It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
Perhaps the reviewer was concerned the "Black lives Matter" sticker on the post is a political statement and rejected it for that reason. I'm not trying to be provocative but just suggesting a possible reason why the nomination was rejected.
Is there a prohibition on political speech, now? That doesn’t sound like a valid grounds for rejection to me.
Haha 😂 I didn’t even notice it when I took the picture. Doubt reviewers even looked that closely either
I’ll just do one of these instead.
Unfortunately, the OP photo of the Trail marker does qualify as a "named trail marker" and should be grudgingly approved.
The "Public Footpath" marker in the post above should be rejected as it is not a named trail and is "mass produced & generic".
I reviewed that nomination too and rejected it. It’s a recent one too. So some reviewers seem to think it meets criteria. Yet mine an official named trail doesn’t. Just because it’s metal. That’s the only reason it was rejected.
Without going through every comment here I do want to say that photo does appear similar to a street sign(American). Thus, while trying to knock out a bunch towards getting an upgrade one might just hit a quick rejection on it thinking it is such.
but it doesn’t and people should not be reviewing in this way. And street signs in the UK don’t look anything like this. If it was a bit of plastic stuck to a wooden post it would have been accepted yet is exactly the same thing, a way marker to represent a trail, and I wouldn’t have to post it in here.
Yet again reviewers don’t know what they are doing. They are telling me hiking trials “don’t meet criteria” when they clearly do. It’s an utter disgrace and a joke now. Plenty of evidence it’s a trail marker. Encourages exercise and exploring. Safe pedestrian. Can be seen clearly on streetview. Examples of what other markers look like for the same trail provided and still “it does not meet criteria”. Bring on the appeal process!
I have to think that the huge collage is only hurting you at this point. It is bordering on "influencing the reviewers," overly aggressive, and frankly some parts of it are fairly insulting to reviewers.
No it isn’t. If you take that from that it’s just how you read it. I’ve done loads of them similar and it works. I’ve targeted no one in my supporting information and ad for “influencing reviewers” isn’t that the point of my supporting information. It’s a simple trail marker along a well known trail that encourages exercise and exploring. That fact I have to do these collages is the problem because no one reads any information I provide them. They see the first picture and reject it.
I think you may be right about hurting his own cause with the aggressive collage. However, I believe the ‘influencing’ codicil is about suggesting a specific rating or using semaphore to influence a group of followers.
Every Wayfarer should try to put forward a case that will lead reviewers to accept their petition, and they shouldn’t need to worry about charges of ‘influencing the reviewers’
Again with the aggressive?? At no point am I being aggressive to anyone. I demonstrated that it meets criteria as did the others that were accepted elsewhere. Some of them metal.
I get where you are coming from and to me it screams frustration.
However it is all to easy to get caught up in your own view, and lose sight of how others might look at something. The good thing about posting here is that you get fresh sets of eyes and what you have produced.
It is tempting to defend what you have produced, but I suggest you step back, listen to how others are dispassionately viewing what you put together and take the feedback on board.
It’s up to you then to decide what to do.
In short, reviewers aren't wrong to reject trail markers.
Whats the point then. They tell us one thing and say another. I am nominating a trail marker that encourages exercise and exploring. It’s part of the trail that takes you passed Sandgate Castle and Martello Towers historical interesting landmarks. I haven’t just seen a trail marker and gone oh that’s acceptable. It’s where it is and what it does that makes it acceptable. Running for mayor or whatever has no baring on anything on this process. They want us to explore and exercise etc yet when I have demonstrated that the criteria is met. All they see is a metal sign. However this metal sign encourages exercise and exploring which is the criteria met. So yes they are wrong to reject it.
I understand where you are coming from. However on the contrary all I’m doing here is covering all based. I do all the time without issues. This was simply rejected because of what it looks like. If it was a wooden post like the one in the supporting photo it would have been accepted, and that’s a fact. These two had collages it’s merely because people can’t or don’t want to read any information that seems long winded and just want to look a pictures to decide. I’ve never targeted anyone nor have I been aggressive in my supporting information, only ever want to get my point across. No one had these issues years ago. It’s currently just getting worse and people are having legitimate nominations rejected just simply because reviewers rush through and don’t read. I’ve nominated this one before without a collage and linked the trail website but still no. They reviewed just based on whet it looks like. I’ll try again and avoid the weekend reviewers. P.s written whilst wearing pink soft mittens no aggressiveness here 😜
I’m sorry @PeteC303-PGO . I only meant aggressive like aggressive marketing or an aggressive ad campaign, I didn’t mean to imply that you were irate or violent.
