Historic or Cultural Significance --> Am I doing it wrong?
LadyIslayBC-PGO
Posts: 18 ✭✭
Is the "Does this nomination have some historical or cultural significance?" specifically looking for historical and/or cultural significance, or is it just asking if the waypoint meets the criteria of "What makes a good Wayspot?"
The reason I ask is that in the "What makes a good Wayspot?" article, they separate historical & cultural sites from parks, libraries, and transit. The article specifically says "we OFTEN add nominations that are a special nod to industries and networks that connect people around the world." To me, this sounds like there are two different master categories for a Wayspot... the "historical/cultural" ones and "connecting" ones. I'm brand new, but I've been interpreting the question "Does this nomination have... historical or cultural significance" as trying to differentiate between the two. So a playground, while a valid Waypoint submission, would get a low grade on this question, but high marks on "Should this be a Wayspot?"
My brief search of the forums indicates that I may be doing this wrong, but the articles I read don't appear to specifically address the topic in this manner. Is there a distinction between the two groups, and is this question intended to differentiate them?
Best Answer
-
Nadiwereb-PGO
Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭✭✭
The definition of "cultural significance" is key here. Lots and lots of people tend to include only high culture (visual arts, literature, architecture) in their definition of culture, while in reality culture is a lot more. Culture is what people do and what makes them a community. Festivals and parades are culture. Sports are culture. Playing games and telling stories are culture. Graffiti is culture.
What I'm trying to say is that I very much agree with @Sugarstarzkill-PGO in that this category is redundant and rarely - if ever - adds anything productive to the review process. The only results it produces are playgrounds and sports fields being wrongly rejected.
Answers
I need to find where this is clarified, many people misunderstand this. Yes, you are doing it wrong. But it's not really your fault because it is apparently very confusing for MANY reviewers.
If you think the overall submission should pass, do not give it 1* in ANY category. There's also evidence to suggest 2*ing any category counts as a rejection. I personally don't give under 3* if I think it should pass.
Two areas that are very misunderstood
1. Culturally or historically significant. If we take that literally, no, most playgrounds don't really seem to fit the bill. What Niantic seems to actually be looking for in this situation is more "does this POI have value in the community " That can be because it's historic, shows the local culture- or- it's a frequent community gathering spot (playground for example), its educational, encourages, exercise, artistic.. etc (all the categories that are considered good POIs) . It's a LOT of unspoken nuance. I actually feel like they could scrap this section entirely. I've never 1*d any nomination in this category or the following one if it's an acceptable POI.
2. Visually unique. This also is misunderstood. It honestly just means "If you were out playing the game and clicked on this POI, could you look around and spot it among its surroundings". Again... I feel like this is an unnecessary/redundant category that just serves to confuse people.
I will go searching tonight for WHERE I read this/learned this. Its out there somewhere but clearly a lot of reviewers are missing it. For what it's worth, I've been reviewing since November 2019 and have been in Green the whole time.
It is definitely something that needs to be improved, completing this 'incorrectly' could be one of the triggers for going into the red.
Sugarstarzkill-PGO - I'd really like to see that "officially" clarified somewhere. I won't give it a one, but I might give it a 2 or 3. If the question is just "does this meet the criteria for a Waypoint?" then why don't they just ask that question instead of asking for cultural/historical significance?
This is so helpful to a newcomer like me. I was also wondering if I was not answering this question correctly. Everything @Sugarstarzkill wrote makes sense. It will make it a lot easier to review in the future. I feel like the biggest things we look out for are duplicates, access, and making sure it is not on private property and/or child care & school sites. Am I missing the mark here? Pun intended.
That is exactly what I've always wondered- as I said, I feel like it's essentially the same thing as the first rating.
This might have been what I read- first thing I found so far, but I'll keep looking. It's not 100% official but it includes quotes that are
Edited to add this- it's an excellent resource to have. It doesn't necessarily explain how to rate each category really, but it lists a lot of things under the "culture" category- and just plain has a ton of useful info
Wayfarer Criteria - Google Drive
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1rTfW8UJQ24ynoNLm0vHmOFUF5QNqVQieCvVvhj5ItRU/htmlview#
Back again. Haven't found much else to add, but you can also kind of infer this from the Wayfarer site. Under the help section and rating nominations
You will be asked various questions about a nomination and answer by rating on a scale of one to five stars. In general, use the following guidelines when deciding how to vote:
So in light of that- for cultural/historical. 5* is amazing. 3* is no opinion. If you choose 2* or 1* you're essentially saying theres no cultural or historic significance. And that depends on exactly how you define the phrase "cultural significance ".
And the main reason we know that voting low on this section results in a rejection- numerous people have gotten things like public park playgrounds rejected with the only reason being "lacks cultural or historic significance ". If people had been 1*ing the very first one, other rejection reasons would've been included as well. People have also gotten the rejection reason of "is not visually unique".
When I started Wayfarer, I understood those questions wrong. I would review a 5* submission (playground), and put 1* and 1* on cultural and visibly unique. I was deep red for the beginning. But, then I got some advice from other Wayfarers to go higher on those (I now tend not to go below 3* in each on an overall 5* submission), and my rating went into green (where it has stayed).
The definition of "cultural significance" is key here. Lots and lots of people tend to include only high culture (visual arts, literature, architecture) in their definition of culture, while in reality culture is a lot more. Culture is what people do and what makes them a community. Festivals and parades are culture. Sports are culture. Playing games and telling stories are culture. Graffiti is culture.
What I'm trying to say is that I very much agree with @Sugarstarzkill-PGO in that this category is redundant and rarely - if ever - adds anything productive to the review process. The only results it produces are playgrounds and sports fields being wrongly rejected.
I think I'm in agreement with most of what's being said here, but I really feel like they could just rename these categories to "Historic, Cultural, or Community Significance" and "Visually Distinguishable from Surroundings" and people would then understand.