The issue with upgrades... rejections negative impacts

2

Comments

  • Lechu1730-PGOLechu1730-PGO Posts: 537 ✭✭✭✭

    The problem is that even if you apply all those suggestions, your nomination still be rejected more often than not. An example:

    Meet a churrería, where churros are made and sold. The description says:

    A Miramar classic, located on a picturesque corner, an excellent place to buy the churros that go with the **** (a local tea-like beverage) on the beach. You can see them made (that's not common and an indication that they would be freshly made). As the reviews say, nothing to envy de from Manolo (the most well known churrería in Argentina).

    Links are given to the FB page and Google reviews.

    Of course I got the usual silly rejection reasons explicit activity and unable to locate in the real world (GSV shown the local just as in the supporting picture) but also the more reasonable doesn't meet the criteria.

    So when a beloved local place can't be approved even if you provide what proof is available of its status, then I have to agree with @Oakes1923-PGO that we're demanding way too much.

  • sophielab-INGsophielab-ING Posts: 123 ✭✭✭

    There were other nominations that had visited by phantom gourmet(local food critic)in support statement. Some nominations were obvious better researched and written up better. Those may have received a better score than others. It is probably not a solely local vs national reviewer issue.

  • oscarc1-INGoscarc1-ING Posts: 215 ✭✭✭✭

    "Craft Brewery & BBQ restaurant in the heart of Salm. Great food, good beer"

    Is a lazy description and reads more like a poor Yelp review than a wayspot description.

    What makes this BBQ restaurant more unique, significant, notable or special over the dozen others in the areas? I checked Google Maps, there are plenty of similar restaurants around.

    There's no debate that the business meets criteria, however, so does every other restaurant. Are you going to start nominating every restaurant now? No, simply because they are generic and they are not notable. If you want to quote criteria, then the Rejection page states that "Nominations and edit submissions may be entirely rejected if it meets at least one of the following rejection criteria", "Does not meet eligibility criteria: Does not seem to be a great place of exploration, place for exercise, or place to be social. The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting." So even if something is eligible, the rejection criteria takes precedence.

    Without additional proof in the description and supporting statement, this restaurant is no different to the billions of others out there and is therefore generic and uninteresting. @Jtronmoore-PGO has been correct the entire discussion and more needs to be down to prove why the Border BBQ and Restaurant is notable enough to become a wayspot.

    The advice may get ignored, but obviously enough reviewers are reviewing it correctly to reject it, unless they are given reasons to accept why this restaurant is special.

    Wayspots are supposed to be special and provide a quality way for someone to explore. If every restaurant gets in, then the wayspot database is useless and it's better off just to go on UrbanSpoon or Google Maps to find restaurants.

  • R7Angelica-PGOR7Angelica-PGO Posts: 11 ✭✭

    There's no debate that the business meets criteria...

    Shouldn't that just be your response then? It meets criteria so its not a 1*. I think that was the OP's original point. And to get the rejection reasons they got, which were all were a complete farce, it had to get a 1*. so no @Jtronmoore-PGO is not been correct this entire post. Your own logic dictates as such.

    I'm a foodie, I love looking for hole in the wall, off the beaten path craft breweries, tapas, bbq, mexican et al. To me thats where the exploration comes in. With a wayspot here this place goes from having a local cult following to having folks passing through stopping for lunch when they spin that stop for the first time.

    Its not like they submitted an Applebee's that they are trying to pass off as a favorite watering hole of some middle aged white dude.

    I feel like a few of you are missing the point and the spirit of Niantic allowing local businesses to be wayspots. Sadly those few are likely the more active reviewers, which is a detriment to the rest of us.

  • Oakes1923-PGOOakes1923-PGO Posts: 114 ✭✭✭

    I've heard your complaint in regards to the description. Although I differ in opinion on what the description should included vs what should be in the supporting evidence, and your interpretation to the spirit of the change in Niantic explicitly allowing for businesses, I have already started to alter some of my submissions that are still in queue per your "feedback". (I use that term very loosely)

    But @Jtronmoore-PGO and @oscarc1-ING , what you should realize is that I am not doing this to agree with you, as I and many others here don't. I am doing it to placate to the lowest common denominator. Which are reviewers with this view.

