Do all nominations now need to be "visually unique or interesting"?

I have just had a soccer field rejected based on not being visually unique or interesting, and yet, athletic fields are listed as an example category to be accepted. Are we only to accept athletic fields that are somehow visually unique or interesting? Because frankly, I have yet to see even one that would qualify in that case.

Comments

  • LukeAllStars-INGLukeAllStars-ING Posts: 4,201 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nope, its still acceptable. I would say bad luck. Also had rejected playgrounds I resubmitted and then they got accepted.

  • Diskrepansi-INGDiskrepansi-ING Posts: 59 ✭✭✭

    It's a shame, because I used an upgrade on it... :( what a waste on something I thought would be an easy acceptance.

  • LukeAllStars-INGLukeAllStars-ING Posts: 4,201 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Its very sad, yes. Thats the problem in community reviews. At least, only 3 playgrounds got rejected so far.

  • It shouldn't be the case, @Diskrepansi-ING! Just like @LukeAllStars-PGO stated, soccer fields should still be acceptable as per our article as this is one of the example that encourage sports activities as well as walking and exercising.

    Larger areas like sport fields make great Wayspots, but it is important to choose the right placement of the Wayspot that respects the activity it was designed to support. It should encourage you to approach the area to visit the Wayspot, without having to enter or interfere with the activities within. For insights, check out this article: https://niantic.helpshift.com/a/wayfarer/?l=en&p=web&s=how-to-review-wayspots&f=content-guidelines

    You can always try resubmitting it with improvements on title, picture quality and a comprehensive information on the nomination in the description. All the best!

  • Diskrepansi-INGDiskrepansi-ING Posts: 59 ✭✭✭

    Hey, thanks for the reply! I know you guys are likely pretty busy with all the changes and questions and such.

    For sure, I always put the wayspot off of the actual field of play, right on the sideline somewhere. I will also update this on locations when reviewing others' submissions.

    Anyway, I've already resubmitted, and included specific call-out to the criteria and acceptance pages.

    On that note - when a reviewer ends up rejecting a nomination for something like this, do they ever get notified? Or does this happen if they reject when most other viewers have accepted? I know this is already likely to affect their 'reviewer rating', but when reviewing loads of nominations, it is likely unclear as to which one the discrepancy occurred on.

    Thanks again!

  • 00Sterling-PGO00Sterling-PGO Posts: 22 ✭✭

    I think it's when it is given 1 or 2 stars for not being visually unique same for historically or culturally significant. I think that part is redundant nd should be covered under the initial question of whether or not it should be a wayspot.

  • silverkali-INGsilverkali-ING Posts: 92 ✭✭✭

    While reviewing I've seen players submit 3,4,5 football fields in the same area, once they start getting approved I would start marking down future ones a star or two on visual uniqueness only because they're not visually unique if there are are a number of them on the nearby when reviewing.

  • WikiBlue-INGWikiBlue-ING Posts: 73 ✭✭✭
    edited March 24

    But if that results in 1 or 2* voting on visual unique, you are actually/possibly rejecting the whole sub (that's what happened with OP's upgraded waypoint).

  • Mormegil71-INGMormegil71-ING Posts: 143 ✭✭✭

    I take "visually unique" in this case as "Stands out from things around it, and you can't mistake it for anything else". Not as a feast for ones eyes. Any sports field is worth at least a 3 in that respect, imho.

  • Oakes1923-INGOakes1923-ING Posts: 368 ✭✭✭✭

    "Visually Unique" criteria should really only pertain to objects and artwork. Its so people don't nominate things like street signs or the red balls outside of Target stores, per the examples Niantic offers. Locations or business are much different and have their own set of criteria. I cant wait for the review overhaul as the current setup really detracts from the full review process. Folks assume that if anything is a one star then the entire thing is a one star and therefor should be rejected.

    There is specific rejection criteria, if it doesn't fall into the narrow criteria is should never get a 1*, and you should be reviewing each question on the merits and guidelines provided.

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 1,292 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Isn't the cluster of sports fields supposed to be submitted as one complex rather than N individual fields? That used to be the case unless there was significant distance between them.

