Please don‘t put any effort into the things you do?

Every purpose that fulfills the criteria, that got a good picture and a description and shows the object on the surrounding (picture) and that it is safe, becomes declined here. No matter if it is culturally significant or historically significant. No matter if it is not a duplicate, or a place „people meet“. 

Whenever someone tries, to put a little effort into the purposes (picture, description, info, value, safety) to bring a bit quality back into the game, seems to have a bad position here. Very sad. 

If you ask, what was the problem, you might get just a far-fetched answer that explains nothing and is mostly  completely beyond the reality. And even if you might make it even better, putting even more info, doing the wished changes, it doesn’t matter. They become declined for no-reason. 

On the other hand, you work yourself through thousands of other purposes and detect, that every little mass-object, fake-spot and „Pokémon“-related title gets through without problem. You become ask to edit a few things. (Is this Pokémon related tihh thele better, or the other?) 

So you find billions common street signs, billions of stones without a meaning, billions of trashbins, common decorations on private grounds. Spots that don’t even exist, spots placed dangerously at highways or places not reachable. Objects that go completely against criteria and against common sense. It even seems, that the most people don’t even make the effort to read carefully and really bringing a value into the things. No: it is easier to directly decline and just let through, what puts others in danger or what i can place in my own flat.

It is a big mess and really a shame for everyone here, that really works through the nominations carefully or putting effort for new wayspots.

The game is full of uninteresting, crappy  fake spots, no-descriptions and low quality pictures. Is this the goal? Why then having a guideline? 

Just put a low quality picture of a mainstream mass object, another trashbin, every single common gravestone of a graveyard and please never put effort into something, because it’s guaranteed you will become declined. Great system! Congratulations. 

Just a tiny example.

Where is now the difference between this, what made it’s way?:

and this you declined

blob:https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/e9a1034e-5762-4afb-9f84-6faa39fc5221 There was an error displaying this embed. blob:https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/3028705c-939c-4f70-9106-09e01eb73130 There was an error displaying this embed.

OR

Why this is allowed, when it’s against the guideline to use Names referring to Pokémon?

AND

Why this one here is a good choice?:

blob:https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/24493e63-954e-43b0-9744-67b6d305eb19 There was an error displaying this embed.

How it works here, it is a bunch of no-sense decisions. 

Comments

  • JohnCandysGhost-INGJohnCandysGhost-ING Posts: 33 ✭✭

    Whenever I see people complain about not being able to get wayspots approved, I usually conclude that person doesn't understand what makes a good wayspot. I've gotten 22 approved in a little over a year of playing. I've only had a couple kicked back for dumb reasons and they later were approved when I resubmitted.

  • Stribock-PGOStribock-PGO Posts: 7 ✭✭
    edited August 2020

    @JohnCandysGhost-ING

    Sorry but you just say blame yourself, but this explains not, why on one hand a similar or even less qualified nomination with additionaly only bare minimum of description goes through and while a comparable or higher quality nomination is rejected.

    The point is this happens, results ingame and here on page are proof.

    Check this out from showcase. Is this the quality that should be described as outstanding approval?

    No more words to this.

    Post edited by Stribock-PGO on
  • Draakjelein-PGODraakjelein-PGO Posts: 10 ✭✭
    edited August 2020

    @JohnCandysGhost-ING

    The opposite is the fact. Spots that are completely within the guideline and with good quality become declined. Pictures show it. Just because you haven’t kicked off, doesn’t mean others act in a right way. And if you was able, good luck. But If you work correctly you shouldn’t have a reason to respond, right?

    Furthermore the issue is known.

    Your comment doesn’t change it or make proof it’s the opposite. So, if you have nothing to add, that tells the opposite, or is helpful, why you respond? If you work correctly, this announcement is not directed to you. The opposite.

    You could have asked „show me which ones became declined“ to check and make proof, if the text here is just a „complain“. But you missed it, there was just time to add a senseless comment. And already this underlines all.

    Post edited by Draakjelein-PGO on
  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 5,063 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Please only post here with one account. Using multiple accounts to support your argument will get you banned from the forums.

  • Draakjelein-PGODraakjelein-PGO Posts: 10 ✭✭

    @TheFarix-PGO I have !one! Account. Do I miss something, or do you miss a point? Let it check.

  • Draakjelein-PGODraakjelein-PGO Posts: 10 ✭✭

    @Stribock-PGO I agree in this point. Even if I didn’t mean the wayspot example you have shown. This one is a Wayspot completely okay. I am talking about obviously low quality and fake locations, and the missed balance between the one that goes through and the other they decline. There’s no sense behind it.

    And this is a fact and known issue. It’s not about my own taste, to rate a spot you should be neutral and move within the guideline/ rules. That’s all. But these points obviously are missed by many.

  • Stribock-PGOStribock-PGO Posts: 7 ✭✭
    edited August 2020

    @TheFarix-PGO I am my very own person....

    When this is the way nominations are treated as well, good luck and have fun for the future.

    I didn't see any valuable arguments until but was degraded to an alter ego.

