I sometimes feel like many people are just trying to find dumbest possible reasons to reject stuff
I would like your opinion on the following nomination here (The titel and describtion were originally German and I just translated them for this post, so ignore mistakes):
Titel: "Child with rings - roof ornament
Description: "This house was build during the time of the French occupation after the second world war and is a protected monument. The roof are decorated with these ornaments, here it is a child with rings in its hand"
Additional Infos: Its a nice piece of art and under monument protection, which should be interesting enough to be a relevant POI. Further those are clearly Multi-Arpartment-Buildings, so the dont fall under the private property rule
Rejected for: private property... why did I even bother adding the additonal info? bad photo... now i know the picture isnt super crisp, but its on the 4th floor so I had to take a picture from somewhat far away to get a good angle. In my opinion thats still more than good enough.
Funny enough I nominated another house 50m down the road, which looks exactly the same but with another ornament, which got accepted...
Other favourites of mine were rejections for:
- living animal, because my dog was visible in the picture of the surounding area (not the main picture of the POI)
- seasonal structure for a piknick area
- fake nomination on a trail maker in the woods, with a well known trail that every idiot could google to see that its there. Why would someone fake a trail maker in the middle of nowhere?
Comments
If you think that reviewers are dumb enough to reject everything, think again.
People have passed the Wayfarer test but haven't had to pass a supporting photo or statement test. I think that many just blow through reviews trying to get enough to have their own nomination reviewed... hopefully by someone paying more attention than they did.
I had a public well rejected with "no pedestrian access" as a reason. I'm hoping that it will be accepted on appeal.
Did you use the upgrade? With upgrades, people who are not interested in your area will also be reviewer, so your nomination may be rejected as such because they think you are lying.
I just another another one rejected. A info plate about a tree in a new botanical garden here.
Rejected for: pedestrian access... yeah sure, the public university garden must be hard to access
bad photo again... clear close up picture of the board
other criteria... so apparently it doesnt meet their standard of being imformativ anymore.
yes, the 2 recent rejecetions were both upgraded while the accepted one was not. i heared about the upgrade issue but so far it had always worked for me. So I guess thats it, it wont use upgrades anymore, which also means there is no reason to review anymore. Good job Niantic, you created a way to actually punish those that do your job for you
theres one thing i like to point out: it is on the 4th floor.
Is this an issue though? I never considerd this a problem and never saw anyone else doing so. Where do you draw the line of whats to far above the ground? If i click on the acceptance criteria list, on of the pictures shows an art piece on the ceiling, thats at least 5m above the ground. Tall Statues or Buildings like chruches are also perfect nominations, and we dont care about the plain wall at ground height, rather the windows and tower on top.
Sometimes I feel like many people are just trying to find dumbest possible reasons to nominate ineligible coal.
I believe I've seen comments from Niantic that things above one's head are fine as long as there's safe pedestrian access to the base. Art suspended from the ceiling, sculptures on tall pedestals, clock towers, bell towers, and the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel would all be acceptable. I also really enjoy building ornamentation such as the OP's nomination and will happily give them a look. One way I'd improve that candidate is to avoid phrases like "it is a protected monument" and "those are clearly Multi-Apartment buildings" and provide documentation of that protected status, architect name, and a proof that these are not single-family PRP (link to the leasing site, photo showing multiple doorbells, other things that make it more clear for the reviewers) to support your claim. Does the relief have any symbolic value? Is there an unusual story behind its placement? I'd also avoid mentioning the fact that there may be other quite similar objects on the same building or area.
Niantic throws in random reasons, to impede the creation and education of reviewing bots.
I don't know why everyone thinks Niantic is perfect and "above board" about rejection reasons.
Your fellow reviewers want more wayspots, not less.
That's why I stopped upgrading. It gets rejected quicker and seems the upgrade review poole sucks more. I also disallowed auto upgrades for this reason too.
Ok, i guess I could go above and beyond to provide every piece of detail. But I feel like that would have done little here, given the rejection reasons.
As for the "clearly multi arpartment buildings": Its a 4 stroy building, which is ~80m long, consisting of 4 seperate housing blocks. The supoorting picture shows this and Google streetview is also available, so this should be absolutly obvious to everyone speding more than 10sec on the review.
Want to add anything meaningfull to the discussion, or are you content with spewing nonsense?
Mostly what those rejection reasons are telling you is that reviewers aren't fully sold on your candidate. Providing additional detail makes the candidate more appealing to reviewers, and also shows that whoever submitted that wayspot was someone willing to spend some time and effort. I know I, as a reviewer, dislike seeing statements that appear condescending, like "obviously this or that" - and I also know that many submitters do, in fact, lie or fake details. I recently saw an accepted candidate that was on single-family PRP - actually the property WAS the wayspot - with the supporting detail stating that the home was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. It's the least Frank Lloyd Wright building I've ever seen and took me only a quick google search to find the true designer and even a property description showing that it was, in fact, Private Single-Family Residential - but apparently local reviewers merely accepted the statements as fact without verification.