Case study in some recent rejections (and their curious reasons)
SiIverLyra-PGO Posts: 928 ✭✭✭✭✭
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:
- Public art on outer walls of multi-family residential buildings isn't uncommon here, and nominations for them are common in Niantic's games.
- 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.
- 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.
Easier to comment / keep track of comments if you submit each one as a single post.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
Thanks for clarifying!
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.
Forgot to say about the other points -