Invalid Wayspot Rejection Appeal - Ceres Carl's Jr
skythian-ING
Posts: 20 ✭✭
Ceres Carl's Jr
37.5951,-120.938293
Ceres, CA
United States
It's a Carl's Jr fast food chain
Tagged:
skythian-ING
Posts: 20 ✭✭
Ceres Carl's Jr
37.5951,-120.938293
Ceres, CA
United States
It's a Carl's Jr fast food chain
Comments
Oof, yeah the only problem is Niantic's removal criteria doesn't line up with their eligibility criteria... So once things get in they get stuck live and end up influencing other submission from people seeing these and referencing them as a reason their local fast food chain or rock should be accepted too...
Good luck though.
If they allow this to remain then there's really no point to look for quality candidates or even for business to invest in a sponsorship. It decreases the value of their Wayspot database.
Hi @skythian-ING! We took another look at the Wayspot in question and decided that it does not meet our criteria for removal at this time.
Why not?
You were right. It's pretty dumb how they don't care about the quality of Wayspots in their database. It makes me want to stop submitting them.
Not just submitting but reviewing too if we'll be getting more and more of trash like this. 🤦
Again, because those are Schrödinger Wayspots. They shouldn't be accepted but they can't be removed either.
Well, why not? Wayfarer does not have removal criteria listed, only acceptance and rejection criteria. This Wayspot clearly should not have been added.
Removal criteria are the following (if someone can dig up the source, great, but I don't have the time right now):
- object is permanently removed or it has never been there (fake)
- object is on single-family residential property
- object is on K12 school property
- Wayspot interferes with the operation of emergency services
- object has no safe pedestrian access
- Wayspot is a duplicate.
Besides these, they sometimes remove Wayspots in cemeteries (which is a controversial topic) and they remove Wayspots if the property owner asks them to. That's it.
The reason for this is that there are tons of "grandfathered" Wayspots that used to meet criteria at one point, as well as Wayspots that are in a wide "grey area" (not explicitly a must-accept nor ineligible; up to the reviewer to decide whether they think it's acceptable). Niantic wants to prevent people trying to remove Wayspots based on "I don't think this should've been accepted", which no doubt would happen if they opened this can of worms.
And why not? Because not meeting acceptance criteria isn't included into current removal criteria. Trust me, it's annoying for me too.
You'd better to ask any Ambassadors to discuss this to Wayfarer team so they can update their removal criteria.
The current system is the lesser of two evils. Yes, it's annoying when something that probably shouldn't have been accepted gets into the system. But it's nowhere near the level of chaos that would happen if "doesn't meet criteria" suddenly became a removal criterion.
You can find people on this forum (which is, mind you, only frequented by the most dedicated people) who argue that gyms don't meet criteria, that common areas of apartment buildings and gated communities shouldn't be eligible etc. (Not to mention the good old "are old UK mailboxes, post offices installed within shops and/or McDonald's playgrounds eligible" arguments.)
This change would increase the backlog by an insane amount, people would start reporting pubs/restaurants/gyms/any business, as well as any stop/gym/portal they personally don't like (because most reviews are a judgement call, barely anything is black-and-white). Or simply out of malice/spite (I don't think I need to introduce you to the issues in France and Poland). And it would essentially become a Niantic review decision each time, which we all know is very far from being a good scenario.
Yes, it's annoying when stuff gets accepted thag shouldn't get accepted. But it's still much better than the alternative.