False nomination

I nominated my first waypoint and it wasn't approved due to false nomination. I was really dissapointed because according to me I chose an interesting spot, took good photos and wrote a historical background. Can you explain to me what I did wrong and what I should do in the future? KR Daniel


Comments

  • feliscybernicus-PGOfeliscybernicus-PGO Posts: 97 ✭✭✭

    Hello! Sorry to hear this got rejected.

    It looks about as good as it can be from what I can see. I can't see any too obvious "faults", these kinds of targets just can sometimes be a bit difficult to get accepted, especially if people find them suspicious for one reason or another. Snow may also be a contributing factor why people reject more easily as they can't see what's underneath. Perhaps wait until the snow melts and renominate then?

    Addressing any of the other concerns in the support info would also be a good idea. What criteria does it fill? How and why is it locally important? Is there any kind of proof you could offer to counter the claims of it being fake and the things what might make people draw these kind of conclusions? Idk if this is a possibility, but one thing that popped into my mind that could definitely help would be linking any sort of records found online that prove the structure's function and location into the supporting info. Descriptions and titles can't have links but supporting info can.

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

    My condolences on your first fatality being your first nomination.

    To be honest, I think this would have been difficult to get approved, unfortunately.

    Unless you luck out and get people reviewing who know this to be of some historical significance, all you will get are people thinking its just a run down, abandoned structure that is of little-to-no interest since main photos are usually the deal breakers in setting peoples' first split second impressions (which can be reversed if they actually pay attention to what they are reviewing).

    Also, the location where this kiln is located isn't much help either; could be mistaken for private property (when I'm sure it isn't).

    I've had a similar experience to this with an old rusted out car and I didn't really help my case at first in the way I wrote the description. But it was the photo, probably, more than anything that turned people off; despite it being the only POI literally marked as a POI on the map of the park, that didn't matter. To the reviewers, it just looked like a rusty piece of boring junk. I thought of trying one last time, but I have two gyms in the S2 cell in which it's located and there really isn't much point no in trying again since there's not enough to get a third gym.

    Unfortunately, I wouldn't rush to resubmit this kiln unless you can clearly show some kind of proof (a sign, a plaque, something to mark that it is historical), and just move on to nominate other easier things that usually get approved.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Which of the 3 Niantic criteria does it meet?

  • Thanks for your support and advises! The criteria I was going for was the first, a great place for exploration. Perhaps it´s just me but I like to visit these kinds of historical remains. For me it´s more interesting than art.

    I´ll see if I try to nominate it again, but then I will explain better and try to find some proof. For me it´s clear what it is from the first picture, but I’m educated in forestry and recognize these remains from human activities in the forest.

     

    KR,

     

    Daniel

Sign In or Register to comment.