voted question on the AMA, asks whether giving 2* in a single category (like history/culture) would reject the whole nomination. Some people think so, but it's just a theory. Hopefully Niantic will tell us if that's fact or fiction.

Sign In or Register to comment.