Photo quality
napecon-ING
Posts: 4 ✭✭
I think there is a huge review abuse with flagging photos to poor quality (well actually it's even more general rejection abuse I think).
How good a photo should be that t would not result rejection
Example
(It's a trail marker on a hiking trail)
Comments
It's not abuse but stupidity. There is a certain subset of reviewers that honestly believe that photos need to be at or near professional grade quality. It's absolutely useless to attempt to argue with them. This is usually the ones only submitting in around their home and workplace so can't relate to submitting in location distance from home that provide little to no benefit except maybe a tick on portals discovered. If you are within 25 kms crop it slightly so sign takes up more of picture plus they think they made you go back out there and remote re-submit. I sometimes have several pictures of the same object for remote resubmit for these events but only on the really nice stuff.
That photo quality looks fine. I am sorry that your set of reviewers rejected for this reason.
So, the photo quality rejection doesn’t appear to be valid feedback, but this nomination was also rejected for not meeting criteria, and I tend to agree with that portion. It appears to not be a trail marker at all, but an unremarkable directional sign.
Make sure the supporting photo includes part of the trial with sign still included. A broad picture for supporting.
I've used reject for low quality photo when I think it is a good nomination but can't confirm the it matches what is being told. IE, need to see proof of the trial.
When submitting a trail marker, a lot of reviewers expect the sign to be centred and be a close-up shot, as I have posted about previously: https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/17621/lessons-learnt-from-trail-marker-submissions
Just last week, I had an eligible submission (nature reserve, good place to exercise and explore) knocked back for photo quality and not meeting criteria, presumably because it had sun glare and it wasn't closed in enough on the object: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/AM3CMnIkqhNCCssb7WPluDDJc_qzku6iNiL0EDEqrCoHLRItgPn8OytYx-fgWuxUYxHE--GaxmVFeys-sVh-rKNB_laBNCNyXNfaxr0s=s0
The reason I don't always do close up shots of some objects is because I consider how it would look on both PoGo photo discs and Ingress keys, for something like that marker, a close-up shot will result in the photo disc cropping off the top and bottom which looks ugly.
It's like playing the lotto really.
Supporting image had a broad sideview of that trailmarker and trail was visible on image. There even was a link to city's mapservice similar to this at the supporting text
Trail map at link
https://kartta.ouka.fi/IMS/?layers=Opaskartta&lon=Hiihtoladut&lon=Kuntoradat&lon=Ilmakuva%202019%20(Kempele)&cp=7204792,479618&z=0.5