Thank you for the clarification about tags not being allowed.
However, I'm still concerned about the part of your comment that says "we took action on the Wayfinder depending on the abuses done".
Just to be clear: do you consider including a tag in the description to be abuse? In my opinion, it is not abusive, but rather a simple, non-malicious mistake. In my opinion, it's very similar to leaving a license plate or watermark in the main picture. Sure, it makes the nomination ineligible, but I don't really see anything deceptive or malicious here, so I would definitely not consider this "abuse".
Based on this thread, I will most definitely submit a question for the next AMA about this, but it would be nice to have a clarification as soon as possible, so I will ask this right here: could you clarify what the difference is between ineligible and abusive (if there's any)? At what point should reviewers report something for abuse instead of/in addition to simply rejecting the nomination?
Well, once there's a thread called "Today's I want a Pokestop at my house" that contained series of objects nominated inside submitters' house..., until Giffard took action to each nominations posted in that thread.
Imo the distinction between abuse or not will be unclear if Niantic decided to handle those themshelves. Imagine one submitter account being suspended because he only nominate his house, once.
The magnitude of actions that we take on Wayfinders depends on the violation and the frequency of it. These actions may include, but are not limited to, sending a warning message, placing restrictions on their Wayfarer, Pokémn GO or Ingress account, putting their account on probation, or placing a temporary or permanent suspension on their Wayfarer or Ingress account.
Thank you for providing the reason for this clarification. I can understand a guideline of not linking to a social media account.
And thank you for the further clarification:
Just to make you really, really sure:
Artwork painted by Mr Spraypaint. = acceptable
Artwork painted by @MrSpraypaint" = not acceptable
Sorry to whoever submitted that mural. It is a beautiful work, and I am sure there was no ill intent in the submission. There was no ill intent in my question. I just wanted to know if an Instagram handle was an acceptable signature or a social media tag. And now I do.
But mentioning or tagging other accounts in the title/description are not allowed.
Forgive me for a very particular sliver of potential misunderstanding, but are we under the impression that the example tag given, @MrSpraypaint is another player or Niantic account? For example, if there was a Polish artist named Mara and they specifically happened to have an account in Ingress or Pokemon GO called @Mara, is that how sure it can really be? Or we are not allowed to put Instagram handles whatsoever?
It seems that including the artist's professional name (MrSpraypaint) is okay, but using an @ sign or otherwise indicating it is a social media handle of any sort is not okay.
So @ is not an emoji but it is a special character that is used in links. Should we treat all characters like # @ and others as emojis and reason for rejection? This would simplify the annoying nominations that use @ in a sentence for "at" .
Shouldn't the description be edited back to at least credit the mural creator, but by removing the "@" and Instagram comment?
So the "@" is considered part of "real names, initials, emojis, or emoticons" or is it considered "HTML, URLs, or other coding language?" I assume with the later, and then would that also include "#" text?
Perhaps this can be added to the ever growing list of published clarifications that we may some day see.
So the @ symbol next to an artist or any other persons name that leads to their social media account is not allowed. I assumed it was because it said @IndianGiver on Instagram with Instagram being more so the trigger word. So @ next to an artists name is not allowed. Good to know
@NianticAaron I understand that different infractions should carry different penalties, however, the rules do not say to not do this with an artist's social media handle. Holding someone accountable to a rule that isn't published isn't fair.
The rule excerpt that @NianticGiffard posted would be much more clear if it read as the following:
Do not submit descriptions that:
Include real names or initials, unless they are for an artist or public figure.
Include emojis or emoticons
Include URLs, social media handles, HTML, or another coding language.
According to this Support article, the following are considered abusive title or description edits:
- Attempts to add an offensive title/description to a live Wayspot
- Title/description edits that mention codenames, real names or other personal information of players
- Titles, descriptions, or supporting information that attempt to inappropriately influence the reviewers to vote in a specific way
None of these fit this particular case. @IndianGiver is not a player's codename, real name or personal information, it's the Instagram account of the artist.
I'm sorry, but I still don't see how or why this description can be considered abusive. Ineligible? Sure. But not abusive.
Also, how is "submitting ineligible Wayspots repeatedly" an attempt to "bypass the system"? Submitting things is the system. Before appeals became a thing, the generic response to rejected nominations on this forum and everywhere else by Niantic was "if you think your submission is eligible, submit it again". Are you arguing that if reviewers repeatedly reject my nomination that I consider eligible, I'm committing abuse because I'm trying to "bypass the system"? You're contradicting your own advice.
