It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
As the header says, an appealed nominations reject by Niantic now has added "customized" text to support the rejection.
Although it's the first one, it already looks copy/paste to me.
A local community member got a similar but different message, stating their nomination fell under rejection criteria.
Even if the messages are a bit generic, I think they're still better than no message.
I have seen a few other messages that give a little more info but the original example posted in this thread leaves a lot to be desired. Hopefully they’ll take this one out of rotation and use the options that give more information.
I'm fine with them using copy/paste messages, as the majority of rejections probably are fully explained by a copy/paste message. It would be nice if this one were a little more specific, though. I'd replace "does not meet the Wayfarer bar" with "does not meet the acceptance criteria as a great place to be social, to exercise, or to explore" (if I'm interpreting the message correctly).
have no idea whether to cry or laugh!? Where is the added value in the text? There is no learning effect recognizable to recognize what exactly went wrong here. Using copy and paste to refer to the criteria that don't help you any further makes no sense at all, then you can also leave out the text directly, especially since you at Niantic also reject appeals that themselves meet the criteria. As can be read in my post, in which one cycle path is accepted....and the other is not.....or one accepts a clubhouse of a sports club and the other is rejected again, 👍🏻 thanks for that!
I'm pretty sure the short comments I leave on my rejections are more informative than this. At least point to the rejections reason. Just telling someone to review the criteria is not going to help.
It’s 100% copy paste. It comes from a Google Docs spreadsheet. Someone pasted the link on one of my Appeals instead of the reason. (See image post if approved)
I appealed a few nearly identical trail markers from one specific trail. The only difference in the markers is the number on them. One was accepted on appeal, and three were rejected on appeal. I'd like to showcase these and the messages that I got with the rejected ones:
This was the one that was accepted on appeal:
Proof of acceptance:
These two were rejected, both with the same unhelpful copy and paste message:
And this was rejected with an individualized message:
Ok so you probably noticed that for my supplemental, I used a little collage that has two photos; one photo of the actual marker on the trail, and the second photo is a sign at the beginning of the trail that says, and lets all read it together:
I really, really don't understand how Niantic can not understand that these are trail markers, and more so, why some are accepted and some are not.
The worst part is, this trail system is absolutely FULL of these markers, although depending on the spur of the trail, some of the markers are cemented into the ground like these, while others on unpaved spurs of the trail are put on signposts. The ones on signposts have had a near 100% acceptance rate even with upgrades, just because the marker is on a wooden post. Example:
These are absolutely trail markers and it is very clear that there is a major lack of reading comprehension, critical thinking, and uniformity amongst the people reviewing these appeals (and among the community reviewing them). How can we have faith in the appeals process when it is so wishy washy? The entire point of appeals is to correct issues like this, not to create them.
At least your last one is actually a message ..... its wrong and shows the person didn't actually read the whole review, but its vetter than a copy and pastes response
Really really hope they change that ASAP, copy and pastes responses make it seem liek they haven't looked at your thing properly. Like, the example I the op, what help is that? It doesn't meet what bar? If it's been rejected fornmiamatched location originally, then "doesn't meet the bar" doesn't tie into that at all
Epic incompetence once again from Niantic.
I would have hoped the comments would be more informative. Before I realised people making nominations did not see my comments (another thing Niantic did not tell me), I was giving more meaningful sentences than "does not meet the Wayfarer bar". Niantic managed to say something whilst at the same time saying absolutely nothing.
Similar to @AisforAndis-ING I appealed a few trailmarkers for the same trail.
One was accepted and another was rejected. Same trail.
Thanks for the appeal, Explorer! The object in question does not meet the Wayfarer criteria. We recommend you review the Wayspot Criteria before submitting your next Wayspot contribution: https://niantic.helpshift.com/hc/en/21-wayfarer/section/166-wayspot-eligibility/?s=wayspot-eligibility
Rejection reasons show as “Generic Business” and “URL or markup”. Can’t remember if they were that before. (There is a URL in supporting info). Fortunately the one that was rejected on Appeal I can submit again some time next week.