    These out of the way local favorites deserve recognition, especially right now as many of them are struggling in this pandemic. You choose to be the barrier to that change. congrats? 🤷‍♂️

  • Kellerrys-INGKellerrys-ING Posts: 490 ✭✭✭✭

    You do realise that your description says

    Tienda de churros en Miramar

    which is most likely almost the same as the title? Move at least part of the good information from support text to actual description?

  • Oakes1923-PGOOakes1923-PGO Posts: 114 ✭✭✭

    You got explicit activity likely because you included links. Links in the supporting evidence are acceptable but some reviewers don’t understand that as links in description are grounds for rejection. Some reviewers, as evident by the responses on this page, reject without those to support you.

    Its a darned if you do darned if you don’t scenario. Some reviewers look for reasons to reject, some look for reasons to accept. Glass half full glass half empty argument.

    All we can do is keep beating the inclusion drum louder then the “holier then thou” review crew.🥁🥁🥁

  • Lechu1730-PGOLechu1730-PGO Posts: 537 ✭✭✭✭

    No, it's not. The title, not in the capture, is Mariòn, which happens to be the name of the place.

    Now, you may arrange things differently but in the end all the relevant information is there in the supporting information: why the place is unique and worthy of inclusion, along with links to back that up.

    I'm not a fan of unsubstantiated claims of uniqueness, but I generally poke around when a restaurant or a bar comes into my reviewing queue to see if it has any merits, sometimes even if the supporting information is lacking. That's what we're supposed to do.

    There's lots of garbage being submitted that's for sure, and that clogs the system and discourages people from participating in wayfarer, but there's also a lot of awful reviewers that select nonsensical rejection reasons or wrongly reject things that should be approved. This is also a problem that Niantic needs to tackle, because it generates a lot of ill will among nominators.

  • Kellerrys-INGKellerrys-ING Posts: 490 ✭✭✭✭

    @Lechu1730-PGO Not saying the info was lacking. This is what confused me.

    The description says:

    followed by your support text.

    Your choice how you arrange the information, but seems a waste to hide it in the support text. First impression, info that can be shared in the actual Waypoint, etc.

    But perhaps a topic for different thread.

  • R7Angelica-PGOR7Angelica-PGO Posts: 11 ✭✭

    @Kellerrys-ING are you familiar with the expression "circumcising the mosquito"? A lot of your comments on this thread have been small gripes, that a rational reviewer would likely not take issue with.

    Feels like you are looking for issues to support an argument that we just don't see.

    Missing the forest for the trees.

  • Kellerrys-INGKellerrys-ING Posts: 490 ✭✭✭✭

    @R7Angelica-PGO Thank you for the condescending feedback. :)

    In short. There are reviewers who make quick snap judgements based on mostly first impression, which (especially on mobile) consists of title, photo, description.

    Arrangement matters when dealing with that type of reviewers, prudent reviewers read properly both text boxes.

  • Lechu1730-PGOLechu1730-PGO Posts: 537 ✭✭✭✭

    My bad, I wrote description when I meant supporting info. I think in English when I speak or write in English. Translation always throws me off balance.

    I agree with you that there's a difference between recommending someone how to make a nomination with the best chance of being approved and what should be a reasonable burden of proof if all reviewers did their jobs correctly. Something for another post, I agree.

  • mamafox207-PGOmamafox207-PGO Posts: 8 ✭✭

    I found this topic fascinating and was curious to what others thought was happening but we haven't really heard the other side. Sadly those arguments so far have been more airing small grievances with a handful of examples.

    I believe the original poster made mentioned of 8 rejections in one week all from upgrades in their local community. I too would worry that would drive reviewers away. I see so many posts about long queue and voting times. 6 months, 9 months, 1 year or more in post after post. I hardly think it is Niantic's intention that an upgrade should result in people losing interest in the process.

