Nomination rejected by Niantic Review
kawin240-ING Posts: 317 Ambassador
So, a local wanderers club (Schwäbischer Albverein Stetten/Filder) has planted a memorial tree for their 120 year jubilee, a signboard with their logo is attached. Niantic snatched it and rejected it. I'm pretty sure the only arguably thing about that nomination is the photo, but the nomination is not worthy of a reject. @NianticGiffard you have asked others about internal reviews before, can you also look at this one?
Title: Jubiläumsbaum des Albvereins
Yeesh. That is very much not a good photo: off-center, crooked, and poorly lit. I mean, maybe they’ll overturn this, but if this was my nomination I’d just take the opportunity to renominate and use a proper primary image this time.
To be fair to them, for once im kind of in agreement with them.
Its got potential to be a good submission but as it is it's lacking polish shall we say.
Im asuming looking at the picture and the ground in the backround that the cage around tree has been done like that on purpose or been effected over time / tree growth which has caused it to be on the angle.
If that's the case maybe take the picture from slightly further back to show it how its situated. Or maybe just of the sign with the first one and the support picture showing it all.
Also jazz up the description, its lackluster and doesn't help sell the POI. Try an emphasis the longevity of the club and its community aspects in planting the tree.
Unless the support statement was super impressive I'd say you got caught with a double issue of a poor main photo and description not really helping. It may have survived one, but both probably made them think, nope not this time.
@NianticGiffard Trying again since I saw you answering on newer posts
The nominated subject is borderline already, so it shouldn't be a surprise if Niantic Review rejected it. Saying that it is "not worthy of a reject" is not how we nor Niantic approach nominations. We look to see if there is worthy of being accepted based on the criteria; and if we don't think it is, we reject.
Hi there! We have given it another look however stand by our decision. If you believe it was a valid nomination, please resubmit it with a better photo and supporting information.
I will post a screenshot once I got this accepted to show you all how you were very wrong with this
How wrong we are because we offered you information on why it was rejected and how to improve it ...... okay then
Awesome! Improve on it and make it better to get it accepted. Thats the reason for this section of the forum!
All you had to do was take a decent picture and this would have been approved a year ago. Instead you decided you had to be stubborn and stuck with that garbage. Congratulations.
Maybe you should reconsider your photo reviewing standards then. Nothing of that picture warrants a rejection.
That’s literally an incredible take, seeing as Niantic rejected it for the photo twice in this thread alone.
These are the circumstances under which criteria posted on this site say we can reject for photo:
"Photo includes one or more of emojis, tags, or personally identifiable information such as codenames, personal names or initials, or addresses; copyrighted material or watermarks, including screenshots of someone else's photo; is obviously doctored; includes people, body parts, or live animals as the subject matter; is blurry, over/under exposed, taken inside a car, contains a watermark, or is improperly oriented."
Can you explain exactly which part of this criteria you think specifies that this photo warrants rejection?
Scroll up and see for yourself? ‘Cause we talked about this over a year ago, and this dude was like, ‘No, I’d rather go a year without the POI than take a decent image.’ Giffard also indicated the image was rejection worthy.
@X0bai-PGO I did look at the picture, and here's what I saw. No emojis, tags, personally identifiable information, or copyrighted material. I don't think the photo is doctored. I don't see people, body parts, or live animals. I don't think it's blurry or poorly exposed, since it's clear enough to read text and see individual blades of grass. I don't see any sign of a car or a watermark. And I don't think it's improperly oriented since up is up and down is down.
I'm not arguing that this is a great photo by any means. I definitely think it could be better, and an experienced submitter would be silly not to make more of an effort. But the guidelines DO NOT say we can reject for "Your photo could have been better." So again, I would appreciate it if you - or better yet, Niantic or Gifford - would take a minute to explain your thought process. Where do you interpret the guidelines differently than I do, or are you using some other standards than what Niantic has published in the main criteria?
Please understand that I'm not trying to argue or tell you that I think you're wrong. I just don't see what you see and would like to learn. If Niantic thinks this is a rejectable photo, then I'm definitely not voting like they want me to when I review and I'd like to know where I'm going wrong.
What was said in the mail was what every rejection mail said at the time, and Giffards reply was copied from their DefaultForumResponses.xlsx file. Neither should be interpreted as "Niantic said the picture was bad".
That picture was "good enough". And should not have been a reason for rejection.
Here's my two cents. The photo's purpose is to help us identify the object when we are there. This photo is so close on the object, only showing a portion of it, that I have no idea what this is. I'm hampered by the fact that I can't read German. Typically, the language doesn't matter, I'd still be able to see the POI in the photo. All I can tell is that this is some kind of greenery with a sign. But I have no concept of how large or small it is. I think it's a bad image because it confuses me instead of helping me identify the object.
Copied? Lies. He said, “resubmit with a better photo”
Because this photo is terrible.
Niantic’s rejection descriptions are explanatory, not comprehensive. It does not say, “You may not reject for orientation unless the image is turned a minimum of 90 degrees.” A crooked, offcenter, badly-lit image that does not clearly show the subject - which is inarguably the case here - is well worth the rejection.
Worse, this nomination got all this feedback in this thread and put in a year’s worth of resubmissions and/or appeals instead of five minutes’ worth of effort to get a respectable image. Horrible.
Thanks @X0bai-PGO and others for taking time to discuss your perspectives.
In sections of the criteria where Niantic covers topics in a more open-ended way, I'm definitely more likely to use my own judgment to try to interpret the spirit of their meaning. The photo rejection criteria section gets pretty specific, however, so I do tend to treat that more like a checklist. It's good to hear and understand how others might handle these kinds of evaluations differently than I do so that I can review more thoughtfully, as well as recognize how self-critical I might need to be with the photos in my own future submissions.
Thanks again for your thoughts and sorry to have somewhat hijacked the original thread.