It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
A dog waste bin is a hard sell and even hard to convince. Now the dog park or park the dog bin is in that should be the easier sell even if it doesn’t have a sign or a anchor point.
Wait until that dog waste bin becomes a gym, or maybe EX raid gym.
I walked past this one earlier, nothing else of interest in the park and now I’m worried some idiot will submit it 😂😂😂
Gosh yours get emptied 😅
Almost every dog poop station I've seen, there's supporting information like, "Many people walk their dogs on this path and play pokemon go, this would be a great POI to have because there are not any pokestops or gyms nearby!" All dog poop stations should be considered garbage cans, generic, not interesting, do not submit again.
I mean I must've been a weird kid as I was always curious why some postboxes had GR on them and some had ER on them and others had what young me thought were random squiggly patterns. I was a quiet child though (undiagnosed autistic until 25 and often bullied), so I never asked anyone about them because I always felt awkward about trying to speak up. Despite that though, it never stopped me looking at them each time I walked to school and back, or when I was out playing on the street or going to the shop.
If Pokémon Go had been around 25 years ago with its current selection of wayspots, that would've been able to answer the questions that I felt I could never voice. And it would've made me even more keen to go looking at the postboxes and have fun identifying them.
As I say though, I must've been a weird kid. Not weird enough to want to go exploring a dog waste station though haha.
The fact this is even a question tells me something is broken.
This is a really good point. I've only seen my super local stuff on occasion, and if we want actual locals to weigh in, there needs to be some improvement in what gets shown to people.
That said, I really appreciate @NianticDanbocat 's perspective. Not everything is cut and dry just because a waypoint is some specific object. At first glance, yeah, I don't see why a garbage can would be interesting, but the first example in this thread is actually more artsy than what I thought everyone was talking about, and I might have been tempted to give it 3 stars with the right justification. I can totally see a community turning waste bins into art pieces, and then the argument that "it's just garbage" isn't as relevant. And maybe there's something to be said for a dog walker having something in game that points out where this bin might be. I don't know, I don't walk dogs, but I do appreciate having relevant markers to my current activity (like hiking and trail markers) pointed out in-game. A nuanced approach to wayfarer seems to be lacking in most areas, so I'm really glad for this one.
In addition to algorithm improvement, there's going to have to be an emphasis on good descriptions and reasoning. It never was sufficient to say "community hub" and leave it at that, even with a restaurant. I'm not worried about any kind of "chain reaction" causing people to go overboard with submitting lamp posts. Submitters still need to know how to showcase and defend their submission if they want it to be successful. There's only a minority of wayfarers who can do that right now. Generic objects or businesses that aren't properly defended are still an easy 1*.
Funnily enough, I did accept a bin once, because it had been shaped like a frog and had been made by a local blacksmith or something like that, I wasn't sure if that was true but when I googled it there was a small article in their local paper about it (think they had made 5 or something g liek that for 5 new local play parks or something can't remember the exact numbers)
there’s a couple problems with this though:
Reviewers are almost never local. Outside of truly massive cities any non upgraded submission is gonna sit months if not years before it even gets into review, meaning the bulk of submissions that make it to review are upgraded. Upgraded submissions get reviewed by people who can be clear across the continent from the submitter. Local knowledge is impossible here.
Secondarily, people just straight up lie about uninteresting places being community hubs *a lot*. My bonus location is the town I grew up in and lived in for 25 years and 50% of the submissions I review from there are random run down laundromats, half dead restaurants, and dreary antique shops all of which I’ve never heard of in remote abandoned parts of town with submission text claiming they’re a “local gem” “family owned for 45 years” and “the gathering place for XYZ demographic”. Just constant blatant lying to try to get couch pokestops or extra pois on their usual walking route. Combined with the lack of local reviewers for so many places mentioned above you’re basically asking for people with no local knowledge to just trust that the submitter is being honest in their justification.
Community turning waste bins into art pieces:
I had to review one of those bins and looked up this article to be sure. It was the Star Wars one at the bottom right. So yes, it's totally possible to turn them into art. I gave 3 or 4 stars, don't remember exactly. But no direct reject.
Outside of truly massive cities any non upgraded submission is gonna sit months if not years before it even gets into review
Admittedly, my comment isn't really on-topic, but I could let this go past without a comment. In large cities, actually, the situation is terrible; they are completely throttled and nothing moves an inch without an upgrade there. The places to be are L6 cells that do not contain large cities, but abut L6 cells that do. They are considered low-density, but benefit from the large reviewer pool found in the cities. Those reviewers get to see tons of rural stuff 100 miles away and nothing actually in their cities.
You don't have to approve any of them. The point is they are eligible, but reviewers majority decision concludes whether it gets accepted.
If you are eligible to apply for a scholarship, it doesn't mean the reviewers are going to grant you the scholarship each time you apply.
If you are eligible to run for mayor, it doesn't mean voters are going to vote for you each time you run.
If a pet waste station is eligible, it doesn't mean it should become a Wayspot each time it is submitted.
Eligibility and acceptance are separate concepts
I'm confused and would like some clarification. Can you confirm that not all pet waste stations are eligible for submission. Can you confirm that being a pet waste station is not in itself a criteria for being an eligible wayspot? Can you confirm that submitting a pet waste station in general that doesn't have anything particularly interesting about it would be like applying for a scholarship when you don't meet any of the requirements?
@NianticDanbocat I understand where you are coming from with this explanation, but want to offer two counterpoints, or at least try to explain why people are giving you pushback on this topic:
First, in the rejection criteria page within Wayfarer, the following is stated as the first bullet point:
Does not meet eligibility criteria
Does not seem to be a great place of exploration, place for exercise, or place to be social. The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting.
