Niantic, please teach people how to review nominations

13»

Comments

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,534 Ambassador
    edited June 2022

    To be fair, I wouldn't mind Niantic emailing everyone who rejected for text with a statement that "@" is not ineligible text, because it isn't.

    (But that's the first thing I would do to improve a rejected nomination, myself.)

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

    "When I say continuous, they're actually tight up next to each other. Clearly, nobody in their right mind could ever dream that they might be acceptable wayspots."

    Want to bet?.......

  • jokeinsurance-PGOjokeinsurance-PGO Posts: 330 ✭✭✭

    "How to handle nominations with memorial benches or plaques: Memorial benches and plaques should be treated similarly to gravestones in that they're eligible only if dedicated to a noteworthy member of a community or historical figure. The burden of proof for demonstrating that the bench is noteworthy falls to the nominator and is a great use case for the supporting information field."

    That is different than those saying on here in the forum that memorial benches are prohibited.

    Thanks!

  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I don't think anyone here thinks they are 100% prohibited. I think it's just a case of dropping the "unless they're for a notable member of the community" part because it takes too long to type. But yeah, since we never know who is reading and they may be new, posters should add that every time.

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Wow, are you ever going to be angry when your memorial bench submissions get rejected.

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 3,388 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • cixerona-INGcixerona-ING Posts: 44 ✭✭

    Guess I'm done trying to help niantic. Not about to be punished for following guidelines because someone gets their panties in a bunch and throws a 2 year old tantrum and basically cries and whimes when reviewers aren't accepting things they're told not too. This is essentially the same things as influencing reviewers to vote to accept poor quality and ineligible pois that aren't in line with niantics "view of high quality wayspots" because now anyone can throw a tantrum post their denied pois and reviewers will be punished for doing what they're told to do. I mean can I throw a tantrum I've had may 20 pois denied 2 were Sculpture in a public park and marked a private residence or farm. I've has historical photos that are inside a local family own store that I showed was right inside the store by standing outside and taking a photo showing the store name and you can see photos on the way inside and the poi submission shows extremely odd photographs that are in portrait holders and stamped/plaques showing they're part of the Torrington Historical societies collection donated to the store and shows Torringtons historical locations that are no longer around yet it was denied for private residence or farm/fake nomination. No instead I chose to learn what I can do yo further better these potential pois and attempt to see it through my reviewers eyes. I chose to either figure out how to make them better and resubmit or I choose to move on. I'm not going to punish someone for following rules even if they're following the outdated criteria because it's not their fault for following the guidelines that are still very vague. Yes there's some not so great reviewers but the same can be said about those who nominate. But not everyone should be punished because of one person who thinks they should be the exception to the rules. Honestly sounds really narcissistic imo. Down vote report if you'd like doesn't hurt me any because I know alot of the people in here have directly attempted to help and they're being punished for doing what they're supposed to do. And as for the person whose taking action on those who unfortunately came across this person's nominations and didn't find it to fit criteria based on the rejection criteria that you yourself and your Co moderation team and the niantics team have posted should make sure the reviewers your punishing should have a history of rejecting high quality pois and not just un supported low quality pois that are listed under the rejection criteria prior to punishing them for the companies failure and those who post the amas and rules for not clarifying and removing graveyards and gravestones/Memorial benches that are for just anyone including those who aren't well known or public figures from the rejection criteria. Otherwise I'm sure every single reviewer have at some point rejected a tomb stone that had no supporting information that shows its of a well known local or public figure etc, or random benches. I mean recently today I had a local public picnic area that had signage and permanently fixated to the ground denied as well as a local Memorial bench that was for a well known Gym Teacher whose won many awards and achievements and was published in many MANY news articles and I showed all of this information yet was denied yet this person had no supporting information yet cries and whines over it and basically is harassing reviewers to force reviewers to do what he wants because if they don't you'll just punish them. Sorry for the rant and although I have never seen the nominations in my life I cannot say I wouldn't have reject some of them others I would have accepted but like one other person who went through saying which ones they would reject and the ones that they would have accepted I would have a similar view. However the criteria has changed a few times in the past year and since half are from 2020 and some 2021 there's a good chance that reviewers were going off a different understanding of what was accepted and rejection criteria which wasn't as clear as it is now ans even now is Still very vague. That and maybe you should try adding better supplemental information on some of those maybe they would have been accepted. But again some of those I agree shouldn't have been denied however if this had been 2020 I can't tell you that my opinion would be the same since rules were way more vague back then.

  • Thanks for your valuable inputs, I'll surely take up your suggestions. Based on the content of the discussion, I will be closing it for future comments. I appreciate your understanding!

This discussion has been closed.