Case study in some recent rejections (and their curious reasons)

SiIverLyra-PGO

I'm interested to hear opinions on these recently rejected nominations, and particularly the reasons given in their rejection emails and their (ir)relevancy to the nominations. Especially in relation to the recent discussions on rejection reasons over at the General subforum.

A note on descriptions and supporting information: it's generally not in English and is a hassle to translate so I've not included them - but I will include portions where relevant, and I can translate specific cases if anyone is interested to read them.

• Nomination 1: location on Google
  • Attempt one: "All Hail the Pottery" | Main photo | Supporting photo | Rejection reasons: The real-world location of the nomination appears to be on private residential property or farm, Nomination does not appear to be permanent or appears to be a seasonal display that is only put up during certain times of the year, Photo is low quality (e.g., pitch black/blurry photos or photos taken from a car).
  • Attempt two: "Behold the Vase" | Main photo | Supporting Photo | Rejection reasons: None given in the email.
• Nomination 2: location on Google
  • Attempt one: "Bar Kochva Wall Art" | Main photo | Supporting photo | Rejection reasons: Photo is low quality (e.g., pitch black/blurry photos or photos taken from a car), Nomination does not appear to be permanent or appears to be a seasonal display that is only put up during certain times of the year, Photo appears to be tilted, sideways, or upside down.
  • Attempt two: "Abstract Wall Art" | Main photo | Supporting photo | Rejection reasons: Nomination was flagged for explicit content, Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria, The real-world location of the nomination appears to be on private residential property or farm.
• Nomination 3: location on Google | link given in supporting photo to prove location (new building that doesn't appear on Google's map)
  • "Taste of the Gold Life" | Main photo | Supporting photo | Rejection reasons: Nomination does not appear to be permanent or appears to be a seasonal display that is only put up during certain times of the year, The real-world location of the nomination appears to represent a generic store or restaurant.
• Nomination 4: location on Google
  • "Oz Building" | Main photo | Supporting photo | *Description and supporting information state that the building contains embassies; it's also easily visible on Google | Rejection reasons: Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria, Photo of the nomination appears to be of a live animal instead of a valid object, The real-world location of the nomination appears to represent a generic store or restaurant.
• Nomination 5: location on google
  • "HaMa'apil Playground" | Main photo | Supporting photo | Supporting info specifically acknowledges that the park doesn't appear on Google, but rather the sales office for the residential project the park is a part of; therefore the supporting info included the name of the project (to confirm its placement) and also noted that the location can be confirmed via comparison of the surrounding buildings seen in the supporting photo | Rejection reasons: The real-world location of the nomination appears to be on the grounds of a primary/secondary school (up to K-12) or on the premises of a child care/day care center, Photo is low quality (e.g., pitch black/blurry photos or photos taken from a car), Insufficient evidence that the nomination accurately reflects the submitted real-world location based on comparison of the submitted photo and map views.

Final notes from me:

1. Public art on outer walls of multi-family residential buildings isn't uncommon here, and nominations for them are common in Niantic's games.
2. Art painted outside of businesses is uncommon but not unheard of; POIs for that do exist; it is general knowledge that this sort of art doesn't fall under the "generic business" guideline, as long as the nomination is for the art itself.
3. Playgrounds are some of the most common POIs here and are widely accepted - so widely that it's common practice here to nominate (and give favorable reviews) to separate facilities instead for the whole playground.

Really interested to hear your opinions on these nominations/rejections.

sogNinjaman-ING

Easier to comment / keep track of comments if you submit each one as a single post.

TorvoTeratos-PGO

1. (Nom 1 & 2) It's been hard for me to learn, but you can't rely on existing waypoints to judge current guidelines as guidelines change over time. Due to a lawsuit, Niantec can't accept any waypoints on residential property or less than 40 m away from it (if not on a public gathering place), even if the nomination would otherwise meet guidelines. IE, murals, sculptures, little free libraries, etc. are not valid if they are located on private property or less than 40 m away from it. I had a rejection for this same reason that was frustrating at first.
2. (Nom 3) I'll give you that to my understanding, art inside of a business is acceptable. That one could have been rejected because it looks very newly painted (and it is advertising the business), which could signify that it's temporary/isn't proven to be permanent.
3. (Nom 5) Yes, playgrounds and parks are certainly valid! But if I zoom out to satellite view, Google does show a Kindergarten at that spot. And submissions on elementary schools are not valid.
4. (Nom 4) There has been quite a few complaints around the boards about seemingly random photos being rejected for an erroneous "live animal" reason, so that certainly does seem like a wrong reject here. An embassy does seem like it should be considered culturally relevant; however, it's not a place typically just go to visit (they require specific appointments, AFAIK), they're not gonna pass as a hotspot or local gem, and I have heard that - at least for US embassies - taking photos of embassies is a no-no and if caught you can get reprimanded or even get in trouble. I can't find that Niantec has given a specific ruling on embassies, but I did find a few user discussions where there were a lot of valid points made not to accept them.

I do think some of your "low photo quality" reasons are a bit nitpicky, but I do agree with Nom 2, attempt 1. The photo is at an extreme angle and gives it a bit of blurriness. I'm not sure why attempt 2 would be considered explicit, though - that does see erroneous. I could see someone selecting low quality photo for your Nom 5 due to that unattractive ball of light that is the sun making the photo harsh.

For "doesn't meet criteria" on Nom 2 - I have a feeling that some reviewers may select this as a catch-all for (non-abusive) 1* reviews just to make things quicker.

