Reviewers Abusing the System to control Stops/Gyms in an area

Is there anything that can be done about abusive players who block the creation of new stops or gyms in a town because they're on some sort of anonymous power trip?

We've been trying to get new stops for ages and they seem perfectly legit and of identical types to those in a nearby town - heck, they got one for a bus stop!!! But every submission is rejected for the most obscure reasons possible - the last time it was "picture orientation and picture quality" and yet the pictures were high quality, taken on a gloriously sunny day and perfectly showed the marker.

Why are a few power hungry types allowed to dominate a city? Because the can?

When will stop/gym nominations be judged fairly and without this sort of spoiling?


  • N0t0ri0usB0b-PGON0t0ri0usB0b-PGO Posts: 7 ✭✭

    So basically not only is the "system" completely bias against residential areas - although a cabbage patch is perfectly ok (claimed to be a "community garden where people can meet and exercise" LOL! - but reviewers are also basically working the system for their own and their friends benefit?

    You say that the stone marker here is ineligible because it's not a good place to socialise or exercise - however it is both - it's a new addition to the community and is on a very popular walking path.

    But the real problem I have is that this...

    .. is perfectly OK to be a GYM and it is exactly the same - oh and btw, it's right next to the said Bus Stop!

    There is absolutely no consistency and rather than expand the coverage of the game and encourage new players, including my children, to play locally and dare I say it, exercise, there is obvious bias being applied that is simply counter-intuitive if Niantic want this game to prosper.

    Heck, we have a Dutch barn and a Christmas Tree Farm here and both of those were rejected to for obscure reasons.

  • Duiomar-PGODuiomar-PGO Posts: 350 ✭✭✭✭

    Signs like those aren't likely to make it through anywhere. If there is a group coordinating to deny waypoints your area there's not much that can be done about it given how the system works. In theory appeals would help but they're inconsistent and slow.

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 779 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Criticizing by giving one photo that you don't know where it is won't change anything.

    If you believe that the wayspot candidate you submitted is not approved, there is a place in this forum where you can improve your nomination.

    Please discuss it there.

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,334 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I might add step 3.5: screenshot everything about your nomination before voting starts and post your details in the Nomination Improvement forum to get a fresh set of eyes on it. Often, commenters have new ideas and takes that are worth accounting for that can help your nomination’s chances. That way you minimize the risk of burning an upgrade on a rejection.

  • N0t0ri0usB0b-PGON0t0ri0usB0b-PGO Posts: 7 ✭✭

    What do you mean "you don't know where it is"?

    I literally took a photo of it yesterday!!

    I'll be submitting a report to have the gym and the 2 stops next to it removed.

    I don't want to be a KillJoy, but the system is bias and whereas some people are enabling gyms & pokestops that serve community, others are zealously or vindictively applying the rules to the extreme.

    This should be about encouraging and not discouraging play, but let the reporting/taking down begin.

  • N0t0ri0usB0b-PGON0t0ri0usB0b-PGO Posts: 7 ✭✭

    While the bias exists there is literally no point in wasting my time.

    Amazing how JWA seeks to increase playing opportunities whereas PoGo is determined to constrain them. PoGo talks about communities but then actively discourages them.

    Maybe the real question is why some reviews in some areas allow ineligible stops and gyms (on private property, don't meet criteria), when other zealously enforce the "rules"? If they know that a stop/gym cannot be easily removed then this is a deliberate manipulation of the system - and is basically certain individuals - responsible for reviews in certain areas - basically making up their own rules to suit them and their friends.

    Something needs to change

  • Qvirinia-PGOQvirinia-PGO Posts: 6 ✭✭
    edited July 1

    I have been struggling for years with nominating two stops in a small village where I visit infrequently. There is an old village pier. (This was once a fishing village). It has been "general shop" ??? "natural structure" ??? It is a pier. Wooden pier, used for boats. Also a "temporary structure" -- has been there heaven knows how long. Perhaps a hundred years?

    The problem is that I visit a few days, nearest stops and gyms are 6 km from here. Graahk. I make a nomination, get that absurd rejection when I'm already back home, so I cannot resubmit. Months later I can retry, with the same frustrating result.

    This is probably not "controlling in an area" as I suspect it is just some group just rejecting stop nomination at whim.

