I don’t know why I keep submitting…

These submissions got rejected for the most absurd reasons.

Reason: Title or description

Fact: The description is straight out of Wikipedia. The title reads „holy cross“


Reason: seasonal and not reachable

Facts: It is clearly not seasonal. The content may be but not the display.


Reason: Not reachable and seasonal

Facts: I’ve literally taken the picture from the walkway. How is this supposed to not be reachable? And it is clearly visible that this is a fixed display.


im fed up with this …

Comments

  • PkmnTrainerJ-INGPkmnTrainerJ-ING Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You shouldn’t copy descriptions from other places so that reject is correct.

    Your second one has a description of one word?

    The third one, I can’t see a pathway.

    Presented with limited information, yes, I would have likely rejected all of these too.

  • niktero-PGOniktero-PGO Posts: 278 ✭✭✭✭

    We have been specifically told to reject things on roundabouts that have no pedestrian access. This guidance has gotten less obvious with each criteria refresh but we need to be able to walk up and touch the object safely. I don't see how that is possible with that last nomination. The second nomination appears to be a sign advertising a children's festival with the title saying "welcome to Bissingen" the one word description does not translate and appears to be a placeholder. It does nothing to convince me it meets criteria and appears to be for a temporary event not a town welcome sign. Plagiarism is a reason for rejection so the first nomination was correctly rejected. Please re-read the criteria, AMAs and explain your nominations better in the future.

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 1,941 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Hello and welcome @Nordly87-PGO

    I’m sorry but as they are pictures I can’t easily translate the text.

    The reject email tries to include a variety of reasons that your submission did not score well on. Often this leads to a confusing set of reasons so really don’t focus on the precise nature of rejection.

    You need to remember that in making a submission you need to make the case for it very clearly to the reviewers who may know nothing about the area.

    So use the supplementary photo to convey where something is by including your submission point, and then in information explain how it meets the criteria.

    in the first on you say the title is from Wikipedia. Given it is 2 common words that should not be an issue, but if the description is also straight from Wikipedia then that is not allowed. Although the picture is interesting it would be better not to have the subject in shadow and for the cross to dominate rather than the trees either side.

    The second one doesn’t look a strong candidate, but including something about it shows events information, and explaining it is designed so the next event can be slotted in is key. Otherwise it will just look as of it is referring to that one event.

  • SeVero2k-PGOSeVero2k-PGO Posts: 24 ✭✭

    I think I would have rejected 1 and 3 because there seems to be no sideboard or pedestrian walk and hence they are not safly accessible for public. It could be helpful for you to study and then to adress the criteria for wayspots in your nominations (why is it a place to explore, to meet or to exercise, is it safley! Accecible by the public, take an additional photo that helps the community to identify the location etc pp) !

  • dustinyeeaah-PGOdustinyeeaah-PGO Posts: 442 ✭✭✭✭

    1) Rejection reasons: title or description is inaccurate or offensive, pedestrian access

    Since you copied the text from Wikipedia, I can understand the first rejection reason. Try to say it in your own words. The second rejection reason might also be valid. Since this looks pretty rural, I probably wouldn't rejected it...there is probably not much traffic and as long as you can stand on the side and the car driver can see what's ahead...I see no problem. But really depends on the satellite view

    2) Rejection reasons: seasonal display, pedestrian access

    Alright, it's a welcome sign advertising a local event. Make sure to add a description, that this sign is permanent and the ad only temporary. Don't know about pedestrian access since it's probably located at the main street with car traffic. If there's a pathwalk, show it in the supporting picture.

    3) Rejection reasons: pedestrian access and seasonal display

    As this is located on a roundabout, it's clearly ineligible. It's only acceptable if there's a safe pedestrian access leading to it. Doesn't look like it tbh.

  • Sinxiri-PGOSinxiri-PGO Posts: 12 ✭✭

    Hey Nordly87-PGO,

    ich verstehen deinen Frust, kann jedoch hier die Ablehnungen sogar verstehen.

    Bei 2) steht sehr deutlich ein Datum. Für nicht Nichtortskundige oder gar englischsprachige Prüfer kann es absolut nach einer tempören Anzeige aussehen.

    Vielleicht ein Bild ohne ein so dickes Datum wenn das Kinderfest vorbei ist?


    Zu 3) Grobe Richtschnur bei Dingen: kannst du es nicht anfassen passt es nicht. Wenn ich eine Straße überqueren muss ohne Fußweg, Zebrastreifen oder so fällt das Ding erstmal aus den Kriterien.

