Unoriginal, Uninspired, and Unending… but Eligible?
I could use some guidance, and maybe a little space to vent, on two types on nominations that I see a lot and I’ve grown very weary of them, even though I think they probably should be approved and added into the game most of the time.
The first is trail markers. These tend to be little more than a stick in the ground with a number whittled into the top, or a mass-produced-looking sign mounted on one side. These submissions are consistently unengaging to look at, and, living in a state with lots of undeveloped natural area, I get them constantly, and I’m bored of them. But at the same time, a hiking trail is a desirable play area, is it not? And since most benches are no longer eligible, what other spots besides trail markers are going to entice players to these areas?
Similarly, ‘Apartment Tennis Court #2’ or ‘Park Soccer Field #4’ or ‘Sports Complex Baseball Diamond #4,827’ really get on my nerves. To begin, open grass areas and chain link backstops are certainly not visually unique, compelling images; half of these submissions appear to show a fence and a lawn where it’s supposed to be a sports field. Secondly, these tend to have a ton of gamesmanship in the pin placement, as the nominator is trying to maximize coverage. Third, it’s so incredibly tedious to see, functionally and aesthetically, the same submission in the same geographic area over and over and over again. But, like hiking trails, these are target areas for game development, and target areas need more point of interest, right?
So, what to do? I see these kinds of nominations em masse and my gut tells me to kick them out, but my head tells me they’re good for game development. What’s the right approach?
Both are great. If you review a lot you see a lot of the same things. It’s part of deal. Trail markers are wonderful wayspots, as are sports fields, even in masse at a local park. The goal of the community here should not be to determine how each game is played. It’s sole purpose is to determine if submitted POI are acceptable and eligible. I realize clusters in Ingress may not be great but clusters on other games are wonderful, like PoGo. They improve gameplay and get people outside and exploring. Which is the entire point of most of these games.
Honestly to me it sounds like you’re over thinking it. Maybe a little burned out. Might be time for a little break.
Keep in mind that a trail marker is a proxy for a part of the trail itself, which would be otherwise very difficult to pinpoint at a single location. Just because the trail marker isn't much to look at doesn't mean the trail is boring.
I love the utility of these things. They're a means to bring people together and exercise/socialize. I'm not going to these places to admire the beautiful architecture of a soccer goal/trail marker/baseball diamond. I'm going there to spend some time with my friends getting some fresh air.
Boring to look at? Sure. Boring intrinsically? Not a bit.
I agree that they're valid. But as reviewer and as a gamer, it is much more exciting to come across a great mural, fountain, or engineering feat. I love a nomination/waypoint where I learn something, or see something I've never seen before. We should all be on the lookout for those things.
Exactly. I see people complaining that some trail markers are too simple or mass produced, but in this case it's the trail itself that is being considered.
I've been seeing a ton of the same things too, same primarily trail markers and tennis courts and such. I pretty much approve every one—I mean, I give them due diligence, but I end up accepting them. They are some of the places that I think we are most specifically encouraged to accept bc of how great they are at getting people out and about.
They're staples of the game! I think we see a lot because of the natural growth of the game, reaching areas that haven't had all their tennis courts and trail markers approved yet :)
Also it takes FOREVER for a nomination to go through the approval process, so rejections are very devastating usually. I always put personal taste aside if something is great according to the criteria.
I used to be an elitist too and thought that a wayspot needed to be be an amazingly insightful, historic and educational item.
Then a friend pointed out I was being a bit of a dick and things like trail markers and/or exercise areas encourage people to play and encourage them to play in a green area.
If you meet him again, give him my best regards... he deserves all the praise :)
I'm sure she'll be delighted :)
I will say I really dislike when a POI is named map #1 map #2 playground #3 playground #4. It is ugly, doesn't make sense, and they aren't numbered in real life? The number doesn't do anything other than MAYBE preventing you from getting it marked as a duplicate.
What I prefer and do myself is something along the lines of "Park Name Here Announcement Board Southwest" "Park Name Here Announcement Board Northeast", or "Apartment Complex Name Northern Playground", "Apartment Complex Name Southern Playground"
That way it helps with thing erroneously being marked as duplicates, as well as a naming scheme that does more than just that, it actually helps tell you where things are and oriented too!