Can Someone Please Help Me Understand This?

I had almost forgotten to choose a nomination to upgrade since I've become very weary of what I want to upgrade; it almost seems like it's sending them to an early grave but I have had enough of upgraded submissions get approved so I can't really say that.

Anyway, I chose to upgrade this bakery/pastry place, thinking it should be fairly straight forward.

But I guess I was wrong? Here is what I am talking about:

Now, it does say does not meet acceptance criteria but I have no idea what it means by that. Since...

The submission is a bakery/cake shop.

As for the photo quality, I don't see how I can get any better quality than this and you can view it at the link below:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/cO8yn8gHPpMBv0_WzuZSHuj7N8zPCX_GBQaGHP8ZCw0ftmXcnGwv_RnVM9ZhIvhbUWfhOOCOBtHc-Hg61hfxtBSkhQyOSpeg0E8d3S0=s0

The reviewers should have been able to zoom in and see all of the detail that they needed to see to understand that this is anything but a blurry photo. Pitch black? Is that some kind of joke? I guess that was just added in by some kind of default when Niantic generates the rejection email?

As for taking the photo from the car, that is the only thing any reviewer could have possibly surmised as having taken place, but that is not true either.

I took the shot from that angle so I could get all of the storefront into the photo. Of which, it required me to stand in the parking lot. Another reason for the angle is so that there wasn't any chance of my reflection ending up in the glass windows or door of the storefront. Trying to photograph this place from the sidewalk would have been too steep an angle; but more importantly, the awning below the storefront's sign would be in the way of the shot.

Maybe I should have taken the photo of the store's logo on the glass above the door only?

Another thing is that I was hoping to avoid any undue attention. In the past I've had at least one employee from a different place come out and question me as to what I was doing. I did my best to explain but I don't think the lady was buying it all that much. So, I'd rather not be too obvious to people who happen to be observant. [Now granted, this is not foolproof; someone can still spot me taking photos and be suspicious, I suppose.]

Really, the only thing that I think, personally, could be better--as far as the quality of the photo is concerned--is that it could have been a little brighter. That is probably the main reason why I look for sunny days to get photos for submissions. Yet the slight dimness in the photo shouldn't be cause for rejection, everything is clearly visible. Reviewers want to reject me on something like this while other things MUCH DARKER and ACTUALLY BLURRY have been approved in the past by other submitters.

To be honest, this is an insult to my efforts to "enrich" these games with material for gamers to use (whether Ingress, PGO, HPWU or whatever).

Can someone please explain why any of these alleged reasons are valid?

It seems to me that people just took one second to review my submission and rejected it on bogus claims, but that's just a feeling that I can't prove. They know that a bakery meets acceptance criteria so they had to find some other way to reject? I don't think I know of any other group that is so anal retentive as reviewers are on Wayfarer.

Comments

  • patsufredo-PGOpatsufredo-PGO Posts: 4,222 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Off topic, did you just change your username recently?

  • Xaerfaal-PGOXaerfaal-PGO Posts: 86 ✭✭✭

    I understand that I can't view the reasons as completely literal; I just forget that more than I would like.

    People liking a certain angle for photos of businesses is, in and of itself, a preference; not grounds for rejection.

    It would make more sense for the rejection to direct me towards the actual weak points of the submission. Of which, you did hit them right on the head. My description is too weak. Need to work on that. Thanks.

  • Kellerrys-INGKellerrys-ING Posts: 696 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The fact that reviewers considered your photo poor is actually useful information. The first impression is (for me as well) poor, and after that it'll be harder to convince reviewers that the cafe is significant.

  • Xaerfaal-PGOXaerfaal-PGO Posts: 86 ✭✭✭

    It's a bakery, not a café.

    It actually has a 4.6 star rating on google maps (of the 60 people who rated it, anyway.. which isn't bad).

    What do reviewers want then? A Disneyland on every corner?

