Denunciar avaliadores?

AhaMcCoy-PGOAhaMcCoy-PGO Posts: 21 ✭✭
edited December 2021 in Brazil Wayfarer Challenge

Como faço para denunciar avaliadores por não fazerem seu trabalho corretamente?

Minhas indicações continuam sendo reprovadas por coisas que não fazem sentido. Como uma arte de rua, feita com material reciclável (pneus) no formato de um poço, foi rejeitada por ser "Residência Particular ou Fazenda" e "Exposição temporária ou sazonal". A calçada faz parte da via pública, não é particular. E a arte está na calçada por mais de 2 anos. Nas fotos pode-se notar o desgaste pelo tempo. Se o elemento fosse temporário, como teria se desgastado com o tempo? A utra indicação foi uma ciclofaixa que foi rejeitada por "não ter acesso a pedestres" e (pasmem) "ser um elemento natural". Apesar das fotos mostrarem o contrário, alem do fato de que um dos rótulos possíveis para o pokéstop é "Transporte > Ciclovia". Por que teria um rótulo de 'Transporte > Ciclovia" se elas não fossem elegíveis? E inclusive no final da rua existe uma academia a céu aberto, que é um pokéstop, confirmado que a rua possui acesso a pedestres e é um local elegível.


Eu tenho certeza que tais avaliadores apenas rejeitam tudo que eles avaliam, por ser mais rápido que avaliar, para assim receberem suas aprimoramentos. Eu fico esperando um mês para minhas indicações serem avaliadas, e elas acabam sendo rejeitadas sem motivo real. O que é injusto. Eu ainda tenho o ID das rejeições, e realmente gostaria de denunciar tais avaliadores pois tenho medo que novamente minhas indicações sejam avaliadas por péssimos aviladores como eles.

Obrigado.

IDs:

Poço: sKCSsx8C9tWxyqYbC0RZ8+A1mrrno7ovfL0pXnHbSIs=

Ciclofaixa: WacFJP8gibcBF1n0esupt7rdS3HMrr+6D/0K0DFwrxg=

Images:



[EDITED:]


@WheelTrekker-ING well that's not the point.

The bike path was rejected due "Pedestrian Access" and "Natural Feature".

The photos show the opposite. There are even benches for pedestrians, and if you zoom, you'll the that at the end of the path there's an outdoor gym. That gym is a valid pokéstop:


Both gym and the spot I suggested are 140m/465ft apart, and they're in the safest spots in the street. That's the only spot I could place the bike path pin, because there's a school 100m/325ft in the north, and after that there's a church and at the end of the bike path there's a graffiti, and those are also pokéstops. So that's the only free space I can add the bike path wayspot.

It's "a great place for exercise", both for bike and run, a "permanent physical, tangible, and identifiable place or that placemarks an area", also "safe and publicly accessible by pedestrians" and the suggestion had "accurate information in the title, description, and photo".


Now about the wishing well... that's a whole new discussion. Because it's about the ambiguous sidewalks criteria, and the fact that sometimes it's valid and sometimes not. I'm going to make a post only about that later, but in resume, it's allowed to have wayspots in places like this "church" near my home and this Christian Congregation in the Brooklyn - NY:



They are really really close to the neighbor houses, and for sure players stand in front of those houses to access the wayspots. You can only "legally" say that players will not do that since the wayspot is in front of the church/congregation. But we all know that's technically impossible.

"Well", I'll elaborate it better later.


Peace!

Post edited by AhaMcCoy-PGO on

Comments

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 2,532 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If you look at the list in the "What it is?" question, you'll find things like schools. It's not a list of valid nomination, only a question to categorize the object.

  • AhaMcCoy-PGOAhaMcCoy-PGO Posts: 21 ✭✭
    edited December 2021

    @WheelTrekker-ING well that's not the point.

    The bike path was rejected due "Pedestrian Access" and "Natural Feature".

    The photos show the opposite. There are even benches for pedestrians, and if you zoom, you'll the that at the end of the path there's an outdoor gym. That gym is a valid pokéstop:


    Both gym and the spot I suggested are 140m/465ft apart, and they're in the safest spots in the street. That's the only spot I could place the bike path pin, because there's a school 100m/325ft in the north, and after that there's a church and at the end of the bike path there's a graffiti, and those are also pokéstops. So that's the only free space I can add the bike path wayspot.

