Baseball Fields are no longer acceptable POI?
BorisBadenov-PGO
Posts: 15 ✭✭
Attached is a baseball field at a state park. It is easily seen from google images and is noted broadly with the nearby volleyball court on the day use area’s site: https://www.stateparks.com/fort_washington_state_park_in_pennsylvania.html. I am not going to renominate, because I do not care enough. No reason was given for the denial. Should there be/is there already a method for reporting reviewers this bad? I have proof of one player in this region stating they have 1*d a nomination before essentially because it wasn’t theirs to then use an upgrade on their own.
Comments
Was your rejection reason just a dot (".")? If so, Niantic reviewers reviewed it. They accept all sorts of things that are blatantly ineligible and have been rejecting many perfectly fine submissions. It appears to be very random. Anyway, I'd definitely resubmit if you want to, ideally with better photos, if you can get them. Maybe get closer to the backstop so it's clearly a baseball diamond and not just a grassy field.
A baseball field ia a valid POI, however your submission is not a good one and has been correctly rejected.
You have no tangible object or item to act as place for the POI to located. You have just shown a patch of grass in your submssion not a specific place where a POI can be recognised and located.
Unfortunately it has been a possibly good submission ruined by a poor submission
Looking at the submission the backstop appears in the photo, it looks rusted and overgrown but I think that would make it identifiable. You can also see the two team benches and bleacher area.
In which case that would be a poor quality photo as what you're suggesting as being the POI is barely 10% of the picture.
Its a very poorly done submission and suggesting the back stop in the photo is where the POI should be located is not the way to go.
Frankly, I’m astonished at how consistently nominators who don’t care enough to get good images or write good descriptions get so mad and accuse reviewers of not caring enough to give good assessments.
Not giving a rejection reason is unacceptable (I’m looking at you, Niantic), and I would try to find a reason to approve this if it showed up in my queue. But an unbiased eye should be able to look at this low effort submission and fairly conclude that the submitter got what they paid for.
I'm not saying that it was a good image. Just pointing out that I could tell what they were going for. I agree that it is a poor quality photo and I would have reviewed the same. Just pointing out that there is a tangible object that could be submitted in the future if the OP wanted to try again.
It really doesn’t help your nomination when in the description for a baseball field you write it as a grass field for day use. Not even describing the object itself.
So I tried to buy in that reviewers simply did not like that the field was ugly at the time of the photo, but then I received three more rejections on what seem to be perfectly good submissions (an info kiosk, a dedicated memorial at a funeral home, and a church). Overall, probably close to 90% of my submissions are accepted into the system. Of the 10% that are not, they are primarily in one location. That particular S2 cell (and surrounding cells for voting purposes) apparently just has lower end voters. In the attached photo, I’ve placed the submissions rejected from top to bottom (1 to 3) with their corresponding information left to right.
I guess it is time for an investigation into the Wayfarer voters in the region (see attached image). If @NianticCasey-ING or someone would like more information likely correlating to these inappropriate rejections, please feel free to dm or email me directly to keep IGN confidential.
Top, the description is like you're preaching a religious message, thats not acceptable. 1* candidate
Middle, a funeral home is NOT the right place to have a POI. 1* candidate
Bottom, acceptable candidate but the most id give it as location is 3*. Your picture shows a path both sides of the POI, the picture on SV doesnt show it. It looks like its the same board but has differences which depending on how many other boards like that are nearby would cause people to wonder if its the correct one.
First two deserve to have been rejected.
The bottom one would be 50/50 depending on if reviewers were feeling confident or not in it being the same POI
The info board - your nomination - pin appears to be on a building, set well back from the sidewalk. I suspect you’re playing with the pin to get it in a different cell from another POI. And I suspect your reviewers suspected the same thing.
Footbridges aren't inherently eligible. They can be submitted as landmarks on a trail, or if they've got some unique architecture or history, but your supporting info is very lacking in details when it comes to why this should be a wayspot.
As for the other three wayspots in your other post, I'm in agreement with @Theisman-ING.
So you agree that a description using a factual mission statement that a company or organization uses on their website can be offensive. Okay. This is the US. If you don’t like the facts, change them. A 1* of the description should not reject the whole submission.
You also agree that a memorial meant to recognize people for something is not something that people should recognize because it is at a funeral home who has chosen to put that memorial there aiming to appreciate those people. Alright. We’ll call it a 50/50 submission.
As you are well aware, the info kiosk submission was not upgraded. The reviewers would know that only one exists. The reviewers can see from street view that it exists and that only one is present. If you feel the pin should be five feet closer to the road, then fix it in your review. We all know that the pin is dropped based on where you are at the time the submission process is started and that everyone’s gps is not perfect.