(A red Target ball and generic street sign are then used as example pictures)
This seems to very blatantly imply that generic, uninteresting, and mass produced objects, such as a dog poop container, explicitly do not meet the eligibility criteria to begin with, and therefore, should be rejected. If you are saying that this is incorrect, the wording on the wayfarer site should be adjusted, but I have a feeling there is further miscommunication going on here
Secondly, even if dog poop containers do meet the eligibility criteria, they clearly should be rejected because of the rejection criteria as shown above. To go on the record and state that they are eligible, and to then make a case as to why they should be acceptable (which goes beyond eligibility requirements), only goes to create confusion within the community. Such a statement will likely be taken out of context for years and/or be used to miseducate others into not properly following the rejection criteria and full guidelines. There are far too many people who see Wayfarer as a black and white system and synonymize "eligibility" with being a 5* perfect candidate. These people are unlikely to see this additional clarification and are even less likely to care or accept it if they do see it. It seems like a half-truth to advocate for the eligibility of a dog poop can when according to the full guidelines, the end result is that they should be rejected.
I think you are entirely missing the point of the push back on this. First, I do not think dog waste stations meet any of the eligibility criteria and the claim that it may fall under "places to socialize" because two dog owners could meet there is a gross overreach. And if the "places to socialize" and be stretched to such lengths, then that means any place or object can fall under "places to socialize". The same will also happen with "places to exercise" and we have already seen some arguments that town or community entrance signs "promotes walking" and are therefore eligible.
This makes me wonder of the goals of Wayfarer have suddenly shifted from finding fun and interesting places that promote exploration to trying to add as many random locations to benefit a certain game.
Quick criteria comparison of ‘Memorial Bench in a park or along a hiking trail’ opposite ‘dog waste station’…
A great place to explore
A great place to exercise
A great place to be social
Historic or cultural value
There is *not one category* in which the trash can/animal toilet exceeds a memorial bench. Not one. Somehow that’s the nomination getting a defense from Niantic?
The way I've talked to most wayfinders, "eligible" usually means automatic acceptance. If Niantic treats them as separate things, this terminology should probably be made more clear in the next wayfarer update.
@NianticCasey-ING already stated long ago that eligible doesn't mean automatic acceptance
In the same way, this can be applied to the recent clarification about markers along a trail or pedestrian path. Sentences to repeat from now on from the "let's defend the holy wayspots"
The point is they are eligible, but reviewers majority decision concludes whether it gets accepted.
I think I get this.
The emphasis is that people should feel they can submit these potential POI, it does not mean they are going to be accepted- and I think I’m reading this correctly there is less emphasis on tying down every little nuance and detail.
So as submitters we need to make the case, but maybe less angst if it doesn’t get through.
I appreciate this may mean more coming through that end up being rejected, which can then clog the system but on the other hand it says the community should apply the judgement, which depending on your faith in the community could be a good or bad thing.
I recently had a waypoint - an artistic sign - approved, and the email from Niantic about the approval said that it was eligible, meaning that it got approved for at least Lightship. Trainers see this and go "Okay, Niantic said these are eligible, that means they are approved" because that is what your emails when something gets approved tell us is that eligible = approved. Email screenshot attached for reference.
If a dog waste container is eligible, does this mean that all objects are eligible? Maybe not acceptable, but eligible, if it's man-made anyway? The same "eligibility" (I walk to get to it and I talk with people along the way) could apply to communal mailboxes, small bus stops, undecorated trash bins, and vending machines - to name a few examples.
Yeah, and any wayfinders still think eligible = automatically acceptible because clarifications made more clear/understandable on the forum do not get the same visibility as the in-app info or on the wayfarer site.
Out of interest, why would you blank out your trainer name ? You're logged into this site which displays your name yet you blanked it out on the email?
If someone had a suspicious nature they could assume that the name on the email doesn't match the login name on here, which would be proof of multi accounting.
Because it wasn't actually my nomination and I don't feel like letting you know everyone I'm friends with, nor do I feel like that's any of your business. Heck, even if it was my nomination I'd still blank it out because of toxic people like you - the point I was making in the post had nothing to do with the trainer name, and yet that is the one thing you feel obligated to focus on.
These are 2 different words meaning 2 different things. A church is eligible, therefore I should try and submit it. If I goof the picture, title, or location then it is not acceptable and will likley be rejected in voting. A mass produced dog poop station is not eligible but a unique artistic one might be (think a scupture like the lion water fountains). Neither has a chance of being acceptable until I submit them and wait for voter decisions.
Toxic for asking a question.
Lets face facts, Either you lied in your post stating it was your nomination, or your lying now claiming its someone elses, either way you lied.
If youd have just said a friend had a submission approved etc and then posted the screen shot with it blanked out then there wouldn't be an issue.
However you didnt, you claimed it was your submission.
What you should have done is just be open and honest from the start, instead you've made it clear your not above lying on these forums
Or how about, I didn't really feel that whose nomination it was had any relevance to the conversation whatsoever so I wanted to post the facts that did pertain to the point and leave out the stuff that didn't. Because that's what normal people who want to have a productive conversation do, is present the information that matters.
“It wasn’t my nomination”
”I recently had a waypoint - an artistic sign - approved(…)”
+ overly-aggressive response to a question about it
= yeah, that just about explains it.
Nope, could have done that by just saying it was a friends submission, wouldn't make any difference, instead you lied