I think I would have felt better if your mosaic read more like: ‘As these signs are sufficiently durable, please disregard their material and accept that they promote exercise and exploration.’
If I'm reviewing and I get a nomination with such supporting information, I might skip it or stop reviewing, it decreases my willingness to approve it.
why because you don’t want to read it ?? I can put anything I want to in my supporting information to demonstrate it meets criteria. That’s all it does.
I have done just that.
The point is just because something is eligible doesn't mean it is approveable. In the discussion from which I took the screenshot, Danbocat pretty much stated that everything is eligible, but that doesn't mean that reviewers have to approve it if they do not think it is acceptable as a Wayspot. And in the case of these signs, they clearly meet the "mass-produced" rejection criteria. Just because reviewers have accepted some doesn't mean that all are acceptable. And according to Danbocat's statement, reviewers are never wrong to reject any nomination.
Absolutely no point in having any criteria what so ever then. They do not meet mass produced criteria any more than the wooden posts and plastic discs do. Yet a I've provided enough evidence to show it's an interesting part of a trail to follow, if we can reject everything based on mass produced rule we'd have nothing on the map. Yet again it's what it is and does that makes it eligible. I've had things rejected one day and the exact same thing accepted another with entirely the same details. This shouldn't be happening. They tell us trail markers encourage exploring and exercise. That's what they want us to do. Why do you and all like you want to reject everything based on nit picking of certain things. I've done loads of trail markers some of them not even remotely interesting and mass produced and they get accepted purely based on what they are - wooden posts with little plastic discs on. More recently my friend had a "public footpath marker" accepted with very little effort yet mine is a well known named trail that encourages you to visit a castle and interesting places along the way and yet all you see with your narrow mindedness is a mass produced sign. Everything we nominate is mass produced one way or another yet meets the explore and exercise criteria and then meets the eligibility criteria blah blah. This is why many people don't even bother. I'm amazed we have anything at all to interact with when all we get met with is this norrow mindedness and people voting according to their own personal preference. Had a postbox rejected recently apparently someone lived in it according to reviewers. Yet submitted again with exact same information and it was accepted. What's the difference that made it suddenly eligible?? It's a ridiculous merrygoround when things should be very simple.
I can read it and I don't like the tone. You can put whatever you want and I can stop reviewing or skip the nominations that I don't want to review.
Adding screeshots of existing pokestops to "prove" that your nomination is valid doesn't work here.
Turns out I was right all along. Oh well. It’s an acceptable trail marker and always was.
Wales Coast Path and Cotswold Way come to mind. Also they don't use detailed and unique titles, and no photospheres. A lot of room for improvement and then these would be guaranteed 5* instead of instant reject.
I don't think anyone rejects for lack of effort, but if a submission is lazy, careless and sloppy, then that throws doubt on such things as the location, which might otherwise merit 3*.
There are many judgement calls to be made by the reviewer, and if the submitter really hasn't bothered then human nature dictates the reviewer is going to give it quite a different reception than a submission that is the result of meticulous effort. Turn up late for an interview in shorts and T shirt eating a burger and don't be surprised if you don't get the job, even if you're 'eligible' for it.
Ideally, there should be many more, and more detailed, rejection reasons, so you can send it back to the submitter labelled "write a detailed and unique title", "don't plagiarise the description" and so on.
Am I right in thinking one of those is the submitter that always demands a 3* location rating in their supporting info?
Yes, there are some simple changes they could make and these would make great nominations.
If only they would give each one a unique and detailed title, write the description in their own words and make it relevant to the actual wayspot, and ideally add a photosphere, these would all be 5^. Actually I'd happily give a good rating for location without a sphere: after all, nobody's likely to bother to fake a location in the middle of nowhere.
I just totally don't get why people sabotage their nominations by cut-and-pasting the description. And if they're nominating a trail marker, it is kinda nice to see "Trail Marker" appear in the title.