By the way, I'm on attempt #8 on a community garden (with a name sign) and attempt #4 on a public playground. And I will keep renominating them until they get accepted because they are eligible.
You missed the first part of the sentence. "Submitting ineligible Wayspots repeatedly" . Yours is eligible so you are not the problem. People who are submitting the Walmart downtown 10 times or keep trying to get their Pokémon collection approved are the problem. Many people will try the "if I just submit this enough times then one time I will get enough newbies to accept it " philosophy. Unfortunately this happens because on the 8th try someone finally gets the neighborhood sign or apartment swimming pool approved.
Sure, but other than some clear-cut cases (K12 school, Christmas tree, live chicken, etc.) "eligibility" is not a black-or-white thing. Even in the eligibility and rejection criteria there are things that can be highly subjective. Examples:
Does not seem to be a great place of exploration, place for exercise, or place to be social
"does not seem to be" in itself implies subjectivity. This is essentially the "does not meet eligibility criteria" rejection reason and people's opinions on this can - and do - differ wildly.
The object is (...) not visually unique or interesting.
This is highly subjective and has been the topic of many arguments on many forums.
A generic business, chain, or franchise that is not locally unique
This, again, comes down to personal interpretation and preferences. Some people tend to consider practically every business generic. Others argue that even a run-of-the-mill coffee shop can be eligible if it's the only one in the neighbourhood.
There clearly is no clear division between "eligible" and "ineligible", other than the reviewers' consensus in many cases. (I would argue than in the majority of cases.) If the reviewers think that a community garden does not meet eligibility criteria, it is, in their opinion, ineligible. I, on the other hand, am sure that it meets at least the "place to be social" criterion. Who's right here? Will Niantic take action against me for resubmitting something that I think is eligible but reviewers disagree with me?
This has gotten off track but I think the point is to be respectful and really think through your resubmissions. For someone to get reported for spamming then a reviewer has to get annoyed enough and gather reasonable evidence to submit an abuse report. The Niantic employee will then look and the report and decide if you are spamming ineligible things or if you are trying in good faith to get something that in your opinion meets criteria through. The reporter gets their say in the abuse report and you get your say in your nomination supporting info. Niantic is your judge so re-submit accordingly.
In some areas we have to re-submit the same rejected POI 5+ times before it goes through even if was a valid POI from the start because of what I assume is voting abuse to get upgrades.
It's worrying to see you say that resubmitting rejected POI is considered abuse.
If only we could appeal portals do Niantic would look at them....oh wait! xD
Once appeals start I really hope action is taken against tactical voters after they see some areas submissions are always rejected by certain groups, like voters on the other team in ingress
Should not the Artist of prices of art be credited?
We have an art collective here in Boise, Sector_Seventeen and the artists are all @handles. Without crediting the artists I think would cause more problems.
Yes we shouldn't say Instagram @handle but if the art is signed by @handle (no other name given) then it should be part of the description
I genuinely believe the Wayfarer team should reconsider this position in regards to artists. In my honest opinion there is a fundamental difference between adding a tag not related to the nomination itself and the tag for an artist for a work of art they have created. I have met several artists over the years. These people are extremely talented and deserve any and all credit for their work. Many of them sign their work as @MrSpraypaint because they are proud of the work they created.
I also still believe that being able to search for the artist helps others get out and explore art and culture. Is this not one of the core goals of Pokemon GO, to get out and explore?
It would also be incorrect to reject a nomination or punish a submitter who happens to include such a tag when many artists merely sign their work as @MrSpraypaint. The submitter may believe they are correctly crediting the artist. To reject a nomination because of that would be very misguided. Attached is a collage of examples of such murals signed in exactly this manner (over 20), from just a few of the hundreds of murals I have visited in person.
Again I would like to request that you and the Wayfarer team reconsider the position on this matter as a result of the points I made above. I would be more than willing to discuss this further if necessary.
I guess if their name has an @ symbol we could possibly clarify in supporting info. I agree with you though. What if an artists name actually contains the @ symbol
Comments
Thank you.
That should settle (most) of the arguments..... 😉
Thank you for the clarification about tags not being allowed.
However, I'm still concerned about the part of your comment that says "we took action on the Wayfinder depending on the abuses done".