    We expect Niantic to fix issues we see in wayfarer but likely if some of these folks slightly altered there own mindset to be a bit more open it might be the only change we need.

  • oscarc1-INGoscarc1-ING Posts: 215 ✭✭✭✭

    There are a lot of terms regarding excuses being thrown in this topic, so I'll put another one into the mix; cherry-picking. If you read the full paragraph rather than just focus on one sentence out of context, then you would see that I said:

    "Nominations and edit submissions may be entirely rejected if it meets at least one of the following rejection criteria", "Does not meet eligibility criteria: Does not seem to be a great place of exploration, place for exercise, or place to be social. The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting." So even if something is eligible, the rejection criteria takes precedence.

    Emphasising the final sentence of that paragraph.

    This topic is posted in Criteria Clarifications sub-forum with the question of why nominations are rejected. The thread is full of answers, but it is entirely being ignored. Feedback has also been given on how to improve the nomination to increase its chances, yet again, everything gets ignored.

    If you feel like it was wrongly rejected, submit it again and see what happens. If it passes, great! That just shows how careless and lazy reviewers are, if it gets rejected, then that is definitely a sign that the nomination either needs to be improved (as has been suggested in this thread) or it's simply not acceptable to reviewers.

    At the end of the day, it is obvious that multiple people perceive this nomination as generic and uninteresting (thusly able to be rejected). Others might perceive it as acceptable, either way, it was rejected and something about it needs to change.

  • Jzitam-PGOJzitam-PGO Posts: 37 ✭✭

    after reading all thus far, it is a plain as day to see that the reviewers are trying to clamp down on a community rising. This isn’t about the spot being unique anymore but rather “no we don’t want another community of players rising.”

    I think many of them forget that the rejection mainly has to do with the reviewers! They reject it hence Niantic sends an email.

  • Oakes1923-PGOOakes1923-PGO Posts: 114 ✭✭✭
    edited March 10

    "Nominations and edit submissions may be entirely rejected if it meets at least one of the following rejection criteria", "Does not meet eligibility criteria: Does not seem to be a great place of exploration, place for exercise, or place to be social. The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting." So even if something is eligible, the rejection criteria takes precedence.

    Emphasising the final sentence of that paragraph.

    I think we are starting to get to the meat of the confusion for you guys. It's all about how you read it. Keep in mind that this criteria that is posted has likely gone through a lengthy legal review before they post it. Lawyers love to be involved and they and the way legal terminology is written is different then conversational English.

    Lets take these one at a time.

    1. You are referencing the rejection criteria page from the review site, siting - Does not meet eligibility criteria; and you are applying the generic tag to a restaurant. However you've applied the wrong section. This preceding sentence clearly mentions objects that are generic and for references sites a Target ball and street signs. So this standard would not apply to a restaurant and is designed specifically for objects.
    2. The section that deals with the restaurant is the next one: Ineligible location, place, or object. Now the only section here that applies to the examples that have been given is the final one. "A generic business, chain, or franchise that is not locally unique." Now a plain English reading of that could imply that a random local brewery that serves BBQ is a generic business. However you are applying the wrong standard. You are assuming that this guideline implies three standards; generic business, a generic chain, or a generic franchise; when it fact it implies only one. It really matters were the comma is and the describing word lies. This literally is one standard; generic business, chain, or franchise. So think Walmart, Wendy's, Subway, Applebee's, McDonalds, Sonic. Those are all generic business's, chains, or franchises. In a court of law you could never convince a judge, based on this guideline, that Mamma Joe's House of Creole is a generic business under this definition. This guideline now strictly makes a local restaurant, owned by a sole proprietor a unique business. Your local Papa Gino's is a generic business, you local "Town" House of Pizza is unique.

    That's how the standard is written and read legally. It is was written generic business; chain; or franchise, you would all be right. It not and this is why many posters are saying that you can not 1* reject this based on it being generic. It no longer meets rejection criteria, so now it must be at minimum a 2*. Obviously everyone is free to review the way they want but Niantic has provided us a standard that we should be following and if you are ignoring that because you disagree with the way the guidelines are written you have that ability. You can't however change the interpretation of said guidelines and then expect others to apply it the same way. You're now operating outside the spirit of the guidelines. You have that right but just know you are doing it wrong.

