Can someone help me understand what I did wrong here?
This POI is like countless others that are around the lake/park.
Private Residence or Farm: In my mind this supporting photo clearly shows where this picture was taken from the park, but am I wrong?
Temporary Display: I'm also not sure what isn't permanent about a concrete plaque insert that is embedded into the walkway.
I guess what is baffling to me is this would mean MULTIPLE people saw this POI and provided these rejection reasons??? Any thoughts or insight would be appreciated.
It's really frustrating to see an upgrade get functionally wasted by what feels like a bot or lazy review. Like what did I do wrong, POI is in the supporting photo? You cannot get street view into the park, but I hoped showing this VERY CLEAR JUNCTION would make it obvious from the satellite view.
I have been a Wayfarer for less than a month and this is the second time I have been given a random rejection with no context that makes sense based on the submission. I already had to use an appeal for a Niantic reviewed wayspot (and the appeal was accepted).... is 1 appeal a month really all we have as a tool to escalate something like this? Upgrading is the only way I’ve seen a nomination go all the way through since starting, 1 appeal every 30 days does not incentivize me to do more than 1 upgrade a month; which feels contrary to the obvious need for reviewers.
Comments
Sorry, but that just looks like a defect in the concrete. I had to enlarge the photo to find it in the supporting image and I only did that because you claimed it was there.
I think we need to see more than the photos. We need to see how you described this...whatever you think it is. Show us the text for the description and the supplemental you provided.
I've found sidewalk medallions/plaques like these possible to get through but not necessarily guaranteed. Just make sure you clearly explain what it is and send it through again. There's no accounting for bad reviewers so some submissions will take a few tries.
is 1 appeal a month really all we have as a tool to escalate something like this? Upgrading is the only way I’ve seen a nomination go all the way through since starting, 1 appeal every 30 days does not incentivize me to do more than 1 upgrade a month; which feels contrary to the obvious need for reviewers.
Prior to March, appeals were able to be submitted every 24 hours due to a bug. This has severely bogged down the appeals process and is why appeals are taking so long to resolve. Having more than one a month would just add even more to an already far too large queue.
Description
Sidewalk art insert located on the walking path along the south side of Powderhorn Lake.
Supporting Info:
Sidewalk art insert. Encourages exploration around Powderhorn Lake and Park. Public park with bench and picnic table seating nearby for wayfarers to stay and socialize.
Without the ability to submit more than 1 photo I’m kind of lost on how to better include the POI and surrounding area. Am I allowed to mark-up the supporting photo to highlight the POI?
You can indeed put markings on the supporting image.
I think this is just something that unfortunately doesn't photograph well. I have to look fairly closely at your primary image to tell what I'm looking at. Aside from what's been mentioned above, I think you probably just need to get as good a pair of photos as you can and try again (and be prepared to resubmit a couple more times if needed).
Edit: Maybe I'd also add a bit more detail to the description or supporting info about what the insert is made of, like "etched metal artwork embedded in the sidewalk," to help people decipher what they're seeing.
For sure, this was my best attempt on that day with the lighting. It looks like I may have a better photo now….
Curious if this works better as the supporting photo - POI is easy to see, but I’m not sure if the surrounding area can be made out?
It's much clearer in that supporting photo, but the problem from that angle is that the curb makes it look like it's in a street. It obviously isn't, but you could get rejects from hasty reviewers. Your idea of drawing an arrow or a circle on your previous photo might be the way to go. This nomination looks like it could pass eventually, but it will be really difficult so be prepared for that.
Oy that new photo by the trash can looks like someone tried to throw away a rag and missed the trash so it landed on the street. Sorry, just trying to tell you how other people perceive the things that look normal to you.
I honestly think this one is going to be really, really difficult to get approved. I think the only way will be to keep it in local voting. I would never upgrade this one due to how unusual it is to non-locals.
Yeah, I think the supporting photos are one thing, but also it just doesn't photograph well in the primary photo. The design on the art itself (what looks like waves, sun, grains, and text) is not so easy to pick out even with such a close up and well-lit photo. I'm not saying it isn't visible, just that it's kind of hard to interpret visually thanks to the dirt/wear/general patina of the art.
I’m also back with a new POI photo if anyone wants to give more input. Thanks all!
For sure, I'm also sure my photography skill level leaves much to be desired.
I returned to the POI and did my best to clear it off in the latest photo. We also had a good amount of rain recently so it definitely looked cleaner in person today.
That photo looks great! I'd use that and the original supporting photo, but definitely circle or draw an arrow to the artwork so that it's very clear where it is. Good luck!
That looks like a great main photo!
Thanks again! Appreciate the insight, definitely wish the rejection reasons gave a clear indication. Still a little confused by the private residence tag.
Your new photo looks great. It will definitely help reviewers to believe that this is truly a point of interest.
If your submission is in a named park, I've found that it really helps to include the park name in both the description and the supporting info.
If you can find out who created or sponsored this work, including details like "carved by So-and-So" or "created by the Blah-Blah Town Art Council" will really help too.
Except I definitely did include the Park/Lake name in the description & supporting info, and also the pin will literally drop the reviewer in the middle of the park (with no homes nearby) where is should display the name of the park and rec center. It would have been way more helpful if either of the rejection reasons reflected the comments in this thread.
Good note on the artist, I don't believe we have the names of specific people, but I'll definitely add that this is funded by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
Could be that a single person picked that reason. In that case, perhaps it was ****-fingered or maybe the reviewer was trying to vary the rejection reasons chosen. I wouldn't put too much stock in it. I'd resubmit with the new photo and include any information you can find about the artwork and hopefully it will sail through.
[I just had a nice-looking gazebo along a trail in a wooded area at a senior living complex rejected for private residential property. I am irked, but but I shrugged and resubmitted. I am very fortunate in that that area only takes a bit more than a week right now.]
The new photo looks better, but to my eye (someone who is unfamiliar with this type of "art"), it looks like a broken fragment of a larger piece that is no longer there. So you need to do a really good job explaining why such a tiny piece of art is set in the concrete. I believe people pass by this all the time without realizing it is there which makes me wonder what's the point of it.
The thing about this park is there are already 5 or 6 of these set-up as a POI that any reviewer would see on the check for duplicate screen. In a vacuum, I would totally understand this, but as a reviewer there is enough context clues to indicate this is a series of art plaques set-up around the park that are centered around the watershed district that we live in.
The Niantic definition for Encourages Exploration simply states Unique Art or Architecture. Art based POIs do not need to be big or flashy, but rather unique, culturally significant and publicly accessible. Reviewers shouldn't reject distinct Sculptures in a sculpture garden because one nearby is already nominated, is "too small" or looks like trash (Art is subjective after all, many of these were created by teens in youth programs throughout the city), and the same should apply to this series. The point of "people pass by without realizing" is exactly why we would want a POI highlighting the series.
So, sometimes in these forums we have people post some pretty low-quality ‘cement art’ that is unworthy of mentioning anywhere in any context - certainly not worth approving - and that’s what I assumed this was, since I couldn’t see it clearly. This image has convinced me otherwise. The job of proving location might continue to be an obstacle, but IMO the job of proving eligibility is done with this image.
For sure, I've definitely seen some of those "cement art" where it looks like someone just used their finger to doodle or write something. Hoping this new photo + the highlight gets it through. This forum thread has been extremely helpful!
Just hit my next upgrade! Will see if these changes help with today's voting.
THANK YOU AGAIN to everyone who helped! We have success:
Great stuff! Well done.
Don’t you just love it when a plan comes together.