Just to be clear: do you consider including a tag in the description to be abuse? In my opinion, it is not abusive, but rather a simple, non-malicious mistake. In my opinion, it's very similar to leaving a license plate or watermark in the main picture. Sure, it makes the nomination ineligible, but I don't really see anything deceptive or malicious here, so I would definitely not consider this "abuse".
Based on this thread, I will most definitely submit a question for the next AMA about this, but it would be nice to have a clarification as soon as possible, so I will ask this right here: could you clarify what the difference is between ineligible and abusive (if there's any)? At what point should reviewers report something for abuse instead of/in addition to simply rejecting the nomination?
Well, once there's a thread called "Today's I want a Pokestop at my house" that contained series of objects nominated inside submitters' house..., until Giffard took action to each nominations posted in that thread.
Imo the distinction between abuse or not will be unclear if Niantic decided to handle those themshelves. Imagine one submitter account being suspended because he only nominate his house, once.
The magnitude of actions that we take on Wayfinders depends on the violation and the frequency of it. These actions may include, but are not limited to, sending a warning message, placing restrictions on their Wayfarer, Pokémn GO or Ingress account, putting their account on probation, or placing a temporary or permanent suspension on their Wayfarer or Ingress account.
Submitting Wayspots that do not meet our criteria makes them ineligible but submitting ineligible Wayspots repeatedly with an intention to bypass the system is abuse. This article should help you understand better: https://niantic.helpshift.com/hc/en/21-wayfarer/faq/2190-reporting-abuse-in-wayfarer/?s=requesting-wayspot-modification-or-removal&f=reporting-abuse-in-wayfarer&l=en&p=web
Thanks,
Thank you for providing the reason for this clarification. I can understand a guideline of not linking to a social media account.
And thank you for the further clarification:
Just to make you really, really sure:
Artwork painted by Mr Spraypaint. = acceptable
Artwork painted by @MrSpraypaint" = not acceptable
Sorry to whoever submitted that mural. It is a beautiful work, and I am sure there was no ill intent in the submission. There was no ill intent in my question. I just wanted to know if an Instagram handle was an acceptable signature or a social media tag. And now I do.
But mentioning or tagging other accounts in the title/description are not allowed.
Forgive me for a very particular sliver of potential misunderstanding, but are we under the impression that the example tag given, @MrSpraypaint is another player or Niantic account? For example, if there was a Polish artist named Mara and they specifically happened to have an account in Ingress or Pokemon GO called @Mara, is that how sure it can really be? Or we are not allowed to put Instagram handles whatsoever?
It seems that including the artist's professional name (MrSpraypaint) is okay, but using an @ sign or otherwise indicating it is a social media handle of any sort is not okay.
So @ is not an emoji but it is a special character that is used in links. Should we treat all characters like # @ and others as emojis and reason for rejection? This would simplify the annoying nominations that use @ in a sentence for "at" .
Shouldn't the description be edited back to at least credit the mural creator, but by removing the "@" and Instagram comment?
So the "@" is considered part of "real names, initials, emojis, or emoticons" or is it considered "HTML, URLs, or other coding language?" I assume with the later, and then would that also include "#" text?
Perhaps this can be added to the ever growing list of published clarifications that we may some day see.
So the @ symbol next to an artist or any other persons name that leads to their social media account is not allowed. I assumed it was because it said @IndianGiver on Instagram with Instagram being more so the trigger word. So @ next to an artists name is not allowed. Good to know
@NianticAaron I understand that different infractions should carry different penalties, however, the rules do not say to not do this with an artist's social media handle. Holding someone accountable to a rule that isn't published isn't fair.
The rule excerpt that @NianticGiffard posted would be much more clear if it read as the following:
Do not submit descriptions that:
According to this Support article, the following are considered abusive title or description edits:
None of these fit this particular case. @IndianGiver is not a player's codename, real name or personal information, it's the Instagram account of the artist.
I'm sorry, but I still don't see how or why this description can be considered abusive. Ineligible? Sure. But not abusive.
Also, how is "submitting ineligible Wayspots repeatedly" an attempt to "bypass the system"? Submitting things is the system. Before appeals became a thing, the generic response to rejected nominations on this forum and everywhere else by Niantic was "if you think your submission is eligible, submit it again". Are you arguing that if reviewers repeatedly reject my nomination that I consider eligible, I'm committing abuse because I'm trying to "bypass the system"? You're contradicting your own advice.
