Let's go Swimming!
BlameJamal-ING
Posts: 39 ✭✭✭
I saw a post on reddit and I thought it would be good/appropriate to discuss here also. It was the user u/rilesmcriles (wanted to credit them and I'm going to paraphrase and add my own thoughts)
So, we think we know what the guidance is on swimming pools, right? Or do we? We think Niantic has indicated to say no to community pools. Right? or Wrong?
Ok, so, the new UI flow has come out and I'm looking at some of these swimming pool nominations.
Now, if I answer all questions honestly, it will (**maybe**) go through.
Let's dig in to the flow real quick and take it one by one. Be honest in looking at the questions for a hot second.
Appropriate - Not on PRP, Not an adult location, Not on a school, Not a sensitive location, doesn't obstruct emergence operations and not a generic business - Thumbs Up
Safe - Thumbs Up
Accurate and High Quality - Photo, Title and Description as good and no abuse. Thumbs Up
Permanent and Distinct - I don't think @Glawhantojar-PGO and I can pick one up and move it. - Thumbs Up
Socialize - No brainer here, it's what I do all summer in the SE part of the USA. AND may I add... Large group (~10 - ~100)
Exercise - Get those laps in! - Thumbs Up
Explore - Could be a thumbs down here, possibly. Unless you're playing a long game of Marco Polo?
It doesn’t meet any rejection criteria and it does meet acceptance criteria. As long as the submitter doesn’t fumble the title or the pic I don’t see a reason or a category to vote negatively on.
Be honest here and tell me where the automatic denial is.
Comments
/Looks at weather
/Looks at
/Hands out popcorn to non US people
There is an incongruity between what Niantic has said about the eligibility of residential-oriented pools (specifically at hotels and apartment complexes) and the current review flow. However, Niantic did state with the launch of the new review flow that the criteria have not changed. So it is left to the individual reviewer's "best judgment" on whether to accept them or not. But there is no "right answer" here.
I would also like to point out that Niantic's current stance on pools is a concession from what we had before, which was that pools did not meet the eligibility criteria. We can assume that this is for safety concerns from Niantic's legal team and that reviewers should keep this in mind and not accept pools where there is no supervision from the facility's staff. (ex lifeguards)
What a great point! When I was reviewing before receiving the nastygram, I was marking any pool that passed the private (single family residential) property checkbox the same as Jamal did in the new review flow. At what point is a pool not safe?
If you believe that the old clarification for pools in hotels and apartment buildings is still in use, it will sound like "the location is not appropriate to play Niantic AR game", thumbs down "Appropriate" and move on. If the old clarification is no longer in use, then the place is appropriate and can be accepted.
Excuse me but, How do you "approve" a nomination with the current review flow? because you don't.
You reply to some basic questions and then it's up to Niantic to do whatever they please with it.
You can reject it based on some criteria, but Swimming pools aren't there so you can't reject them if you don't want to get a gently reminder from Niantic that you're not a good reviewer.
Some listed objects/locations in the rejection criteria meet eligibility but are still part of the rejection criteria outright which prompts it to be rejected. The new review flow does not allow for special cases discussed here and the timestamp of which criteria is (dis)continued for now is also not conveyed.
I don't know where the safety/lifeguard thing originated from but I see them frequently as a what-if response to explain why the special rejection. IMO the term 'residentially-focused' is linked to the property like most location rejections tend to be, better expressed in this old response.
I have started to review the same as both of you. If the company cares little about conveying which applies to the reviewers, I don't see why reviewers should cover their backs if they happen to misinterpret their own criteria again.
The whole argument behind "residentially focused" seems odd to me. The new review flow says
"These locations are appropriate:
Any location that is accessible publicly to pedestrians, both indoors and outdoors, is appropriate, including the following locations:
I presume that a "residentially focused" pool would be thought to be ineligible because of the limited number of people who would technically have access to it, however, the first line of the first Thumbs up/down question would debunk that rather clearly. So you would thumbs up that question and move on.
As @BlameJamal-ING said, answer the rest of the questions honestly and carry on. I see no reason to outright reject one on its face unless one of the other criteria isn't met for some reason or another.
We constantly see removal appeal threads with complaints about areas with limited access. As @Glawhantojar-PGO noted, restricted areas doesn't inherently mean ineligible.
Unless these pools are single family PRP, part of a k-12 school or clearly unsafe, they'll likely be a 👍️ from me.
Normally much like @The26thDoctor-PGO mentioned being in the UK there’s no outdoor pools to submit but I submitted two at a hotel. The quiet one isn’t great as it was tricky to find a time when there wasn’t anyone around.
I feel the photo is much better of the second one.