  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 1,971 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Some other things to consider, based just on the pictures...

    The first looks like a stop along a Stations of the Cross trail. Be careful not to name/describe it in a way that would insult the owners / hosts.

    The second looks like a welcome sign. The sign itself is not a destination. It isn't an artistic piece. No one meets there. It's not an exercise station.

    The third could be in someone's yard. And doesn't have a sidewalk.

  • No1ofConseqence-PGONo1ofConseqence-PGO Posts: 161 ✭✭✭


    Your first one: Holy Cross

    Many do not believe it is copyright infringement to use text out of Wikipedia (or similar websites) because the information is licenced under Creative Commons. This is not true. Even under Creative Commons copyright still applies. As Wikipedia have stated, it is okay to use whatever information you like from their site except under certain circumstances; and one of those is using the information for 'personal profit' without permission.

    Now, you might not make a profit from the information being copy and pasted into the description of your nomination but Niantic would. It is common knowledge Niantic are attempting to/are make a profit from on-selling the information/services of their Wayspot database currently known as Lightship. And it is into that database your nomination will appear if/once accepted.

    As such and as a Wayfarer (nominator) you are acting as an unpaid agent for Niantic. What you do as a Wayfarer/Reviewer reflects on them; including copyright infringement. As such, your first nomination was rightfully rejected.

    From the Wayfarer Contributions set of webpages regarding ineligibility:

    Ineligible text or description

    Title and/or description seems copied and pasted from other sources, includes emojis, tags, or personally identifiable information such as codenames, personal names or initials, or addresses.

    While it might not have emojis, tags, or personally identifiable information it does directly meet the first mentioned, which makes it an auto-reject.

    I would suggest resubmitting with these improvements:

    • DO NOT copy and paste information into the description from other sites. Read the information, by all means, but write your own text.
    • Take your two photos of the nominated object (main and supporting) when the sun provides you better lighting. There's nothing inherently wrong with an object being backlit, but Niantic prefer their wayspots to be better lit and some folks will tag 'poorly lit' photos with a 'Low Quality Photo' ineligibility criterion.
    • Make sure your second (supporting) photo shows both the object and that the 'tarmac' in front of the object is not an uncurbed road surface. (To me, it looks like it is and I'd be wary of marking it eligible for 'No Pedestrian Access'.)

    Your second one: Welcome to Bissingen

    Nowhere on that notice board do I see those words that show that is the purpose of the object. Nor can I see how the word 'Idly' makes a suitable description.

    Secondly, the edge of the photo again shows a tarmac surface with a 'mini' curb. Is it a road or a path? The photo does not show either way. As it is tarmac and curbed I'd be more inclined to believe it was the first. Your supporting photo might make it clear one way or the other but, like the other two, you've not included it in your complaint.

    I would suggest resubmitting with these improvements:

    • Give the nomination a more accurate (better) title; something like 'Vintage Notice Board', as it more accurately reflects the truth of the object.
    • Give the nomination a proper description; one in which it explains the purpose - and, possibly, history - of the notice board (such as who can use it and how useful it is in the community). Explain how the 'message' on the board often changes but the board itself is a permanent structure
    • Have the supporting photo display both the object (board) and the path directly alongside it. Show in the photo that it is definitely NOT a road and is, instead, a true path (if that is what it is).

    Your third one: Elephant Sculpture on a Stick?

    This one will never, under the current rules, be considered a valid Wayspot.

    • It is on a traffic roundabout and Niantic have already made clear it must be considered ineligible under the 'No Pedestrian Access' criterion for that reason.
    • Further to that there is no path that allows the Trainer/Agent to approach the object close enough to touch it. Niantic have also been clear that just getting close enough to, say, 'spin the disc' is insufficient. As such it is also ineligible under the 'No Pedestrian Access' criterion for this reason.

    From the Wayfarer Contributions set of webpages regarding ineligibility:

    Ineligible location, place, or object

    • Location is unsafe, without pedestrian access

    Yes, it's a nice piece of artwork that would otherwise be quite eligible and probably even very quickly move through the review process, but it will (should) never get there while it is located on a traffic roundabout and is clearly unsafe for a Trainer/Agent to approach it close enough to touch it.

    I hope this helps explain what I believe has happened, clarifies the issues surrounding nomination rejections and leads you to more informed decisions and actions regarding submitting future nominations.

Sign In or Register to comment.