SiIverLyra-PGO

https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/32717#Comment_32717

1. Does that apply to apartment buildings too? I thought it only applied to single-family properties. If you apply that to apartment buildings, it makes a huge percent of urban nomination ineligible, no?
2. How could I possibly prove that it's not temporary? It's newly painted because the building itself is brand new and the business is a couple of months old. I've noted that in the supporting information.
3. But the supporting photo clearly shows that it's publicly accessible.
4. The embassies are inside the building pictured, so technically they aren't photographed. Many wayspots of other embassies already exist in-game, so locally they're not considered inappropriate.

It might be a bit difficult to properly explain. The local reviewing "rules" are very much on the lenient side; often to the point of contradicting Niantic's guidelines (a trend which I do not support, but makes reviewing a hard experience since Niantic-appropriate votes often go against the majority of votes and probably have negative effect on pro-Niantic accounts). This kind of rejections is unusually nitpicky for the local community.

TorvoTeratos-PGO

1. Yes, apartments are classified under the definition of "private residence". To my understanding, the ruling is for all private residences, not just single family homes. AFAIK there's not some loophole clause for apartments - though gathering points in apartment complexes can be valid (such as a playground within the complex, though a play structure on someone's patio wouldn't be, ofc), just like neighborhood parks can be valid if they are not reported for removal. I agree this does limit waypoints, but the point of Niantec's system isn't to put a waypoint absolutely everywhere, even if it would make the game easier/more fun for regular players just on their way to work/home.
2. I don't know, tbh. I do think this one should be eligible, though the business only being a couple months old could absolutely be hurting it - a lot of new businesses easily go under within the first year. So since the business is so young, the whole establishment and art could be considered temporary. I would either just try it again or wait for the business to prove it can stick around and try it again.
3. The playground at my local elementary school is also publicly accessible. Doesn't make it not on school grounds. If the playground is completely, totally off school grounds and 40 m away from school grounds, then a photosphere or something in your supporting information might help show that. But if it's a part of the school, then it's not valid, regardless of if it's publicly accessible or not.
4. Again, something already having waypoints doesn't mean it fits Niantec's current guidelines. There's a ton of existing waypoints for generic plaque/bench memorials in game, but nowadays the memorial has to be of someone who had significant historical/cultural significance. You can try it again if you're convinced it should be a valid waypoint, but I think you need to have an excellent explanation in your supporting info to get a different result. So far the information you've provided hasn't convinced me it should be accepted. Why is this a place that you would encourage other Niantec gamers to visit? What criteria does this building fall under to make it a valid waypoint?

I can't speak to why your local reviewers review like they do, since I'm nowhere near your locality! If you're just looking for local reviewers to comment, you might be waiting around a while, unfortunately.

Sugarstarzkill-PGO

@TorvoTeratos-PGO has given a lot of good feedback and I agree with 98% of it. The main thing I'll clarify is the 40m/PRP ruling. It is a bit confusing. It is correct that art/playgrounds/other eligible objects can potentially be approved if they are located in the common areas of an apartment complex. Nothing is allowed inside an apartment. If the art shown is in a common area (it looks like it is) it COULD be approved. HOWEVER- for wayfarer purposes, "PRP" is referring to single family residences.

The things that I would have wanted to know if I were reviewing the wall art (and that youd have to convince other reviewers of) is

1.) That it's not just some mass produced wall art anyone could buy at the store. If it's a genuine art piece (it looks like it could be?) Try to find the name of the artist or-if these were hand made/one of a kind, include that.

2) that it won't get moved around/changed for quite awhile. Mention how long it's been there and describe how they are attached to the wall.- are they easy to move around or very securely attached?)

For the embassy building- did you nominate it for its architecture or because its an embassy? Just going on what you showed here, I wasn't really sure which you were nominating. If nominating the embassy- I'm not sure it fits criteria. If it's a place locals go frequently to gather that could fit. Most government type buildings don't fit criteria though. If nominating for its architecture, try to find out who designed it, what architectural style it is, when it was built, etc.

TorvoTeratos-PGO

https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/32846#Comment_32846

Thanks for clarifying!

SiIverLyra-PGO

Thanks for your feedback.

As for the wall art, it's attached to the wall with cement (in both cases), at least several years old as it appears on street view, which is quiet dated; it's probably even older, I only happened to stumble on those art pieces because I deliberately looked for possible nominations, so I don't have any knowledge beyond what street view shows.

I strongly doubt the smaller art installation is mass produced, it seems to be handmade ceramics, one of the pieces even has the street name sculpted on it.

As for the big brown one, I have no idea. I doubt this kind of massive pieces are mass-produced, but that's only my opinion. It's also part of a set - there's another similar (not identical) piece on the other side of the entrance, I think it's visible on street view as well. They're too far apart to be photographed together unfortunately.

I couldn't find signatures or credits anywhere near those installations unfortunately. I think finding the artists who made them might be quite impossible, seeing as unique art pieces installed near entrances to apartment buildings aren't an uncommon thing.

But it is 100% a common area, accessible to anyone. In both cases, you don't need to trespass ANY kind of private land to access those pieces. I have mentioned that in the supporting information.

But again, both art installations are 100% attached to the wall with cement and absolutely immovable. I've mentioned that in the supporting information for both nominations.

As for embassies - it's the first time I've heard that they don't fit the criteria. Is that stated in the guidelines? Aren't those culturally important, unique locations - especially to tourists? You certainly don't find them on every street corner, and they're definitely accessible to the public.

SiIverLyra-PGO

Forgot to say about the other points -

1. The business art - I should be more specific, it's a new branch that's part of a popular, well established chain. Not quite equivalent to a new, single-location store.
2. The playground is completely unrelated to any kind of educational establishment. The nearby marking on Google is related to a family daycare for toddlers which is located inside of an apartment building. The playground was built by the municipality and is 100% public. There's a municipal sign visible in the supporting photo that local reviewers can easily recognize.