Wayfarer spots being rejected when they clearly meet the criteria
I have submitted two stops that were rejected which were clearly within the guidelines. It is clear the reviewer did not independent research. Just listed a private residence which it clearly isn’t. The second submission was rejected for poor photo. You can’t win with these people!!! Any suggestions?
Tagged:



Comments
For your first one, pools in residential complexes and hotels don't qualify, and it looks like that's what it is. I can't see the title on your second one so I don't know what the candidate is.
If that's a community pool, you have to get closer to the pool and take better photo of it. You can use its previous main photo as the supporting photo instead.
Yeah I hate to say it but that photo of the pool is pretty bad. It’s mainly a photo of bushes. But that’s ok, try to go early in the morning or when it’s raining so there are no swimmers, get right up close and take a photo where the pool is really the focus.
I’ll resubmit. I have seen many community pools in neighborhoods and apartment complexes as stops. It is a “community” pool available to all that live in that community. The stop would be available for anyone walking, driving or riding by. It was originally rejected because the reviewer said it was a private residence which it is not. I will resubmit with a better photo. Thanks for the feedback.
in general try to focus your main photos more on the subject you want to submit. Your main photo would be more the kind of a supporting photo, while your supporting photo doesn't help at all.
Hello and welcome @Gigi873-PGO
The algorithm used to provide the reasons tries offer 3 statements. This often means the main category for rejection and therefore the main one to improve on ,doesn’t stand out.
Photos - Low quality photo is often selected when reviewers don’t think that the photo doesn’t concentrate on the potential way spot.
So as already said in the main photo the pool needs to fill the picture and show it as a whole - at the moment it is only about a fifth of the photo. The supplementary should show enough of the pool to see it’s the same pool but also show other identifiable features to help prove location. As some people thought this was PRP perhaps a view that shows the carpark or a sign.
Text - supplementary: State clearly which criteria it meets. If there is website that shows more about the pool provide the link in the supplementary so someone can check.
Overall - you know this area so things seem obvious. But the reviewers are from much further away and don’t. So think about what you put in so that it’s clear to them.
@Gigi873-PGO You shouldn't use things that are already in the games as a determination of whether something currently meets the acceptance criteria. Many things were accepted under earlier rules that no longer apply, and many others were accepted that didn't meet current criteria.
Here's a quote for you: "Tricky one there! Publicly accessible amenities inside Apartment complexes could still be eligible as long as they meet all of the acceptance criteria as mentioned in our November AMA. However, swimming pools inside residential properties (including multi-family residential apartments and hotels) are an exception to these criteria and are deemed ineligible."
@Hosette-ING I don't consider this type of swimming pool to be located inside a residential property. It's likely located outdoors behind a non-residential building managed by the homeowners' association of a housing complex.
These types of swimming pools are considered community pools and are very commonly accepted where I live in the Midwest US.
its february in north carolina. i doubt many swimmers at any time of day.
What? It's february in Georgia, too!!! What a coincidence!
HOA-operated pools for residents are *exactly* the kind of residential pools that are not allowed.
Can you link to somewhere within the posted criteria and content guidelines that states this? I've heard this expressed often but have never seen anything within the criteria that specifically states anything of the kind.
@Purptacular-PGO Scroll up to my link above. I quoted it and posted a link.
@Hosette-ING Thanks for your response.
That AMA clearly states that pools within hotels and multi-family apartment complexes should be rejected. But, if you read through that thread, several different Wayfarers asked Casey to clarify whether HOA locations should be included in the group to be rejected and Casey never responded. We are left to interpret what Niantic meant based on the words used in the clarification.
The AMA uses the words "residentially-focused locations" to describe pools to avoid. I think a pool within an apartment building is residentially-focused because it is within the building where tenants live. I think a pool within a hotel is residentially-focused because it is within the hotel where people temporarily live. But I don't think an HOA swimming pool is residentially-focused, because it's on a separate piece of property where no one lives.