    @WikiBlue-ING There is folklore that says that a 1* or 2* in any category is a rejection of the entire submission. This is based on people sometimes receiving "not historically significant' or "not visually unique" (hand-waving about exact phrasing) in rejection email. Other people disagree with that assessment. I personally believe something that's rated 4-5* in every category but 1-2* for historical/cultural significance or visual uniqueness would still pass with flying colors. I suspect that what is happening is that when a submission is rejected Niantic has an algorithm for generating rejection reasons. My gut says that they first look for strong signals in the 1*-reject reasons, and that they tack on historical/cultural significance and/or visual uniqueness if it also scored low on those, even though the rejection wasn't explicitly because of that. Certainly a low rating on those two things could tip the balance on something that was right on the line of rejection/acceptance already.

    (I expect at least three people to hit dislike on this comment because they are convinced that historical/cultural is a primary cause for rejection.)

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭✭✭

    In my experience each sport field event in a cluster is eligible to be submitted on its own merits. So if you have a cluster of 4 baseball fields you can submit all 4. I have come into situations that have sport fields like soccer fields all in a row with each other and baseball diamonds all together. I had no problem submitting each one

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 1,292 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Jtronmoore-PGO I understand that they sometimes get approved that way, but in the past Niantic's guidelines were to treat them like a single complex unless they are a significant distance apart. I'm not aware of that having changed.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I was never aware of that guidance, do you have a link to said guidance? Also not sure if it would still stick with new criteria update as well since its an entire refresh

  • GearGlider-INGGearGlider-ING Posts: 1,207 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I can't find the source of that guideline either, but I do remember it was well before the 3.1 update, where things got looser. Since a lot of reviewers tend to approve the individual fields anyways, there's not much reason to rate multiple fields close together low. The only situation where I could think of that is something like multiple tennis, basketball, volleyball, etc courts in the same fenced off area. For things are large as football or baseball fields, I thinks it's fine for each one to warrant it's own wayspot. A worse, I'll give a 4-star rating for visual uniqueness if a place has a LOT of similar fields.

    Soccer fields can be tricky though since a lot of places just have one soccer area that they set up goalposts and lines where-ever depending on the season. For those, I tend to try and find a park map at the park or on a website that lists the individual fields out on the map. Helps out a ton in the supporting photo. But if there is none, yeah one might just have to submit the sole physical marker that says it's the soccer area.

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 1,292 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 26

    Here you go. Yes, it's older. I'm not sure I've seen anything that explicitly contradicts or revokes it.

    To be completely transparent, I'm personally on team "sports fields are boring." I can kind of grok why other people find them interesting, and I can easily understand the value to Niantic of making them eligible, but I just don't find them interesting as objects or destinations. Partially because of that bias it's had for me to see Foobar Park Softball Field #3 and Foobar Park Softball Field #5 as things that are separately interesting.

    And yes, I review them according to guidelines because my personal tastes don't define wayspot criteria.

    • Objects installed in a series - Objects installed in a series can be submitted as a group or individually, depending on the distance between them. If they are relatively close together and share a single sign, consider them as a single Wayspot, but please ensure that the objects are in fact related before nominating. If they are relatively far apart, consider them as multiple Wayspots. 

    https://community.ingress.com/en/discussion/5385/new-portal-clarifications-from-wayfarers-help

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I don’t think they are talking about athletic fields in that little blurb you posted. More than likely talking about some other objects as they talk about athletic fields above it in the link and make no mention of multiple fields together. Thank you for the link though

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 2,180 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I've grappled with that clarification before, and it does explicitly state "in a series" may be nominated as a group or individually.

    Is Field #5 a duplicate of Field #8? Of course not. Would I argue with the later being marked lower for visual uniqueness? Yes, a little, but with less ground to stand on.

    I wish clarifications @NianticCasey-ING previously made hadn't been deleted by @NianticGiffard. There was a really good one where Casey had "blessed" multiple tennis court enclosures in a sports complex but also said that the individual courts (on this case 2-4 per enclosure) would not be acceptable as standalone candidates.

Sign In or Register to comment.