Reviewers Abusing the System to control Stops/Gyms in an area
N0t0ri0usB0b-PGO
Posts: 7 ✭✭
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?
Comments
If you share screenshots of your nominations, we can give advice on how the nominations can be improved.
Existing wayspots are not necessarily a good mark of what is eligible and acceptable, because the criteria have changed over time, and also, some wayspots have been erroneously accepted. A better way to determine eligibility is to read the Wayfarer acceptance and rejection criteria. All wayspots should be a great place to explore, socialize, and/or exercise.
You mentioned a town with a bus stop accepted. Generally, generic bus stops are not eligible, so this would be an example of an incorrectly accepted wayspot. You also posted what looks like a subdivision name sign, which is also ineligible because it's not a good place to socialize, explore, or exercise. So far, it seems like the rejections have been correct. But we can't know for sure if you don't post the nominations screenshots.
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.
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.
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.
It is frustrating if you have a large residential area and there is little present that can be a wayspot. It can mean that there is little nearby in a game. Many interesting historic features, objects with artistic quality, and socialising spots etc are naturally located in town centres. A lot varies from country and local planning laws etc. The most common feature that is suitable in largely residential areas are play area and parks …. No matter how small but ideally with a sign. There may also be a religious building or community hall / hub. Sports facilities such as football pitches etc. Those are all good candidates.
If you have a local residents group or council try suggesting to them information boards that might explain local wildlife or some interesting history of the area. You could also ask if they could devise and put up marker for walking trails to promote exercise. Could there be a residents project to create some mosaics or murals on non residential property?
it would be better to try and focus efforts on those sorts of things that you can try to control and influence than be frustrated at constant rejections. Those examples from nearby you have posted do not meet the criteria and annoying though it is, you would be better ignoring them.
I won’t speak to the eligibility of nominations without seeing everything about it (both images, all text, location pin), save to say that there used to be different criteria than there are now, so existing spots are not a good guideline for making new spots.
I will speak to local rejection cabals, which are easily skipped. Here’s how:
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.
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.
The issue you'll have here is that the rejection criteria and the removal criteria are not the same. If something that should be rejected gets accepted, it will only get removed if it meets one of the specific removal criteria (which are the options you see when reporting the wayspot). If none of those apply, you're basically stuck with a wayspot that shouldn't have been accepted.
He means you did not give any supporting or location information in your post. It’s hard to give accurate feedback on comments like this when we only have a sliver of the necessary information.
You are certainly welcome to submit any POIs for removal, but keep a couple things in mind. One is that removal has its own criteria, which is not the same as acceptance/rejection criteria. I know this is frustrating and this doesn’t make immediate sense, but something like an average bus stop, while it would not meet current criteria for acceptance, neither will it typically meet criteria for removal (which is generally school locations, private residences, unsafe locations, fake spots, and not much else). The second is that a single Wayfarer has very little influence over the acceptance or rejection of a single nomination; we don’t know how many votes it takes to accept or reject, but it’s north of ten at the very least and there’s no way to know who those voters are, so you may be taking out your frustrations on a player who is not the source of them.
I do believe that both Wayfarer guidelines and personal peace of mind speak to letting this go. Find some new places to nominate and don’t worry about what anyone else is doing that you have no control over.
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
Based on your comments elsewhere you seem to have a misunderstanding of eligibility and criteria.
You should focus less on what is slipping through that you find ineligible and focusing more on how you can improve your own nominations, which many people in this community would be willing to help with.
I can't currently access the description, but the bus stop may have been accepted if the basis of review was the "unique" art.
https://intel.ingress.com/intel?pll=45.307197,-122.749406
I don't know why the apartment sign was approved.
https://intel.ingress.com/intel?pll=45.307461,-122.74943
Nothing else looks too troublesome. Apartment pools aren't eligible but they were at one time and they still don't meet removal criteria.
I did a very brief look at Dodds Farm and can't find anything that stands out as eligible. Is there a community clubhouse? Local area park? Shared commons? Otherwise, ya, to your comment above, Niantic's mission is mapping things that encourage or facilitate socializing, exploration, and exercise and I simply don't see anything right now in this housing community that meets that mission.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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...)
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.
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.
Sorry for thread necromancy, but last time I visited the village the pier had -- lo and behold -- got a stop! Under a bit different name (village shore or the like), but just were I had tried to get one for years for vain. Someone else had had better luck. Hooray!
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).