Niantic needs to police improper rejections.

FluxAscender2-PGOFluxAscender2-PGO Posts: 1 ✭✭
edited June 27 in General Discussion

I have had several rejections of nominations with the excuse of them being DUPLICATES, when the nomination is dozens of yards from the next nearest stop, and the object concerned in on the opposite side of a major street from any other existing Pokestop. This is getting RIDICULOUS. I live in a smallish town, and we can't get ANY new stops added.

Comments

  • HankWolfman-PGOHankWolfman-PGO Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭✭✭

    When you attempt to submit a new wayspot, stand at the location of the object you're intending to submit (you need to be there in person) and then start the submission process. On the map where you put the pin, you can see all wayspots within around 100 metres of where you're physically stood. Any that are already in Pokémon Go will show as a blue Pokéstop icon and any that are not eligible to appear in Pokémon Go (usually due to the one Pokéstop/Gym per level 17 S2 cell rule) but are still in the Niantic Lightship database will show as an orange Wayfarer icon. You can tap on these icons to see what the wayspots are called and what they look like.

    If something you're wanting to submit appears on this map as either kind of icon, then trying to submit it again will get it correctly marked as a duplicate, as it does already exist in the database, even if it isn't in your game of choice. The wording in Pokémon Go is misleading, but you're actually submitting a wayspot for the Lightship database as opposed to a Pokéstop.

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 2,038 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Show us a couple of things that have been rejected as duplicates and we can check to see if the rejections were correct.

  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭✭✭

    When an object is duplicated all around, like a bench, decorative lamp post, or lion statues placed every 10 meters along a wall (IOW: the items are all duplicates of each other)...

    - and one of them has a Wayspot in Lightship

    - nominating the other 20 identical things will usually result in a Duplicate rejection.

  • TexasAgent-PGOTexasAgent-PGO Posts: 3 ✭✭

    I agree! I just had a rejection of a large structure and sign at the entrance to a new housing development. These types of stops are found everywhere. It was reject due to lack of pedestrian access even though my support photo clearly showed a pedestrian sidewalk right in front of the structure. What the heck is wrong with you people!

  • TexasAgent-PGOTexasAgent-PGO Posts: 3 ✭✭
    edited June 27

    @Hosette-ING The large structure (two actually) has good artistic merit. But that was not the rejection reason. if it were it should say so. The rejection reason was lack of pedestrian access. So, your hypothetical defense is simply wrong. The call for policing improper rejections is a good one. I don’t know that this relatively new way of proposing new waystops is any good. Too many bad actors who are lazy or malicious.

    @Hosette-ING Oh, I forgot to re-iterate that my support photo showed a sidewalk right in front. The rejection reason was obvious rubbish.

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 2,038 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 27

    @TexasAgent-PGO It's pretty well-known that Niantic is bad at choosing rejection reasons to show us. It could be as simple as one person accidentally or deliberately choosing an an inaccurate rejection reason.

    Why don't you show us the submissions so that we can give you a better analysis?

  • The26thDoctor-PGOThe26thDoctor-PGO Posts: 425 ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 27

    It's quite common for reviewers to choose any rejection reason. I wouldn't use the reasoning as a guide for why your submission was rejected @TexasAgent-PGO

    Although if your submission is ineligible the reasoning doesn't actually matter much too.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 2,874 Ambassador

    Safe pedestrian access is often misunderstood - by both reviewers and submitters.

    For example, this could be an eligible estate sign, but the crosswalk past an object does not constitute safe pedestrian access.


    Whereas this candidate below has no sidewalk but is accessible walking paths in a nearby prairie.


  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 1,709 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I dunno, personally I think that picture of the bird looks cool enough to meet the unique (for the area) art. But the safe pedestrian access is the issue

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 1,709 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Can't really tell from the picture, but that front looks like road rather than a sidewalk. (Like there's even pedestrian crossing lines) so it's not really safe fro the front of it. I do t know about the back though. The second example though, it has a lot of empty space behind it, so that will be why it has the safe pedestrian access

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 2,874 Ambassador

    Yup, exactly. If my post wasn't clear, the top one (a neighborhood sign) is ineligible due to unsafe access, despite being near a cross walk. The bottom one (a recreational park sign) is eligible because it can be accessed from the rec field behind the sign despite no sidewalks being nearby.

  • No1ofConseqence-PGONo1ofConseqence-PGO Posts: 113 ✭✭✭
    edited June 28

    [Withdrawn comments, as the matter was clarified in a later posting I'd not seen.]

  • No1ofConseqence-PGONo1ofConseqence-PGO Posts: 113 ✭✭✭

    This might have been suggested before - and please forgive me if it has and I've simply not seen the discussion on it - but it sounds like a similar group to the 'waypoint reviewer community' needs to be set up by Niantic to take care of the clearly heavy appeals load Niantic are currently under.

    Here's the concept: Niantic conduct a 'Review of Reviewers' to determine who among the 'thousands' of reviewers most accurately-to-their-rulings review nominations. Those discovered by them are then invited onto an Appeals panel to review appeals. And those folks then review such appeals, which should both speed up the process and make it less subject to fluctuating standards.

    Make minimum conditions for a reviewer to be under consideration, such as:

    • no less than 12 months as a reviewer;
    • no fewer than 2500 reviews already carried out;
    • no more than 100 past reviews, where the review marked the nomination as ineligible, appealed against;
    • etc.

    Anyways, I cannot see how such a thing was not discussed in the past... but, as I said, I couldn't find it and think this current discussion warrants a 'revisit' of the idea.

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 2,038 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Sinykal1-PGO There have been discussions of super-reviewers with additional privileges in the past. It seems very unlikely that Niantic will do such a thing for appeals or anything else.

  • No1ofConseqence-PGONo1ofConseqence-PGO Posts: 113 ✭✭✭
    edited June 28

    @Hosette-ING Thank you for the clarification. As I said, I was 'pretty sure' it was a subject visited before (common sense and a bit of logic would deem it so) but, as both slow appeals and 'poor' reviews are constantly raised, mayhap a further raising of the subject might help Niantic to understand this is something the community strongly wants.

    One lives in hope.

  • ZinkyZonk-INGZinkyZonk-ING Posts: 236 ✭✭✭

    So triggered by your initial premise @Hosette-ING had many good nominations get knocked back ... And I'm super huffy with every wrongful rejection for straight forward poi that should just be online. I have listed a great many examples on this forum of great nominations that that were rejected.

    It's my belief that reviewers are quite fickle and need greater training.

  • RandomExploit-INGRandomExploit-ING Posts: 428 ✭✭✭✭

    Having watched and participated in the forum for some time I would say while there are many poor submitter posts, there are more than enough posts by reviewers saying they would reject perfectly good submissions and/or not vote how Niantic wishes/reject anything they think could be faked with no evidence to suggest any submissions are etc.

    So that argument that submitters are generally the ones at fault is false as far as im concerned.

Sign In or Register to comment.