I like that you agree there is a cemetery in the photo and that a footbridge does not have pedestrian access. The context missing from the photo added above is that three other footbridges (each with their own markings distinct from the next) exist along the trail and are available to the reviewer as they are in game. Why change the rules for a submission because one POI requires more effort to walk to than the others?
@BorisBadenov-PGO , you didnt say it was the mission statement in the text, you wrote it first person so the result is you preached religion at the reviewers, that's not acceptable.
A funeral home is not an acceptable location, you can't call it 50/50, it's just not acceptable.
You may not like the flaws ive pointed out in your submissions, but both these candidates are instant 1* because of your failure in writing the description and choosing an ineligible location.
A bad enough description is grounds to 1* reject. It is even a specific rejection reason. Usually I do it for the many descriptions that mention Pokemon Go, Pokestops, etc. but there are other situations where the description or title are enough cause for rejection.
So you got that text from their website and you're not just trying to preach to the reviewer? That sounds like using a third party description to me in that case (as well as the issue that it still comes across as being preaching rather than being a description of what the place is).
Funeral homes are most definitely a sensitive location.
As for where the pin is placed, it is your job as a submitter to make sure this is accurate. You can move the pin anywhere within 10km of where you are when making the nomination. It's not that hard to zoom in on the map and check that the pin is actually in the correct location before confirming it.
I never said I agreed with all three rejection reasons for the bridge. Just the final one - "nomination does not meet acceptance criteria". In its current format, it doesn't meet the criteria.
You posted in the nomination improvement forum, we've tried to give you advice, and you don't seem to be taking that advice on board.
Also, Casey isn't here any more. Giffard and Tintino are the main active staff here nowadays. Tagging Casey won't achieve anything. And I'm not sure why you're wanting to try to keep your IGN confidential when it's literally in your screenshots and on your Wayfarer profile. That seems bizarre, but OK.
Yes “Other rejection Criteria” does cover whatever you feel like it covers, but what is underwritten in your statement is that a generic description saying nothing (which would include most submissions) should be 1* submissions. “Let the dogs run” for a dog park, “Let the kids play” for a playground, or “place of worship” for a church should be rejected under your premise. What’s being stated here is that providing a description where the visitor actually gets information about the site is a bad thing.
Your final two points are important ones here, thank you. I was not looking for improvement suggestions but rather a direct conversation with an admin, which is why NianticCasey was tagged. The IGN’s being kept confidential are not my own. I have proof that particular players have negatively impacted (taken advantage of) the wayfarer system before, and my suspicion is that they are continuing to do so.
You can't claim that reviewers are tanking your submissions without actually showing your entire submissions. More likely they were just not good, with insufficient supporting info. You already stated that you copied text from a third party site for one of them without credit. Your photo for the sports field isn't that great. So the "perfectly good submissions" you want an investigation for are NOT perfectly good. It's really that simple. There's no basis for investigating anything at all.
This is the exact scenario that replays over and over every time someone wants to blame reviewers. And 99.99% of the time, it's the poor or borderline submissions to blame.
It is not even "other rejection criteria". There is a specific "text quality" category with title or description" as a reason when you 1* to reject. I don't use "other rejection criteria" when there is a specific reason to reject. I would not reject any of the examples you have for text quality as they are fine.
You just seem to want to lash out because your submissions get rejected, some for good reason and others because of the quality of your nomination. The funeral home is a sensitive location so it should not be approved no matter what you put in your nomination.
If you just put "house or worship" for the Quaker Meeting House, it would have been fine and would likely have gotten more votes to approve from people that were not familiar with what they are.
‘I posted in the nomination improvement forum, and I am not looking for nomination improvement. All I want to do is complain to an admin, and there is no formal way to do that, because they don’t want to hear about my subpar submissions getting rejected, but I don’t care what they do and don’t want, this is all the reviewers’ fault.’
And furthermore I shall complain elsewhere that everyone in the forum is toxic and terrible and just want to reject everything
The Radnor Friends is easily fixable, baseball field as well. The bridge is something that could happen, but I wouldn't expect to be an automatic pass even after clean up. The park sign is debatable, it looks remarkably similar to the one in the system already and is in close proximity. If your goal is simply adding to the database, I guess go for it? But if your goal is adding active poi to any of the current games this seems high effort for low to no reward.
The memorial at funeral home? Let's just say that if we applied OPs criteria for punishment to submitters, OP would likely be facing a suspension for that. It's just disrespectful and gross.
If you just want to vent, hey, that's human and understandable but maybe don't subject the folks here to your rants if you don't actually want feedback. Make a tiktok or something.