    It's "a great place for exercise", both for bike and run, a "permanent physical, tangible, and identifiable place or that placemarks an area", also "safe and publicly accessible by pedestrians" and the suggestion had "accurate information in the title, description, and photo".

  • AhaMcCoy-PGOAhaMcCoy-PGO Posts: 21 ✭✭

    Still that doesn't answer my questions. The point is that the cycle path was rejected for not having access to pedestrian, yet you can see in the photo that's not the case. Also you can also see that there's an outdoor gym in the end of the street. That's a valid pokéstop:

    The gym and the spot i suggested are 140m(155ft) apart.The reason I picked that place because, like the outdoor gym, it's in a safe place, and it's far away from a school that's in the north (100m/332ft away).

    The place I suggested fits in the "A great place for exercise" criteria. Biking and running. It's a "physical, tangible, and identifiable place that placemarks an area", it's "safe and publicly accessible by pedestrians" and it had "accurate information in the title, description, and photo". Yet it was marked as "Not Accessible by Pedestrians" and... ahem... "Natural Feature".

    The other suggestion is another story. I was actually making a post about this whole "sidewalk" issue and that how the criteria about that is ambiguous. You see, wayspots like this

    are accepted by the criteria, because they're "churches", but people will clearly stop in front of the other houses, since they're really close each other. And it's not only over here. The Brooklyn Christian Congregation (in the Brooklyn ) is also a wayspot:


    The thing is, you can "legally" say that people will only stop in front of the church/congregation, so it's allowed, but apparently if any piece of art is in the sidewalk, it's not allowed because it's in front of a private propriety. But technically there's no difference, and I'd rather stop in front of the red house than watch 15 people preying. So the church, congregation and any street art will make people stay in front of houses. Well I'll elaborate it better once I make the post about the sidewalks.

     

  • AhaMcCoy-PGOAhaMcCoy-PGO Posts: 21 ✭✭

    @WheelTrekker-ING well that's not the point.

    The bike path was rejected due "Pedestrian Access" and "Natural Feature".

    The photos show the opposite. There are even benches for pedestrians, and if you zoom, you'll the that at the end of the path there's an outdoor gym. That gym is a valid pokéstop:

    Both gym and the spot I suggested are 140m/465ft apart, and they're in the safest spots in the street. That's the only spot I could place the bike path pin, because there's a school 100m/325ft in the north, and after that there's a church and at the end of the bike path there's a graffiti, and those are also pokéstops. So that's the only free space I can add the bike path wayspot.

    It's "a great place for exercise", both for bike and run, a "permanent physical, tangible, and identifiable place or that placemarks an area", also "safe and publicly accessible by pedestrians" and the suggestion had "accurate information in the title, description, and photo".


    Now about the wishing well... that's a whole new discussion. Because it's about the ambiguous sidewalks criteria, and the fact that sometimes it's valid and sometimes not. I'm going to make a post only about that later, but in resume, it's allowed to have wayspots in places like this "church" near my home and this Christian Congregation in the Brooklyn - NY:

    They are really really close to the neighbor houses, and for sure players stand in front of those houses to access the wayspots. You can only "legally" say that players will not do that since the wayspot is in front of the church/congregation. But we all know that's technically impossible.

    "Well", I'll elaborate it better later.


    Peace!

  • AhaMcCoy-PGOAhaMcCoy-PGO Posts: 21 ✭✭

    @WheelTrekker-ING well that's not the point.

    The bike path was rejected due "Pedestrian Access" and "Natural Feature".

    The photos show the opposite. There are even benches for pedestrians, and if you zoom, you'll the that at the end of the path there's an outdoor gym. That gym is a valid pokéstop:


  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 2,532 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Wow, Please, read what I wrote and what you've replied.

    I only stated that the "What it is?" question is not a list of eligible nominations, and you replied talking about totally different issues.

    I haven't reviewed your nominations and I didn't state anything about the rejection reasons, the location, etc... Please, don't put words in my mouth.

  • AhaMcCoy-PGOAhaMcCoy-PGO Posts: 21 ✭✭

    I could say the same. Wow, please, read what I posted and what you've replied.

