A Historic Bunker is a Natural Feature? A New Low for Appeals
ScrawnyMeowth1-PGO
Posts: 149 ✭✭✭✭
So I submitted an old WWII-era pillbox in Hawaii when I was there on vacation this year. It got rejected for Pedestrian Access and Location Inappropriate, which was clearly wrong since it was located at the end of a popular hiking trail. I appealed it, and got a decision last night. Apparently the bunker is "Connected to a mountain" and is a "natural feature." How does that make any sense???
Is anything connected to a natural feature automatically ineligible? Is a trail marker on a mountain ineligible? Do they think that this bunker just grew out of the ground naturally? Do they realize that "Natural Feature" isn't even a reason to reject a nomination anymore?? None of this makes any sense and I think this deserves some visibility.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not here to debate the eligibility of this nomination. If I wanted feedback then I would post in the appropriate channels. I simply want your opinions on whether this was a logical reason for rejection.
Comments
Reason is dumb.
But was that the best picture you could have made? I honestly would have declined it for having a bad picture if the description was also mediocre.
I’d honestly have resubmitted it with a better picture instead of wasting an appeal on it.
However like I said in my own topic, the whole voting system is messed up, there need to be better guidelines. I have a lot of mine be denied and when I nominate them again they get accepted. It’s just a random lottery system.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not here to debate the eligibility of this nomination. If I wanted feedback then I would post in the appropriate channels. I simply want your opinions on whether this was a logical reason for rejection.
Also, I can't really go back and take a better photo of something 3000-4000 miles away from me
that reason is dumb. it is very obviously manmade.
although it does seem obvious that the reviewer wasn't paying attention and/or was rushing.
also, I've noticed a lot of appeals rejected with that bit about needing a sign. i didn't think signs were a requirement for poi's?
Disagree, I can see what it is, I doubt a better picture can be taken safely and make it known what it is. But yes, the reason is dumb
Yes, the appeals team has been making some bad judgements as of late. Someone else had submitted a cairn with a mile marker on it, and they got it rejected for almost the same reason as you: it's a mountain. Cairns are man-made, and many of them are used as trail markers, especially in countries outside of the United States.
Your photo does show something that is man-made, albeit weathered and graffitied, but you usually don't see a mountain with smooth edges like that in your photo.
With the cairn, most believed that whoever got that appeal didn't do their research, so it's very likely there are some rushing through appeal reviews just to get the queue down, or they're lazy.
Lastly, I had an appeal rejected for third-party photo, even though I took the photo. What happened was that after it was rejected by the community, I posted here in the forums to see if there was anything I could include to improve the nomination, and I posted the photo here. Therefore, if you do a Google search of the image, it does show up in the search results, but the link is to my forum post. Less than 2 days after posting about the rejected appeal, it was approved, and I haven't heard back in regards to whether the reviewer was going to be made aware of this, given a warning, removed from appeals, etc. So, don't expect there to be a resolution any time soon.
what the hell man...
I think we have an example of the randomness use of copy and paste text
does this sound familiar
Update: last night I received another email, this time saying that my appeal was accepted! Thank you Niantic for correcting this mistake 👍
The Appeals review flow continues to puzzle me: the community decides to reject a candidate, Niantic upholds that decision on appeal, then the original nominator posts here and that decision is overturned, or
The community decides to reject, Niantic overturns the decision and accept, the community who voted to reject receives a threatening email as a result, and the Wayspot appears on the map forever until it's manually removed although the original DNMC rejections are not a removal reason
With so many appeals being called into question, why do people who voted against a candidate get nastygrams when the Appeals reviewers are frequently the ones who are "doing it wrong" and should "go read the criteria again"?
Interesting…I also have some appeals I would like to be overturned because they were ridiculous reasons given by the appeals team.
I have had an odd appeal reason come back for me too.
As shown in the image below, it states that a signboard would help approve this nomination. Now previous Niantic guidance on this matter is linked as follows:
Which states that Allotments/Community gardens were acceptable without signage as long as proof is included within the supporting statement, which I did link to the council website of which the allotments overview falls. (Unfortunately not all allotments in the city where I live have signage due to different councils doing different things).
It seems in my city/area it is hit or miss whether allotments get approved without a sign. I have had some approved with ease and then others that have taken numerous nominations. It's always clear on Google Satellite View that these are allotments but it can be a challenge to get approved.
It's just a bit frustrating when those Niantic reviewers who are looking at Appeals don't refer to previous guidance and yet link to content guidance which doesn't even mention anything on this particular subject.
Fair enough if the Niantic reviewer outright said this was not eligible and does not adhere to criteria and therefore, rejected it on that basis but the below is not particularly helpful at all. I do wonder if the Niantic reviewer even looked at the supporting info for this appeal!
Sorry, rant over haha.
I think there's clear evidence that the appeal reviewers are given inadequate training. I suspect it's a financial decision.
@AdnyEdge-PGO yes Allotments are hit and miss. It is so variable where you live whether the council provide nice signage or the allotment committee make the signs or not. It is so obvious on satellite view that it is an allotment. So there really shouldn’t be a problem.
That they then get denied by appeals with a response like this is poor, and rubs salt in the wound.
I suspect they hired contractors and didn’t train them at all. I’m thrilled the appeal times are quick now, but they also need to be accurate.
Even when there is a nice sign and a website, it can still take a few tries, like the kne I got through did
Thanks @Elijustrying-ING
It's even weirder that I have previously successfully appealed an allotments nomination without a sign that was rejected by the community and then approved on appeal by Niantic before. It would just be nice to have some consistency from the appeal reviewers.
I'll try and resubmit this nomination again when I'm next in the area. Hopefully it won't be rejected as a natural feature again!