    I hope this helps, I was really struggling to understand where everyone's confusion was. Thanks for clarifying. Hopefully this helps some folks understand their error.


    And I agree with your last sentence in a slightly different context, something about this does need to change. Hopefully we can all get their together. Cheers!

    Post edited by Oakes1923-PGO on
  • Lechu1730-PGOLechu1730-PGO Posts: 537 ✭✭✭✭

    @Jzitam-PGO I don't think you're correct. The vast majority of reviewers don't take part in these forums and their motivations are wildly diverging.

  • oscarc1-INGoscarc1-ING Posts: 215 ✭✭✭✭

    Insightful, but still discarded everybody else's input as wrong in favour of your own perception. If this much effort was put into the nomination itself rather than argueing semantics, it would have been a good nomination ;)

    If you want to talk legally and interpret the word "object", then we can look at its definition; "a thing that you can see or touch but that is not usually a living animal, plant, or person" - which a building (or a restaurant building in this case) would still be applicable and therefore "generic, or not visually unique or interesting" would still apply if deemed as so by the reviewer (usually because the nomination lacks sufficient evidence to prove otherwise).

    "Ineligible location, place, or object" was never put into question, but since you brought it up. You have focused on chains and conventiently ignored other restaurants that may be deemed generic. You state that chains would be ineligible, yet let's take a look at NianticCasey's insight on business related nominations:

    This provides a great example and insight on how a place might be eligible, but it's up to the reviewers to determine whether something is actually acceptable or not. The burden of proof is on the submitter to show that the nomination (or object lol) is notable enough to become a Wayspot.

    Going back to my original post in this thread, which for the most part was again ignored; What makes this BBQ restaurant more unique, significant, notable or special over the dozen other BBQ restaurants in the area? I checked Google Maps, there are plenty of similar restaurants around and the description for this nomination gives no evidence as to why it should be accepted other than a short sentence about it having good food and good beer (much like millions of other restaurants around the world, or even within the local Salem community). If you can put sufficient proof as to why this restaurant is notable into the description / supporting statement, then your nomination stands a good chance at rising above the generic and uninteresting perception and being accepted.

    If you wish to revise your nomination, feel free to do so and the community here would happily help to provide feedback to strengthen your nomination.

  • Oakes1923-PGOOakes1923-PGO Posts: 114 ✭✭✭
    edited March 10


    Post edited by Oakes1923-PGO on
  • Oakes1923-PGOOakes1923-PGO Posts: 114 ✭✭✭
    edited March 10

    @oscarc1-ING Thanks for the opportunity to clarify a couple of things.

    First let me reiterate that I am so passionate on this topic because of it is negative impact my community. This was never about my one submission that got rejected. That was merely the example. I know most of you who disagree with the nomination have made it about that but I am advocating for my local community and the negative impact that upgrades have on it, and reviewing, and the cascading impact that presents. Its in the title. If you want to talk about discarding... ignoring the central thesis of a post is tops of the list.

    If you want to talk legally and interpret the word "object", then we can look at its definition;

    I assume you went to webster.com and pulled this. That's not a legal definition, that is a English language definition. A restaurant is not an object. The building is an object. If the restaurant leaves the building is still there. A restaurant is an entity. You can't sue an object. You can sue a restaurant. Hopefully we've put that too bed.

    I'm glad you are doing some research but I am mystified as to why you would apply Casey's note about making a Starbucks, by definition a generic business, a unique business in under the right circumstances, to this conversation as it does the exact opposite of what you are advocating for. It shows that even a Starbucks could be viewed like Mama Joe's House of Creole and be unique in the right setting. He goes on to indicate that is his example that now it is very much on the nominator to provide sufficient evidence. The bar is set very high. Which conversely would indicate that something that is already considered unique the bar is set lower.

