Unnecessary Denials Appeal Process
Epitome93-PGO Posts: 9 ✭✭
edited July 2021 in Nomination Improvement
I'm getting really tired of the system not having an appeal process. I've given up hours of my life to review POIs honestly. How **** disheartening to go through all the work to get an upgrade only to have a **** off deny it within 2 hours. I'm getting real close to putting this game down for good. This system never really gets better, and we are expected to just... "Try Again I guess 🤷♂️"
Wayfarer needs to step up or start loosing honest reviewers
Post edited by Epitome93-PGO on
Just taking a picnic bench doesn't cut it, I guess. Is the area has its own name sign? Try to take a photo of it instead.
As harsh as it may be to hear, you've submitted a 1* candidate, so the rejection is valid.
In this case there is absolutely nothing wrong with the reviewers and everything wrong with your submission.
Frankly speaking, I can understand why Niantic have held off as long as they have in having an appeals system, the fact that you've said you would appeal this just goes to show that you don't understand what makes a good candidate, and would unnecessarily clog up any appeals system with a 1* submission.
A picnic table, even if there is a grill next to it, doesn't meet any of the eligibility criteria. DO read over the eligibility criteria before you complain about a "bad rejection".
As a Picnic Grounds, this appears to be a valid place to be social, with multiple permanent placements and facilities in good condition. This is a location that is a valid destination under the criteria. I’m sorry people can’t keep their location criteria in mind, and reject due to object criteria.
Clearly, the rules should spell this stuff out better.
The stuff that merits rejection is like:
A single table outside a convenience store (no ambiance, loiterers unwelcome)
Derelict installation at an apartment complex (for residents only, not a destination)
Tables that are not in a fixed place (appear to have been brought in for an event, and won’t remain long)
This would take me about two seconds to reject.
The subject is not worthy, the images are weak, the picnic table is in full sun while the text - which has bizarre capitalization in the middle of it - says to sit in the shade. The table doesn’t even appear to be fixed in place, so this could even be rejected as temporary.
The OP nominated the Picnic Area, which includes multiple tables with barbecue grills, grass, trees, lighting, etc.
Nobody is being told to come stare at this bench, the bench is not even the subject of the nomination.
Do you dislike picnicking in the park so much that you believe it to be an improper venue? Should only the best gold-plated picnic areas, professionally coiffed and photographed during the Golden Hour be accepted into Wayfarer?
Anyone can submit an edit if they prefer different punctuation or capitalization or a new picture. Rejection is supposed to be for things that fail to qualify, or that run afoul of the rejection criteria.
The location was nominated, because it affords outdoor ambiance and socializing within your group and with other groups while you watch the world go by.
You know: picnicking.
Lmfao a cement pad under each table with a grill permanently encased in it is not temporary. There are trees in the picture and as the sun tracks across the sky shadows move (you are just being contrary) If someone takes 2 seconds to Reject... That's exactly the problem. You're not local so you don't see birthday parties there monthly during the summer, and you don't care enough to look on Google maps for trees or care about the permanently installed aspects of it. It's more appropriate of a place to play then a church. Birthday party grill out in the park or during communion in church... My statement stands, the system is broken
If you would like an improvement suggestion - your nomination says “Large Picnic Area” but this one table and grill doesn’t seem large. In the supporting photo you can see an additional table which makes me wonder if there are even more. It might be beneficial to try to get a photo showing multiple tables in one area, that way it looks like a gathering area for a large group of people, and use that as your primary photo.
OP, you edited your post to add an image that shows more picnic tables. That’s what you need in your nomination, because your submission only shows one table. Look at the difference in these comments before and after your edit: everything before was ‘this is clearly ineligible’ and everything after is ‘yes, that should go through.’ So tell the story in the nomination better, the way you amended your post, and maybe you could get it approved.
@X0bai-PGO You are the first comment after I did this. Everything before you was off the original pictures, but thanks for actually trying to be helpful, unlike some.
If we had a system in place for appeals, we could give more context as the need arose. Currently it's just a bad system that waisted hours of my life for no benefit. If Wayfarer want to keep engagement, they need to adapt.
I was running off the time stamp of the edit vs the time stamp of the comments, but there’s no date stamp on that so I guess there was a day in between.
Regardless, showing that is it a picnic area vs a single picnic table makes a big difference.