    Your comment ignored everything said in the post, and pointed only one small aspect. That was rude. That's like when someone makes a big post about somehting and someone else comments "lol you said somehting". The polite thing to do in a situation like this is always give your opinion about the discussion and point the things you disagree. You didn't talk about the reviewers who "speedrun" submissions to get their upgrades as fast fast they can. Wanna talk about that?

    Like, in my opinion, reviewers should be allowed to proceed only after they type a reason to give one star. Even if it's only "it's ugly" or "it's not safe". And the person who submitted should be able to see all the reasons once they receive the rejection email. pretty sure it can be made automatically. So people will easily know why their submission was rejected, for real. And if most of reasons are things like "awerawrtw" (mayde the speedrunners), the player should be able to counterclaim the rejections, and the reviewers should receive some suspension due not taking the review seriously.

    Also we all are aware of that "What it is?" thing. They even changed it now.

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 2,532 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I wanted to start talking only about one thing, there are too many items in your posts, so I thought that it would be better to start by clarifying one part in order to later focus on the main issues little by little.

  • AhaMcCoy-PGOAhaMcCoy-PGO Posts: 21 ✭✭

    Yet you still didn't focus on the main issue.

    Like I said, this is a discussion. You didn't discuss.

    So maybe prove me wrong, sport?

  • ONKEL82-PGOONKEL82-PGO Posts: 4 ✭✭

    Isso tem acontecido com todas as indicações que faço atualmente. Algumas por placa de carro em uma fotografia que não há nenhum veículo, outras por outros critérios de rejeição e sempre são pontos passíveis de aprovação. Muitas vezes observo imagens que são aprovadas com baixa qualidade, e quando posto uma foto boa é rejeitada.

    Indiquei um grafite aqui no bairro e foi rejeitado por outros critérios de rejeição, isso desestimula o processo de indicação. Vejo que ou existe uma tentativa de "vingança" por alguém ter uma parada rejeitada ou realmente o pessoal está fazendo por fazer.

    Eu acabei por desistir de fazer indicações aqui na região ou qualquer outro local.

  • Gaiewski-PGOGaiewski-PGO Posts: 1 ✭✭

    Estou tendo bastante problemas com isso também. A maioria dos meus pedidos e solicitações são negados por motivos que não tem nada a ver, muitas vezes é por preguiça dos avaliadores. Falam de fotos com pouca qualidade ou localização irregular (acredito que não passou de 5 a 10 metros da localização do Google, ainda mais pelo tamanho do prédio que tive que ir do outro lado da rua para poder fotografar. Coisas sem sentido, Olha está cada vez mais difícil, já vi postes sendo aprovados com um desenho de dragonite feito à lápis. Complicado quem se dedica paga pelos ruins, e cidades como a minha que é pequena são as que mais sofrem com este descaso!

    Este é um dos casos onde me foi dito que a imagem é de má qualidade! Acho que é possível identificar o Órgão Público!

    E aqui a localização não condiz! Isso que solicitei o pedido da Porta do hospital! Só as fotos tive de tirar distância Para tirar devido o tamanho do prédio!

    Fora outras que ainda aguardo análise!

    Outra Coisa que gostaria é que sempre que houvesse alguma rejeição todas pudessem ter um campo de contestação para que fosse refeita a análise e comprovada a situação, pois somente algumas oferecem isso!

  • FurtadoV-PGOFurtadoV-PGO Posts: 37 ✭✭

    As fotos nem são os problemas aí e sim o franco critério de rejeição... Hospitais, corpos de bombeiros, postos de polícia são INELEGÍVEIS. Sugiro dar uma revisada na página que detalha as regras

  • Annddc-PGOAnnddc-PGO Posts: 1

    Ah mas isso tem sido um fato recorrente mesmo. Houve 1 solicitação minha que é de um quiosque público, inclusive há uma pokeparada igual a este não muito longe do local, e rejeitaram a minha solicitação alegando ser região de fazenda/ propriedade privada, ou seja, sequer deram o trabalho de avaliar corretamente.

  • ptcmariano-PGOptcmariano-PGO Posts: 1 ✭✭

    Também sugiro dar uma revisada na página que detalha as regras ... foque em fazer um bom trabalho para adicionar wayspots, sem essa de ficar pedindo de novo, que pode causa ban ... e muito cuidado, nunca coloquem hospital, corpos de bombeiros, postos de polícia!

Sign In or Register to comment.