I can understand that some might think that "residentially-focused" refers to pools whose membership is limited based on residence, but in that case most public pools in my area would also have to be rejected (despite being specifically listed as eligible within that same clarification) so that doesn't make sense to me.
You said it yourself. Apartment complexes. Not apartment buildings. An apartment complex implies multiple buildings, and apartment complexes often have outdoor pools on-site. Casey's post made no distinction between indoor and outdoor pools.
I have always read "residentially-focused" to include any pools that are there specifically for the use of residents of a particular development. It doesn't matter whether they own their home or rent. These locations are, in my mind, significantly different from pools where the residency requirement is "must live in the city."
A few months ago someone from one of my social media groups was weighing in on Wayfarer participation. ‘I was going to, but I don’t think it’s worth the bother,’ he said, ‘I went to the Wayfarer forums and it’s clear just from the subject lines that they reject everything.’
And yet, thread after thread of subject lines like this one fail to hold up under scrutiny. Nothing shown here is “clearly within guidelines.” Even those arguing for the pool should agree this is not a clear case. For that matter, those arguing for the pool should agree that the image is worth rejecting, whether or not the subject is. It’s time to walk back the entitled nonsense of “the reviewer did not independent research” and “You can’t win with these people!”
Learn the criteria. The actual criteria, not just what you see in the game, they’re not the same.
Take better images: primary ones that clearly show the subject, without obstruction, level and centered; secondary ones that actually show your subject in its surroundings.
Proofread your text: edit your submissions so “quiet” doesn’t become “quite” and “living” doesn’t become “livimg”. Everyone makes typos, not everyone leaves them there.
Write relevant text: describe the subject as it is, not as you think it meets criteria. This description is obvious pandering.
Do the research for your reviewer: it’s not their job to do independent research. It’s your job as the nominator to spell it out for them.
PROVE your location is eligible. Community centers and neighborhood clubhouses commonly look like regular homes or generic office buildings. You must show that the place you are submitting is an eligible one. If you can’t, don’t blame the reviewers for looking at a building that looks like a house, that has a pool in what looks like a backyard, and calling it like they see it.
I second every single word of what @X0bai-PGO said.
I’m going to tell you my experiences with pools so you can all bash me. When I first started making nominations pools weren’t eligible. Fine. Then something came out that said pools were eligible as long as they weren’t private single family residences. I nominated so many pools referencing the new guidelines. It took awhile, but the community came to realize the new guidelines. Then they come along and say “residentially focused” pools don’t qualify? I don’t think so. That horse is already out of the barn and I’m not putting it back. If “residentially focused” playgrounds, tennis courts, etc are eligible, then so are pools. And don’t cry to me about safety. Pools by law have to have mechanisms to keep children out. If you’re an adult and you fall in a pool because you’re playing a game, that’s on you.
@29andCounting-PGO So Niantic can never disqualify anything by removing it from their criteria?
Does that mean K-12 schools are also valid?
Yes, basketball courts.
they can but one employee saying something off the cuff doesn't necessarily make it so. if you had two employees do separate amas on the same day and asked them the same questions, how many answers do you think would be the same? i bet less than half.
Thanks for the appeal, @Gigi873-PGO! We're not currently reviewing PokéStop submissions. Please resubmit the nomination by improving its title/description if you feel that it was a valid nomination.
Epic case of question dodging!
Pools are VERY litigatious in the U.S. Niantic doesn't have as legal team, so they want to stay out of well-known legal minefields like pools.
If an gamer leaves the pool gate open, and the police come by and write a ticket to the neighborhood, could the n'hood go after Niantic for bringing that gamer here? Worse of course if that gamer drowns - his family will likely sue.
However, if the pool has a staff whenever it's open - a lifeguard, someone to make sure the gate is closed and other laws are followed - then if something happens, it's on that staff (not Niantic).
ALSO Niantic's business INSURANCE will probably go up when they find out they coax people to unguarded pools - to cover the liability that brings.