"A great place for exercise
A place you'd go to get some FRESH AIR, STRETCH YOUR LEGS, or exercise. Places that encourage WALKING, exercising, and ENJOYING PUBLIC SPACES. Or something that teaches or encourages us to be our healthiest selves.
Examples of Wayspot categories
**PARKS** and plazas, Gardens, Forests, **HIKING** trails, Biking trails, Exercise equipment in public spaces, Sport arenas, Sport fields
A great place to be SOCIAL with others
A favorite GATHERING PLACE for friends or strangers alike, where you can share a DRINK or MEAL, be entertained, or WATCH PUBLIC LIFE HAPPEN. Or something that draws us together to share an experience in a locally and culturally relevant way.
Examples of Wayspot categories
Pavilions, Post Offices, Gaming/Comic stores, Libraries (including free little libraries on public spaces), **PARKS** and plazas, Fountains and water features, Famous transit stations, Popular restaurants, Favorite coffee shops"
I took a look on Intel. There are 2 signs for Everett Park already in the game so calling your picnic area a park is incorrect. There is also a pavilion nearby in the park in game so picnicking areas are taken care of as well.
@sophielab-ING you're making up rules to put someone down on the internet. The Pavilion is a separate area and POI of the large community park. Nothing in the rules state "you may only have one representation of an eating area" The intention of this game is to encourage people getting out in nature paying and moving. It seems like most people here just want to be contrary and not actually knowledge the fact that the system could use a reworking. I used this nomination as an example of hours of work, with no benefit. It's not a good long-term model if Wayfarer wants people to engage.
The picnic tables are a mass produced object. It's in the rejection criteria. I'm not making up rules. Multiple rejections confirm this. Your example is one that should be rejected not complain about hours spent.
There is so much wrong here…
One of the 10 Commandments of Pokémon go is to Spin a PokéStop Every Day.
Players derive an additional benefit from spinning 10 distinct stops in a row.
It is therefore in the common good for PoGo-oriented Wayfarers to add more stops within easy walking distance of each other. They may be acting to serve their own interest (as Wayfarer encourages them to do) but they are often also attempting to serve the community at large.
The OP in this case may be trying to create a chain of ten stops for their own game playing benefit. They may instead have traveled miles out of their way to create POI chains to help others have a chance to play. Either way, the OP is acting precisely as Niantic has directed them to.
The rules of OP‘s game demand more stops. There are no quests to spin three churches. There is no mission requirement or strategic reason to leave an area unpopulated. Niantic directs us to refrain from nominating each piece of equipment in a playground, but encourages us to nominate separate areas of interest in the same geographic area.
It seems paradoxical but INGRES is the central repository for all POIs, while it’s play style does not seem to require or encourage a high density of waypoints. If the roles were reversed, Niantic could provide Ingress with a curated subset of all POIs that was conducive to its gameplay.
Niantic has put two groups of AR-game-players at odds with each other. Now, one group is trying to staunch the flood of excess content that they regard as superfluous or even noxious, while their brethren are trying to help the less-mobile, or to help themselves to meet normal game objectives.
It’s almost like they’re saying: Let’s you and him fight.
Can I get an AMEN!
Why do you try to bring up again a useless war between Ingress and Pokemon go?
Do you want some facts?
You can play pokemon go without any pokestop around you. You can catch pokemon, there are free items in the store daily and you can open gifts sent by friends. You can play PVP and do remote raids.
You CAN'T play Ingress without any portal around you. Even having less than 3 portals around you makes it almost impossible to play. And you need another player from the opposing faction. If you remove the portals from the map, there's nothing that you can do Ingress (that's why it's totally dead in many places, besides its weirdness and how boring it can be).
If you want to talk about the nomination or wayfarer go ahead, but please, don't create a useless war between games, there are many people that play both of them.
If you are a child that uses an IPad for 20 minutes a day yes you can play Pokémon without stops. If you are a regular player you CAN NOT play Pokémon go without stops around you. This post reeks of someone trying to combat a point without using more then 5% of player population in mind. Is your point technically accurate, yes, is it beyond hypocritical and misleading 1000%.