    If they think this photo is poor (quality?), then any photo would be poor in their alleged consideration. Not trying to toot my own horn or anything. It's just that the resolution of the photo is 6936x9248, 15 mb of data, coming from a 64 megapixel camera on my phone.

    They literally can not stand by that claim.

    As far as the quality of the photo is concerned, anyway.

    And the icing on the cake (pun intended), is that my latest submission that was approved is probably in a little bit darker lighting since it was a somewhat cloudy day. So, no I don't buy this horse-pie at all.

    If this is how some people get off by rejecting perfectly valid submissions to sooth their control complex, then that's on them; not me.

    At any rate, I will be resubmitting this (with a totally redone description section, as suggested) and I'm willing to bet that I can get this same photo approved because it really isn't about the photo. It seems more of an ego trip than anything else since there's no real rhyme nor reason to it (in my experience over the past year, that is).

    I'm tired of having to reject random street signs, Walmart parking lots, CVS pharmacies, the millionth neighborhood sign, the trillionth object/junk on someone's private property, etc etc etc... only to have something that is actually suitable to the acceptance criteria get rejected because people don't have two brain cells to rub together in order to get past their dim-witted ego.

  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 2,236 Ambassador

    If they think this photo is poor (quality?), then any photo would be poor in their alleged consideration. Not trying to toot my own horn or anything. It's just that the resolution of the photo is 6936x9248, 15 mb of data, coming from a 64 megapixel camera on my phone.

    Low quality doesn't just mean good camera. It has to do with lighting, composition, subject, shadows, reflections etc.

    Not saying this was rejection worthy, but you can't just focus on one aspect of what makes a good photo.

  • Xaerfaal-PGOXaerfaal-PGO Posts: 86 ✭✭✭

    I was focusing on it because I don't see anything wrong with it otherwise.

    Preference is not grounds for rejection. They "prefer" that the angle was head on and that the sun was a little brighter, that's being picky.

  • Xaerfaal-PGOXaerfaal-PGO Posts: 86 ✭✭✭

    This is the reason to reject something as blurry / pitch black:

    ....

    Not for my nomination.

  • Xaerfaal-PGOXaerfaal-PGO Posts: 86 ✭✭✭

    Sorry.

    This is the game for me.

    Playing the actual games are kind of secondary. This is the game that I'm playing. So, just need to learn.

  • MelodyS88Chi-PGOMelodyS88Chi-PGO Posts: 627 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Is this bakery award winning or also a cafe? I do not see why an ordinary bakery/cake shop that people just go to in order to order and pick up cakes or baked goods to take home is a good place to explore or socialize. You would need to convince me it is not just another bakery in your supporting info.

  • Xaerfaal-PGOXaerfaal-PGO Posts: 86 ✭✭✭

    I thought the point was to populate Niantic games with actual material.

    I reject so many boring nominations on a daily basis, that maybe--here's an idea--an actual bakery that puts effort into making their product/creations look unique is actually okay as far as the acceptance criteria is concerned.

    Also, maybe you should take a gander at the cakes they make (https://www.alabamacakes.com/). Maybe do that and then tell me it's just a bland bakery. They do other deserts as well, but it looks like cakes is their main deal.

    But hey, maybe you're fine with approving the billionth park playground or whatever.

    They make some claims on their website that I would need clarification since I'm not able to find anything to substantiate them but as far as anyone reviewing this is concerned, the place meets acceptance criteria.

  • Xaerfaal-PGOXaerfaal-PGO Posts: 86 ✭✭✭

    I apologize if I appear to be argumentative. Though, I don't know how voicing my thoughts ends up as arguing.

