Absurdities of eligibility criteria
Robert4444-ING Posts: 564 ✭✭✭✭
If the criteria says that game stores (where tournaments are held) are good submissions, but Wayfarer decided otherwise - I understand. But if, on appeal, Niantic claims that "The object in question does not meet the Wayfarer criteria" - then I don't understand. Perhaps review your guidelines...
"Gry Planszowe 24" is the largest game store in the region.
Your subject does appear to be eligible. That said, what we can see of that primary photo does look pretty uninspiring.
The main photo of the submission showed a store sign above the entrance, while the secondary photo showed a view of the entire building. This is how the stores look like. The picture of the interior I uploaded only here. In my naiveté, I thought the game store would simply be accepted. 😅
Oh well. Sometimes it is really difficult to understand what the people examining the appeals are guided by. If this store does not meet the criteria of "being a game store" then which store does? Can someone explain this?
I notice more and more often that Niantic employees are removing eligible wayspots and rejecting appeals from nominations that meet the qualifying and acceptance criteria. Maybe the company should train them better?
Appeals in this form is ineffective in my opinion. Wayspot should defend itself. Not only is the appeal several months in reassessment, it is faster to submit POI again...
All I can maybe suggest is that if you resubmit this, take a picture of the area inside the shop where people sit and play games with each other and use that as your supporting photo. You can also detail what events and tournaments are held here. This should show that the shop is indeed used as a place to be social, rather than simply being a shop.
I can’t see either the full primary image nor the supporting, but the interior one you put up here is not the worst supporting I have ever seen: it shows the games in a game store and the business logo is right there next to them, tying the store to the signage outside. I think if you got a good, clean image of the full exterior, the two might make your case nicely.
(Also, not your fault, but it’s a pity their web site doesn’t have a proper home page, rather than going directly to online shopping)
Game stores are potentially eligible, but not automatically so. Without seeing your full submission I cannot tell if you successfully demonstrated why this specific location is eligible.
Okay okay. But why does a niantic employee write that the nomination is "not eligible", instead of saying "This is a potentially eligible place, I suggest provide more evidence of its uniqueness, for example by adding a photo of the interior"? The current overtone suggests that no game stores are eligible
That's exactly my point. I'm not denying that it was rejected in the normal vote - I just don't quite understand Niantic's decision on appeal.
Appeal rejections just leave the rejection reasons from the original rejection.
The bit from the Niantic appeal is like this:
Thanks for the appeal, Explorer! The object in question does not meet the Wayfarer criteria as it comes under generic. We recommend you review the Wayspot Criteria before submitting your next Wayspot contribution: https://niantic.helpshift.com/hc/en/21-wayfarer/