By the way, I'm on attempt #8 on a community garden (with a name sign) and attempt #4 on a public playground. And I will keep renominating them until they get accepted because they are eligible.
You missed the first part of the sentence. "Submitting ineligible Wayspots repeatedly" . Yours is eligible so you are not the problem. People who are submitting the Walmart downtown 10 times or keep trying to get their Pokémon collection approved are the problem. Many people will try the "if I just submit this enough times then one time I will get enough newbies to accept it " philosophy. Unfortunately this happens because on the 8th try someone finally gets the neighborhood sign or apartment swimming pool approved.
Sure, but other than some clear-cut cases (K12 school, Christmas tree, live chicken, etc.) "eligibility" is not a black-or-white thing. Even in the eligibility and rejection criteria there are things that can be highly subjective. Examples:
Does not seem to be a great place of exploration, place for exercise, or place to be social
"does not seem to be" in itself implies subjectivity. This is essentially the "does not meet eligibility criteria" rejection reason and people's opinions on this can - and do - differ wildly.
The object is (...) not visually unique or interesting.
This is highly subjective and has been the topic of many arguments on many forums.
A generic business, chain, or franchise that is not locally unique
This, again, comes down to personal interpretation and preferences. Some people tend to consider practically every business generic. Others argue that even a run-of-the-mill coffee shop can be eligible if it's the only one in the neighbourhood.
There clearly is no clear division between "eligible" and "ineligible", other than the reviewers' consensus in many cases. (I would argue than in the majority of cases.) If the reviewers think that a community garden does not meet eligibility criteria, it is, in their opinion, ineligible. I, on the other hand, am sure that it meets at least the "place to be social" criterion. Who's right here? Will Niantic take action against me for resubmitting something that I think is eligible but reviewers disagree with me?
This has gotten off track but I think the point is to be respectful and really think through your resubmissions. For someone to get reported for spamming then a reviewer has to get annoyed enough and gather reasonable evidence to submit an abuse report. The Niantic employee will then look and the report and decide if you are spamming ineligible things or if you are trying in good faith to get something that in your opinion meets criteria through. The reporter gets their say in the abuse report and you get your say in your nomination supporting info. Niantic is your judge so re-submit accordingly.
In some areas we have to re-submit the same rejected POI 5+ times before it goes through even if was a valid POI from the start because of what I assume is voting abuse to get upgrades.
It's worrying to see you say that resubmitting rejected POI is considered abuse.
If only we could appeal portals do Niantic would look at them....oh wait! xD
Once appeals start I really hope action is taken against tactical voters after they see some areas submissions are always rejected by certain groups, like voters on the other team in ingress
Should not the Artist of prices of art be credited?
We have an art collective here in Boise, Sector_Seventeen and the artists are all @handles. Without crediting the artists I think would cause more problems.
Yes we shouldn't say Instagram @handle but if the art is signed by @handle (no other name given) then it should be part of the description
Appears I was wrong...... 🤣
Hi @NianticGiffard
I genuinely believe the Wayfarer team should reconsider this position in regards to artists. In my honest opinion there is a fundamental difference between adding a tag not related to the nomination itself and the tag for an artist for a work of art they have created. I have met several artists over the years. These people are extremely talented and deserve any and all credit for their work. Many of them sign their work as @MrSpraypaint because they are proud of the work they created.
I also still believe that being able to search for the artist helps others get out and explore art and culture. Is this not one of the core goals of Pokemon GO, to get out and explore?
It would also be incorrect to reject a nomination or punish a submitter who happens to include such a tag when many artists merely sign their work as @MrSpraypaint. The submitter may believe they are correctly crediting the artist. To reject a nomination because of that would be very misguided. Attached is a collage of examples of such murals signed in exactly this manner (over 20), from just a few of the hundreds of murals I have visited in person.
Again I would like to request that you and the Wayfarer team reconsider the position on this matter as a result of the points I made above. I would be more than willing to discuss this further if necessary.
Yes and although he's not an artist, the correct name for bigclivedotcom is, well, bigclivedotcom, as just one example.
It would be incorrect to refer to bigclivedotcom as "Mr Big Clive" or any other such nonsense.
Similarly the name of an artist, the professional name that is, might well be @MrSpraypaint.
Corrupting it to "Mr Spraypaint" would simply be wrong.
I guess if their name has an @ symbol we could possibly clarify in supporting info. I agree with you though. What if an artists name actually contains the @ symbol