I’d estimate that nearly two thirds of the posts I read about a valid wayspot being rejected “properly” is from an Ingress player. Usually twisting criteria to validate their decision. Like calling a picnic table generic when it’s a picnic area that is nominated. or calling a restaurant a generic business because it’s in a bland looking building. (Where have I seen that lately🤔) Is this a Coincidence? Doubtful.
Fact is that both are barely playable without stops. No need to fight anyone about this, so let's just stop that argument right there. But coming back to the picnic area. A picnic bench on itself is unfortunately not enough to validate a portal or Stop. These get rejected everytime you try it, due to it not being unique enough, so I suggest trying another item in the area instead.
You're missing the point totally.
You think that I'm "an Ingress player" because that's the nick that I used when I joined these forums, but I haven't touched Ingress for years.
Claiming that Ingress players are this and that Pokemon players are that won't get us to anything useful except a closed thread, If you want to "#bebetter" start by looking yourself in the mirror and don't accuse anyone for things that they haven't said or done.
Thank you for the informative instruction regarding Ingress. I have not tried it, and might have formed a skewed perspective judging solely from other discussions here.
I am not trying to ‘start another war’, nor am I aware of having started previous battles on this topic.
I watched this thread unfold on Friday after replying in a different one that seemed to strike a similar theme.
Some Wayfarers are attempting to add POIs for locations, and others are condemning them for the promulgation of mierda. We’ve seen a fair amount of snark about Moar StOpz!!1!, and there’s a ton of coal parading through, but that wasn’t on my mind this morning.
I find myself circling ‘round the issue where one Wayfarer attempts to nominate a venue and others pile on, attacking the OP for their ‘generic, mass-produced’ proxy object. It cannot be that hard to recognize this distinction. I saw a reviewer say bicycle paths weren’t eligible to be Wayspots, even though they are directly cited as ‘Great places to exercise.’ That’s not just confusion, it’s denial.
Why does this keep happening?
When people are turning logic on its head, there is often some predicative bias. I reasoned that some Wayfarers might have an agenda other than finding, nominating, and approving according to guidelines. If Pokémon go players are seeking more stops, and Wayfarers are in general agreement with regard to coal, where does all this animus originate?
How do you lose any skin if the OP is granted his nomination? He’s asking for a waypoint where there is a significant facility in a park that appears to tick the right boxes.
I feel that I understand OP’s motives, and believe I understand what Niantic says they want. I wasn’t expecting to be shot-down for trying to make war. I guess I simply don’t have any idea what you want….
Sorry if you feel that I attacked you, it wasn't my intention. Certainly I didn't mean that you did generate any previous war about games, but this has happened several times in the past and it would be great if people could get rid of that mentality.
There are people that are playing instead the "King of Wayfarer" game, where they are the ones that judge where other people are allowed to play, defining how many wayspots are too much, if something seasonal or not etc... all based on a small picture and they feel powerful that way, they seem to enjoy spending time judging other people in order to bring more money to Niantic. And of course there's also the people that want to fill wayspots all around to also bring more money to Niantic.
In the end, the only one that wins is Niantic because everyone is working for free for them.
The submitter isn’t nominating a picnic table. They are submitting a picnic area, which is 100% eligible. You’re not making up rules but you are applying them wrong. Just like the reviewers that rejected this.
@Epitome93-PGO Here’s the issue. Even if the majority of us think this is valid it only takes about 25-40% of reviewers to reject. Wayfarer is not majority rule. No votes carry more weight.
This type of nomination I would not upgrade (see above for the handful of useless comments from folks that think that you’re submitting a temporary picnic table). Locals tend to vote more favorably for local things because they know the area. When you upgrade you run into fishers who see this as an easy 1% agreement. If there is a dedication sign that you can take with the picnic tables in the background that might work better. I think of the portal photo as a book cover, give them every reason to keep reviewing and not a reason for a 2 sec 1*. I’d also change the name to something that sounds more official. I’d also make the original picture one that shows as many picnic tables as you can in the background.
Here is a picnic area I submitted. Now granted I had a dedication plaque to work with, which helped. Picnic Area - Field of Dreams
I would have approved OP's picnic area easily. It's clearly a park, the photos are fine and everything looks good to me imo. It's clearly a legit nomination and not something I'd reject over technicalities.
Also I agree that the system needs some updating. Really don't like how people don't even need to write a reason that they rejected your wayspot.