    There seems to be a little bit of a disconnect (in my opinion), because reviewers do not completely follow the acceptance criteria (at least, not all the time) and a lot of opinion they have ends up influencing their decision to approve or reject. You said yourself that these reviewers may not have "liked" something such as the tilt/angle of the photo. That is an opinion which is not covered in acceptance criteria (as far as I know?); so reviews aren't reviewing in a vacuum. People have biases, moods, opinions, etc that affect them when they review things (and I as well). I wouldn't see how Niantic could govern those things in any realistic sense so that every review of a nomination is perfectly justified... without it being something like mind control; which is besides the point anyway.

    Though, you may have a point in someone having trouble reading the name of the place since they've customized the font. That was not something which was a part of my original consideration when making the photo. I mean, I often click on photos of nominations to zoom in to make sure I'm seeing exactly what people are attempting to nominate (or whether something is really a duplicate since the submitter took the photo from a different angle); must be a little too hopeful of me to expect others to do the same for my nominations, I guess.

    Never thought anyone here had the power to approve my nomination (certainly now that it's been rejected) nor implied as such. Yes, I do plan on fixing my nomination in hopes that reviewers locally will approve it. It was definitely a mistake to upgrade it (as it was, anyway).

  • peardrop-INGpeardrop-ING Posts: 34 ✭✭

    Regarding tilted photos, there is a rejection option specifically for this and so it is covered by the current guidelines.


    Personally, I only use this if the picture is upside down or rotated 90°, but the language is there to allow reviewers to rejected tilted photos e.g. under 1* > photos > orientation; text as below:


    "Use for nominations where the photo is tilted, sideways, or upside down."

  • Xaerfaal-PGOXaerfaal-PGO Posts: 86 ✭✭✭

    Lackluster subject 1:

    Lackluster subject 2:

    Lackluster subject 3:


    No, you're right.

    I did them a huge disservice with, at least, the description section. My overall error was rushing it instead of taking more time to get all relevant information needed to (hopefully) persuade reviewers that this place is worthy of acceptance.

    My description section was worse than lackluster, it was devoid of any real substance. They certainly put the time and effort into making beautiful cakes, I should have put more time into drawing up the submission with a better presentation.

  • Xaerfaal-PGOXaerfaal-PGO Posts: 86 ✭✭✭

    Yes, there is an option for that.

    Funnily enough, though, that reason is not stated in the rejection email (as I posted originally above).

    Just doing a very crude horizon test/inspection on my photo and maybe there's a very slight tilt in the photo; as in, it's not completely level. But that may be in some kind of margin for error in basing it off of the reflection in the windows for the tree-line... and also assuming the points I used from the roof and sidewalk are more or less straight. Like so...

    So, no. I don't think that option could be used as far as the picture being level, anyway. The tree-line is about the same height throughout the whole reflection in the windows. There might be a slight tilt or it could be some trees are just larger than the other ones. I don't know. But that's not the point, either way.

    If they want to use that option as far as the angle from which I shot the photo, then yeah, maybe they could do that. But how many would have to click on that option in order for it to appear in the rejection email? I have no idea.

    If reviewers want to use the language of that rejection option as grounds for rejection of this photo then it's not per any example that Niantic gives in their rejection criteria section:

    The only tilted photo in these examples is due to it not being horizontally level.

    Which is the common meaning of the word, yes?

    As far as I can tell, my photo doesn't fit with any of these examples. And Niantic does not give any explanation or mention of what it means for a photo to be tilted, here at least.

    No, I don't think that's it. It's obviously what people have been saying already: reviewers weren't a fan of the photograph, saw my horrible description and deemed it fit to reject the nomination overall. However many reviewers it took do have the rejection issued is something I don't know of.

    Unless someone from Niantic gave an explanation on the forums somewhere? Would not have an idea on where to look for that, if there is one.

  • MelodyS88Chi-PGOMelodyS88Chi-PGO Posts: 627 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Why are you started another thread to complain about the same rejection?

  • Xaerfaal-PGOXaerfaal-PGO Posts: 86 ✭✭✭

    Uh no?

    I haven't made any new thread.

Sign In or Register to comment.