    Additionally if you had actually checked google for BBQ in Salem NH you would have found out that this is the ONLY bbq joint in town. It is also the only microbrewery that serves BBQ in town. A quick yelp search for BBQ has this first (with 4.5 stars on 87 reviews I might add). Number three on that list is a food truck that is closed due to the pandemic, the other 8 of the top ten are places that just happen to have some sort of BBQ chicken on their menu or are sub and pizza shops and number 10 an 11 are a 7-Eleven and McDonalds. But please continue to tell me how how Border BBQ is not unique.

    Finally, I have to end this post with this little pearl. Guess who woke up to a brand new pokestop this AM and has two thumbs? This guy.... restaurant, it was not upgraded, and was submitted two months ago, around the same time the BBQ place was and written nearly identical. No upgrade. I understand you guys all have your opinion but all evidence to the contrary.

    Post edited by Oakes1923-PGO on
  • Pennry-PGOPennry-PGO Posts: 41 ✭✭

    I think the problem with upgrades is that it increases the odds of more negative mindset people reviewing. I don't know why it does that. Maybe the majority of reviewers look at location first and think "It doesn't help me directly, why should I accept it". I don't know. I do know that people (in general) don't like putting in extra effort. So any slight mistake in the "sales pitch" or extra verification they have to do will result in a negative stance. This is where keeping more "iffy" submission not upgraded helps. You're more likely to get you're local community reviewing and they'll already know what you're referring to and won't need the extra "sales pitch".

    As for the random BS rejection reasons, that's more likely to be assuming that varied rejections somehow prevent cooldowns. This is further backed up by communities. Every time I see someone asking why they're getting cooldowns and how they can prevent it, there are three answers: Take more time, vary your scoring, and don't reject for the same reason repeatedly. Personally I find only the first point of taking my time seems to matter. I rarely get a cooldown unless I start rushing things. When I reject, it's for the most fitting reason. And that can get quite streaky when I get flooded with **** submissions. More rarely, I'll even get streaks of pure 5* all the way. But as long as I take my time, I don't seem to get the cooldowns. (*knock on wood*)

    So with my own submissions, I try to present them as if whoever I'm showing it to has no idea what I'm talking about. Playgrounds aren't just "it's a playground in a park", they're more in depth of what park, recommended age range, etc. And when I get BS rejection reasons for my own submissions, I look at each one and try and figure out why one would say such a thing. If it's obviously just not true (ie picture of a sign rejected for live animal), then I ignore it. If it's something that could be considered (ie PRP or K12 when it's not actually there but could be considered "close enough"), then I'll try again with some wording or better pictures in the submission to hopefully help clarify that point.

  • Babarushki-PGOBabarushki-PGO Posts: 107 ✭✭

    @Oakes1923-PGO You’re surprised that your nominated clocktower was rejected?!?

  • Babarushki-PGOBabarushki-PGO Posts: 107 ✭✭

    About award-winning local hotspots: Around here, it doesn’t matter. They’re still rejected because they are live animals.

  • Oakes1923-PGOOakes1923-PGO Posts: 114 ✭✭✭

    If only those feral dairy cows would stop wondering in and out of my nomination photos!

  • Jzitam-PGOJzitam-PGO Posts: 37 ✭✭

    @Lechu1730-PGO and I won’t disagree, but I was making my remarks based off what has been posted thus far. The mindset.

  • oscarc1-INGoscarc1-ING Posts: 215 ✭✭✭✭

    If you want to keep talking legally, then an objective look needs to be applied to the nomination, not one with a conflict of interest.

    Upgrades with the wrong rejection reason are a common issue that is posted on the forums regularly. Personally I have never experienced it because I don't tend to submit borderline eligible nominations, I go for quality, so I relish upgrades every chance I can get them.

    The assumption of webster.com is incorrect, given that the source of the URL is right there (Cambridge Dictionary). If you want to provide a legal definition for your country for object and entity, I am happy to go into the semantics. Niantic's own acceptance criteria makes no mention of an entity, but rather it "must be a permanent physical, tangible, and identifiable place or object, or object that placemarks an area" - of which, this restaurant would abide by.