    The other spot I've tried is a navigation sign. So far the rejection criterion has been "bad photo" which is even partly true (though I've seen worse on stops and even gyms) -- I usually got there in the evening with sun behind the structure. Now I remembered it in the morning and got a clear photo.

    BTW, Where do the nomination pictures go? They aren't in my phone, so I could refer to them (and this time I forgot to take duplicates so that I'm out of the game)?

    Edit: I'm stupid. The pictures where attached into the confirmation email, so I do have them. I still don't understand why they aren't stored in the phone I use to make the nomination.

    Post edited by Qvirinia-PGO on
  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Are you in the UK by any chance? Every time someone posts a fishing pier or boat launch on here I see UK reviewers respond they aren't eligible. That could explain your problem. I guess sport fishing isn't common there?

    Either way, you can post your full submission in Nomination Improvement if you'd like some feedback from fresh eyes or new ideas. My first thought is a link with the village's history explaining the importance of the pier or fishing in general to the village if there's nothing about the pier itself.

  • Qvirinia-PGOQvirinia-PGO Posts: 6 ✭✭

    Nope, I'm from Finland.

    This is what I put in this time:

    Hanski village pier

    The old common pier of a fishing village.

    This is the historical pier the fishermen used. Today used most for recreational boats. Also it is far from any other stop (6 km to the nearest).

    And the picture:

    The "surroundings" picture shows the dirt road between some sheds leading to the spot. In the nomination system there seems to be little room for elaborate explanations. I was pondering how I show to Americans(?) that there is a "safe pedestrian access" for both this and the navigational (or landmark) sign. It is a little village, earlier fishermen and agriculture (my parents-in-law had cows), nowadays mainly summer residences, where two cars at the same time is considered a rush hour. The landmark is in the forest (with area kept open towards east and sea), there is a footpath, but as well you can walk anywhere (it's a great place for blueberries and lingonberries).

  • Kellerrys-INGKellerrys-ING Posts: 694 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I suspect that you also got "other rejection criteria" as rejection reason?

    Your challenge is to show and convince reviewers that the pier is more than just a place where people nowadays drive in their cars and jump into their boats.

    As it is, your nomination tells not much else. You do mention it's "a historical pier", but offer no source or argument for it. Old ≠ historical.

    Is it a gathering place, is there a grilling possibility, a shade where to rest after a boat trip? Is there a swimming possibility?

    How is the pier significant nowadays? Is it maintained by village association (kyläseura, kylätoimikunta)? Do they arrange annual fishing competitions or something similar?

    For the photo, use the phone camera. It's easier to crop and edit your photos that way. Your current photo is fine as support photo, but main photo should preferably show more of the target, now it's 40% grass, 40% sky.

    The reviewers your nomination gets are mostly Finns. Being near the border there might be few Russians reviewing as well, before the Ukraine war definitely.

  • Qvirinia-PGOQvirinia-PGO Posts: 6 ✭✭

    Hmmm. I haven't seen any clearer descriptions that that for most of the stop proposals so far. Yeah it is commonly maintained, as far as I know, and the village midsummer bonfire is always close by.

    That proposal is pending now, so I just wait. Anyway, this time I've not got a rejection on ridiculous grounds yet. And I hope the systemhas changed (I've been evaluating some stop proposals, they seem to be from southeastern Finland, occasionally from Estonia or Russia (that one I skipped as the description was in Russian and I know only letters, some compliments and some insults in that language...)

  • Kellerrys-INGKellerrys-ING Posts: 694 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It's not about "clear desription". It's about convincing reviewers that this pier is an eligible candidate. What eligibility criteria (exploring, gathering, excercise) do you think it fits and why/how. In my opinion eligibilty is not clear from the information you have provided.


    System hasn't changed much. Russia is geoblocked but we still get some nominations from border areas that share the same S2 cells used to determine reviewing areas.

    Google translate is the most common tool people use when reviewing in larger quantities.

  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 1,519 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Your picture looks like you're nominating the whole area, which doesn't qualify. Stand in front of (or on) the pier and take a picture straight down it. The pier itself should be (at least) 80% of your primary picture. Reviewers prefer a straight-on shot - and it looks better in game.

Sign In or Register to comment.