Absolutely Frustrating

I started reviewing some weeks ago, so I can earn upgrades for wayspots I intend to submit. After reviewing a lot, now I have already submitted several wayspots myself and earned two upgrades. I used the upgrades and both wayspots got rejected by the community. The reasons why it got rejected are ridiculous and it is really frustrating. Between other reasons both were mentioned to be explicit inappropriate locations.

I know there's the problem with the misleading translation.

But even if it is about the location, and not because they think it's explicit, it is just not fair. I live in Germany, like most of the medieval cities in Europe the oldtown center is an restricted traffic area. There are no sidewalks just because there is no place. Cars of residents are parking or driving on the same street where also pedestrians walk. This is normal, it works and it is not inappropriate. There is an elementary school and also a kindergarten in the old town center. Not a problem and also totally safe, but I suppose an US citizen wouldn't believe that just because it is not common in the USA.

I used an appeal for one of them which is the church of a Christian community (seventh day aventist).

It's a small community and their 'church' is located in the ground floor of a normal building. But there is a sign on the wall in plain sight and if you check on Google you will immediately find the community (but I suppose I'm the only idiot doing that while reviewing).

So maybe it got rejected because someone didn't like the religion or it was rejected because someone thought there is no sidewalk. I have no idea. I just made an appeal explained my point of view and now wait for an answer/decision.

Meanwhile I upgraded another wayspot that I submitted and it got again rejected for similar reasons. For this one I'm not able to make an appeal because my last appeal is just 2 weeks ago.

This is very frustrating, especially when you see what other new wayspots appear on the map.

So what I suggest is that:

if reviewers reject a wayspot they should have to explain why, in their own words.

So if someone keeps rejecting everything for whatever reason it shouldn't be to easy. Right now it is much easier to immediately reject a wayspot than it is to actually review it.

Glad to hear your thoughts on this

Tagged:

Comments

  • 29andCounting-PGO29andCounting-PGO Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Just so you know, no one in the US reviews nominations from Europe. Although your nominations were probably good, there’s always room for improvement (photo, description, etc) If you show us the nominations we can give feedback.

  • Schduard-PGOSchduard-PGO Posts: 4 ✭✭

    Thank you for the quick response and the clarification. So here is the nomination for the seventh day aventist community 'church'

    1.Submission Photo

    2. Supporting Photo


    Adventisten Gemeinde Friedberg


    Gemeindezentrum der 7. Tag Adventisten


    Das Gemeindehaus befindet sich im verkehrsberiuhigten Bereich der Friedberger Altstadt

  • 29andCounting-PGO29andCounting-PGO Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The only thing I can think about the church is place the pin at the entrance. Maybe reviewers thought the parking lot wasn’t safe? Maybe someone else has some ideas.

  • Schduard-PGOSchduard-PGO Posts: 4 ✭✭

    Thank you for the quick response and the clarification. So here is the nomination for the seventh day aventist community 'church'


    Adventisten Gemeinde Friedberg

    Gemeindezentrum der 7. Tag Adventisten

    Das Gemeindehaus befindet sich im verkehrsberiuhigten Bereich der Friedberger Altstadt

    (50337566 , 8756327)

    Submission Photo

    Supporting Photo

    (50337566 , 8756327)

  • Minkz8-PGOMinkz8-PGO Posts: 22 ✭✭

    If I would see this, I would have doubts myself. This isn't a traditional church building and as someone not from the area I wouldn't know what this is and therefore doubt to approve this. (I'm from Belgium and get nominations from Germany at times too). Where is the entrance to the building? Isn't that more obvious or more welcoming than a sign on a wall that doesn't mean anything to someone who doesn't know.

  • NastyNags69-PGONastyNags69-PGO Posts: 31 ✭✭

    If I saw this while reviewing I'd be leaning towards marking it as fake. The main sign to the church looks photoshopped, and it's hard to see in the supporting photo for those who are on mobile devices.

  • The26thDoctor-PGOThe26thDoctor-PGO Posts: 4,673 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You fell foul of lazy reviewers who believe you have to present the greatest submission they have ever seen while sitting on their golden thrones and dismissing anything they deem unworthy.

    It's a church. It took me 5 seconds to search for Adventisten Gemeinde Friedberg and see it exists.

    You'll probably have to get the church plaque to show in your support better though rather than expect people to review properly unfortunately.

  • The26thDoctor-PGOThe26thDoctor-PGO Posts: 4,673 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Bumptious, self satisfied reviewers.

  • rodensteiner-INGrodensteiner-ING Posts: 1,687 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It is a church, just google it.

    I do understand that there are people out there that live outside of anything religious.

    As you probly dont know: There are free Churches in Germany that are so poor that they have to reside in Industrial or Commerical Zones. Not every church has the money.

    So next time you see a contrib of a church, check google and check their website.


  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 3,429 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @rodensteiner-ING Ideally the submitter should provide a link in the supporting information. Why should dozens of people make the effort (and many of them won't) when one person with a vested interest in the outcome can do it rather than expecting dozens of people to go look something up on their own.

  • GazzaMor-PGOGazzaMor-PGO Posts: 78 ✭✭

    From what I can see of your submission there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. However "Milestone" in Aberystwyth is a perfect wayspot, I believe generated by Niantic, the problem with it is that it is on a emergency exit ramp for ambulances. So Niantic can not even keep their own criteria and expect us to keep them updated with what in Norewgian is called "dugnad". Keep going my sympathies. Just to illustrate your frustration further:

    Duplicate and then approved

  • The26thDoctor-PGOThe26thDoctor-PGO Posts: 4,673 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Ideally they should but also ideally the reviewer should be willing to take 5 seconds to check if they don't.

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 3,429 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @The26thDoctor-PGO If a reviewer grabs a link from supporting information they already know that the link takes them to the right destination and they don't have to do much work. If they have to search they have to fire up another browser window, search, figure out which link (if any) is the right one for the thing they're looking for, guess wrong and go back to click a different link and hope... it's much more work than if the submitter provides an accurate link.

    From the reviewer's side of the house, why should I make the effort to find key information that the submitter didn't bother supplying? If they can't be bothered why should I do their work for them?

    From the submitter side I know that I should provide reviewers with the best information I can because the easier it is for them to understand my submission the more likely it is that they will accept it. It's in my best interests to present my submission as well as I can to increase my chances.

    From the efficiency side, why not have one person spend 30 seconds rather than expecting dozens of people to spend that much time or more? Why slow down the queues even more?

Sign In or Register to comment.