    Niantic requires that nominations are anchored to real points on the map, an entity may exist in a corporeal manner, but an object is still required. Otherwise you would be submitting an intangible object and it would be rejected for being not physically existing / temporary.

    I'm glad you are doing some research but I am mystified as to why you would apply Casey's note about making a Starbucks, by definition a generic business, a unique business in under the right circumstances, to this conversation as it does the exact opposite of what you are advocating for. It shows that even a Starbucks could be viewed like Mama Joe's House of Creole and be unique in the right setting. He goes on to indicate that is his example that now it is very much on the nominator to provide sufficient evidence. The bar is set very high. Which conversely would indicate that something that is already considered unique the bar is set lower.

    You made no points here. A Starbucks could be eligible under the right circumstances, as could Border BBQ and Restaurant under the right circumstances. As stated by Casey, and agreed by you, "The burden is on nominators to include enough details in the supporting text to reinforce why a possibly generic / chain location is actually important to their community". The nomination you displayed in your original post, to an objective person, does not provide any sufficient evidence to reinforce why this business is important to your community. "Good food" and "good beers" is universally generic and gives no information as to the significance of the locale (or entity lol).

    Additionally if you had actually checked google for BBQ in Salem NH you would have found out that this is the ONLY bbq joint in town. It is also the only microbrewery that serves BBQ in town. A quick yelp search for BBQ has this first (with 4.5 stars on 87 reviews I might add). Number three on that list is a food truck that is closed due to the pandemic, the other 8 of the top ten are places that just happen to have some sort of BBQ chicken on their menu or are sub and pizza shops and number 10 an 11 are a 7-Eleven and McDonalds. But please continue to tell me how how Border BBQ is not unique.

    I did check Google, why do you think I mentioned it earlier? lol A simple search for "barbecue" brings up a number of results in the area. A 20 minute drive is nothing, so this is roughly a 10-mile (16km) search area.

    Or searching for "barbecue brewery" displays even more results, closer to Border Brewery and BBQ:

    That information you are providing now is useful to a reviewer, and helps strengthen the case of why your nomination should be considered. Without that extra information (which even Niantic state is required for it to be helpful to reviewers, see Casey's comment above or even Niantic's Content Guidelines page) an objective reviewer would not know the location or the status of similar restaurants and therefore would have no reason to view the nomination as anything other than a generic business.

    Finally, I have to end this post with this little pearl. Guess who woke up to a brand new pokestop this AM and has two thumbs? This guy.... restaurant, it was not upgraded, and was submitted two months ago, around the same time the BBQ place was and written nearly identical. No upgrade. I understand you guys all have your opinion but all evidence to the contrary.

    Congratulations!

    Evidence to the contrary? lol I have provided numerous citations to the criteria, guidelines and Niantic clarifications to prove why a business needs more effort put in the description / supporting statement for it to be accepted. I have seen nothing but twisting of the guidelines and cherry-picking sentences on the converse of this discussion. You may have had one accepted with a lacklustre effort, although contrary to the actual evidence given, that is not the norm or the expected standard when submitting businesses.

    To go back to your original post and answer your final question:

    I often wonder why folks reject stops? Do they like negatively impacting other people’s game play? Are they uneducated? Is it spite for their own rejections? It seems odd but ultimately it comes down to the negative impact it has on the rest of us that are simply trying to improve gameplay for ourselves and our communities.

    People reject Wayspot nominations because they deem the nomination to not be acceptable as per the criteria, guidelines and clarifications that Niantic have outlined. As mentioned before, strenghtening a nomination to convey why it is significant as a point of interest will always be beneficial for the submitter. If you feel a nomination was wrongly rejected, it always provides an opportunity to improve the nomination.

    Anyway, this has been a lot of fun. Hope you gained a lot of learnings about submitting businesses and what makes them acceptable and how to best nominate them - especially to strengthen your nomination in the face of wrong rejection reasons. If you have any questions, feel free to holler out to the community. I'm off to get some good food and good beers ;)

Sign In or Register to comment.