Ok, today's latest rejection "other rejection criteria"
Jasonpbyu-PGO
Posts: 22 ✭✭
There is a very large walking trail in my local neighborhood park. There are no signs, no trail makers, nothing. However there are a few of these sitting areas with lights. This has been rejected for "photo quality" and "temporary or seasonal display", several on here coached me on how to improve my wording and instead of "sitting area with lights" to highlight the wooden pillars and lights and to note that the lights are not seasonal; nor are they temporary. Once again rejected. This time "other rejection criteria".
Do I need to just give up and accept that people are being ridiculous with their votes? This is a brand new community, there are over 800 homes. This is a huge walking trail in the park. But because the area is not a pergola with a roof, then it seems that they keep rejecting.
We have one stop within 1 mile of us, and it's the playground equipment which I had to submit twice to get approved.
I never imagined it would be this hard to get stops approved in new areas with no stops anywhere. If the park had a stupid trailer marker, i'm told that no matter how plain and generic it is, it would be approved, but since they don't, then it is declined 5 or 6 times now.
Thoughts? Give up? Keep pushing? Appealing is not allowed any more.
Comments
Yeah, you probably need to let this one go. Niantic said in a recent forum post that park and plaza entrances without signs can be accepted as anchors for the park, but most reviewers will probably never see that. If you have a version where you nominated this as the park with the seating area as the anchor, you could appeal to Niantic whenever appeals are turned back on.
Like JillJilyJabadoo-PGO wrote, the only chance it would have to get accepted is if it would be nominated as an anchor of this park area (you must name it "Upland Crossing Park Area" or something like that, so it will be clear that you're nominating a park and not benches) - and it might still have very difficult time, as you have a few places like that in this park and reviewers will see mostly generic benches.
But if you make it clear that you're nominating a park (in title and description, and mentioning in support text that it's an anchor for park, as there is no clear entrance sign for park), it might have more chance of being accepted. And please don't mention anywhere any game references, as it's not relevant to nomination and only make some reviewers more reasons to look for rejection (it's a bit sad but true).
And if you would still get rejection from reviewers when you nominate it as anchor for park , you could appeal this nomination (when it will be nominated as an anchor for a park, not this version from this thread). Nantic mentioned that they want to bring back appeals at the end of March/beginning of April - as soon as they look throught alle previous appeals, so it's only a matter of time when you could appeal again.
So trying to clearly nominate it as anchor for park (title and description must say it clearly) is the best idea - and if you still get rejection for this nomination it's best to wait until appeals are back as it might be the best chance to get it accepted.
Good luck, I hope you will get something accepted soon :)
Just give up. Nothing here is eligible, no matter how many threads you make about the same place. As you have been toled bt many people, "no stops here" is not a reason for accepting this nomination and may be doing more harm than good - we see it far too often.
Keep trying. The advice about the park area instead of benches is solid. It's an anchor for a park and/or walking trail and thus is completely eligible. You just need to get the right set of reviewers and the right presentation. The title is your hook and when a reviewer sees "3 pillars and 3 benches" and then a vacant landscape with exactly that, they have no idea what this is or what appeal it has, so you need to do your best to spell it out right up front.
If you plan on nominating additional areas like this in the park, figure out a good naming plan in advance to distinguish them from each other. You can use directions like South/East/North/etc., or something else creative.
Keep tweaking and keep trying!
As someone who commented on multiple threads about this same area, I’ll respond with confidence that I definitely did not tell you to resubmit these rocks. I’m pretty sure I said that they are very unlikely to go through, and that was me being polite, so I’ll be more direct: these rocks with these lights will never get approved, no matter what you title them, no matter how you describe them, no matter how well you photograph them, they are the same as a couple of benches in any other park and benches don’t get approved either.*
At least you got the playground in. But you’re going to have to wait for further development in the park (signage, roofed structures, historical markers, athletic fields) before you have additional eligible subjects.
*minor overstatement for emphasis; the rare exceptions - using criteria that these rocks lack - do not disprove the rule.
I look at that picture and it doesn't tell me anything. And by adding the "No stops anywhere here", you're sh.o.o.ting your self on the foot.
On the other side, you repeat that there's a big walking trail without signage. Go ahead and fix that! Talk to whoever is in charge and suggest them to put some signs along the path, raise some money among the Pokemon players and offer to pay them and when they have been placed, make sure that all of them are visible with photospheres and start submitting them.
That way you'll improve your neighborhood and you'll have better chances to get lots of pokestops around you. People still might argue and you might need to resubmit them more than once, but if they are official signs, you're OK.