    @Draakjelein-PGO I didn't say this showcase example is ilegible but is this the quality that is a good example? It is an open green with a lamp. There is no singular object in focus but this ordinary lamp and one of a row of seats.

    Post edited by Stribock-PGO on
  • JohnCandysGhost-INGJohnCandysGhost-ING Posts: 33 ✭✭

    You do realize the showcase wayspots are just randomly picked, right? The spot shown is a soccer field, a 5* candidate with a 3* photo, why shouldn't it be a wayspot?

  • JohnCandysGhost-INGJohnCandysGhost-ING Posts: 33 ✭✭
    edited August 2020

    My comment was just my opinion on the subject and I wasn't trying to change the world with it. My personal experience is that often people who complain about how bad the reviewing system is are simply making bad submissions and I understand why they were rejected.

    Are there issues that could be better with wayfarer? Sure, absolutely. Is it impossible or even difficult to get quality submissions approved? No, I don't find that to be the case at all.


    The example you gave was rightfully declined, it doesn't meet criteria to be a wayspot. The approved example meets criteria as a sculpture, although it sure looks like it might be on private residential property and I would need more information to determine whether it should be a wayspot or not.

  • Stribock-PGOStribock-PGO Posts: 7 ✭✭
    edited August 2020

    Yeah I understand it is automatic as all the fancy functions that mute raters, detect rating-systems when the system is a major approach of nominations on private ground and so on.

    As I stated before I don't say it is ilegible. I say it's design is a horrible reference for showcase, as people take this as reference for eligeble and good qualfied (4*+) wayspots.

    I would say it would be better to add an information to showcase, how these spots might have been improved and how this one should have been rated.

    There are 2 statements in guidlines that make this photo 2* for me and further ratings as "optical unique" also 1-2*.

    General: Nominations should focus an identifiable, central object with cultural or historical value.

    - Landscapes (open field with trees) do not fulfill this -true?

    - Mass produced or generic elements disqualify as central element (field-lamp, bank... true?)

    And now the phrase specialy for sports areas.

    - Sports areas with a shield or location marker should included this element as central element to the nomination picture.

    When I sum up both guidlines it is max a 3* overall rating.

    Picture: 2

    Name: 5

    Historical/cultural relevance: 4

    Opticaly unique: 1

    Position: ? (There is probably a main entrance or position marker?)

    This is my honest opinion based on the guidelines.

    I respect this spot as overall acceptable, but am disappointed when I see better performances rejected, bare of any reasonable Feedback.

    Also I get the feeling that noone realy wants to discuss how stuff might be improved. (Isn't this the channel for discussing nomination improvement?)

  • JohnCandysGhost-INGJohnCandysGhost-ING Posts: 33 ✭✭
    edited August 2020

    Overall, 4-5*, title 5*, historic/cultural 3*, uniqueness 3-4*, pedestrian access 5*

    People seem to struggle with what the star ratings mean

    3* is a neutral rating, 1* definitely no, 5* definitely yes, 2* probably no, 4* probably yes

    If any category is a 1*, you should reject the submission outright.


    You're never giving a rating on the photo, you're asked to rate the submission overall. A terrible photo can be a reason to 1* the submission, but you're not rating the photo itself.

  • Stribock-PGOStribock-PGO Posts: 7 ✭✭

    Yeah I don't rate the photo itself. I rate what I see on the photo and its compliance to rules, uncluding quality, forbidden content, missing content.

    Title, Reason and Risk assesment follows afterwards supported by the further Information provided.

    If these show me a better perspective it corrects this primary rating down or upwards.

    I do not understand uniqueness 3-4*. There is grass with trees. Any other angle or position in this area might give exactly the same impression of this location.

    Thanks for your attention.

  • JohnCandysGhost-INGJohnCandysGhost-ING Posts: 33 ✭✭

    Uniqueness is supposed to be considering how common this object is in the area. If there are many of the same thing, uniqueness goes down. Is this sports field in a complex with a dozen others? That would be a 1-2*. If it's a stand alone field or there are only a few there, uniqueness would be 4-5*, you're supposed to be rating the submitted object, not the composition of the photo.

  • Sugarstarzkill-PGOSugarstarzkill-PGO Posts: 437 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Er... if you 1* the visually unique section, it can count as a rejection for "not visually unique". I agree that several sports field that look the same can lower the rating, but if its eligible and should pass, you shouldn't go below 3* in any category. Although niantic doesn't say this explicitly, people have been getting rejection reasons for ONLY "not visually unique" ( and also "not historically significant ").

    I do think it's a confusing area. A lot of us adjusted how we rate these sections so we don't inadvertently get valid candidates rejected.

  • JohnCandysGhost-INGJohnCandysGhost-ING Posts: 33 ✭✭

    As I stated previously in this thread, a 1* in any category is reason to reject the whole submission. I probably wouldn't give anything a 1* for uniqueness because I would have already rejected it for not meeting criteria, but if I'm reviewing a single field in a complex with dozens of them, I will give it the 2* it deserves. It's fairly rare that that happens, but it does occasionally.

Sign In or Register to comment.