The same thing happened to me twice as well.
Of course, anyone who’s ever worked anywhere knows how this will go, acceptance on the trailmarkers Appeals reversed. 😆
You complain that another team gets free pizza every Friday whilst your team does not, even though you work hard too. It’s raised through the right processes and you think “Yes, we too will get free pizza on Fridays!”
Then Friday rolls around and the other team do not have their pizza. Neither do you. The decision was taken that nobody gets pizza.
Seems about right to how the world works, rather rather everyone getti g nice things equally, they would rather no one have nice things lol
My first appeal came back rejected*, incorrectly as a “natural feature”. Silly me for selecting one of the rejected nominations that had had a photogenic picture of the location slash historic artifact rather than the 6” metal sign.
Trying again, but I can only grind my teeth waiting now, even more waiting if they’re gonna be sticking to a FIFO ordering.
*It is very clear that the Niantic appeal review process does NOT take into consideration anything but the single appealed nomination. For instance, had they even so much as looked at the multiple other nominations I’d made of the same thing it would have immediately disproved this “natural features with no sign” thing.
"I really, really don't understand how Niantic can not understand that these are trail markers, and more so, why some are accepted and some are not."
While these are trail markers, as "clarified" in the latest guidelines, they are ineligible, as only descriptive trail markers should be accepted: ones that include the trail's name.
There was an excellent post made last week by someone in the UK showing 3 sets of UK "trail" markers, all almost identical, except one of the three had a trail name; the other two did not. That one is eligible, the other two are not.
So IMO, none of your ones are eligible. Count yourself lucky you got one accepted; I would certainly have rejected it it if I was reviewing!
that's old info? i'm fairly sure there was a newer clarification that states trail names are not necessary.
and yes, technically these markers do have the trail name. they're initials. it says so in his description. my area has extremely similar trail markers.
The messages are completely unhelpful. I'm still not sure how a historic building listed on the National Register of Historic Places and designed by a renowned architect with around two dozen other buildings also listed somehow doesn't meet the Wayspot Criteria.
I would note that this nomination was original through the Ingress Classic app.
If you nominated this via Ingress Classic (or "Ingress" as we like to call it) then the actual nomination itself is old enough to be described as "historic" in it's own right......... 🤣
Interesting, but "Robotic texts" unfortunately do not help anyone to understand some rejections. :(
At least I got a response from @NianticDanbocat on Twitter
I guess we will see if anything comes of it.
Gonna take a guess and say you're talking about sogs picture about the public pathways arrows. The issue you're having there is, his picture was wring, as named trails are not a requirement, they USED to be, but rhay got dropped, sog knows this but doesn't like it, so acts like the named trail is still the requirement. Trail markers now need to
Encourage exercise and/or exploration, they do not need to be named
piko lu tesa Pokemon
Pokémon GO forums are —> https://community.pokemongolive.com/
if you’re looking for that.
I'm not saying "trail names are a requirement", I know they are not. The dicussion about the photo I posted with the three trail markers revolved around the difference in the UK only between a "generic, mass produced not interesting" marker - ie the plain arrows, of which there are 1000s and 1000s and should be rejected as "mass produced", and the 3rd marker with a trail name on it. This makes it an official marker for an official trail, so no longer "generic" and therefore eligible.
I have recently had an artwork rejected on appeal. An ARTWORK. While to the untrained eye it looks odd or looks temporary. It definitely isn’t. It was installed in 2008. I’ve provided enough evidence to prove this. And it’s on a public viewing platform not a private dwelling.
Yet! I have had an appeal accepted for another artwork I fully expected to be rejected because it’s on my house due to the location pin bouncing back when I nominated it. I even told them in capital letters that the nomination was in the wrong place but they accepted anyway. I now have two portals on my street and one should not be there. The street name is even in the title of the nomination this should have been a clue but no, they accepted it anyway. Ridiculous.
At least you can submit a location edit of over 10 metres for it using the Wayfarer Support Chat.