Well altered images are abuse, and these were approved with altered images to deceive reviewers. So you are free to resubmit them in their unaltered state.
Thanks for sharing the document through the DM, @Roli112-PGO! We have reviewed the report and have taken action on the 51 Wayspots and 5 Wayfinders in accordance with our policies. While we are unable to discuss our actions in detail to protect the submitter’s privacy, they may include, but are not limited to, sending a warning message, placing restrictions on their Wayfarer, Pokémon GO, or Ingress account, putting their account on probation, or placing a temporary or permanent suspension on their Wayfarer, Pokémon GO or Ingress account. Thanks for helping us maintain the quality of the Wayspots.
In one of my favorite submissions, my original nomination was rejected. My candidate was a memorial site for a local journalist, with the memorial rock having a polished veneer and the inscription quite shallow. It wasn't legible in the original submission, and my candidate was rejected. So did I manipulate my images to enhance the text? Nope - I went back, brought along a backpack, and cleaned the inscription as best I could, using a dilute bleach spray and even toothpaste and toothbrush to brighten up the lettering and improve the waypoint object itself. I brought an umbrella for sun glare if needed. It took about 30 minutes but I left that spot in much better shape than I found it, and my second submission was accepted.
Submission One - submitted as soon as I found it on an exploratory walk:
Submission Two - when I made the trip back knowing the issues involved:
If you're passionate about a candidate, put some work into it if needed so that others can enjoy.
What a strange read all of this was, can I just ask a few questions as I am really I'm baffled about the portals, mainly the "allotments"... that are acceptable, and just really faded, as pointed out by @Huskyyyx-PGO and agreed by @Roli112-PGO
If they are acceptable, why did you report them? When you could've just updated the image on the portal, liking them up etc to change the photo used, and then ask Niantic to remove the out of date image and/or altered image? Instead of removing the whole portal. Seem very over the top when the portal in itself is acceptable, but just the photo that's incorrect - just change the photo?
Would this have not been more appropriate action @NianticGiffard for of course only the acceptable portals? Seems quiet simple.
@Belahzur-ING I would also like to point out in posting this, you have broken Niantic T&C's (Never violate the legal rights (including the rights of privacy and publicity of others.) and Never expose players’ identities without their consent (“dox”). This includes any information about another user’s identity, including their name, phone number, email address or physical address, even if a player discloses that info first.), By posting someones (we can only assume private) discord for the whole world to see.
And we don't even know if said person was involved, or if the portal they are posting has been altered in anyway, which I most say looks to be very faded already. Anyways you might want to remove it, or redacted like the original post. Discord is not Niantic's IP etc. This needed to be redacted before posting. Why has no one at Niantic pick this up? Screams lawsuit to me, I have definitely known people to sue for less, I guess it is lucky you guys are in the UK. @NianticCasey-ING
Anyways great detective work all, agreed with the bulk of whats been said and going on here, was just intrigued by the acceptable portals that have apparently been removed.. which I can safely assume will not get accepted in their weathered faded state.. would it not have been a lot better and a lot faster, just to update the pictures on any exist portal, then to get it approval on wayfarer again?
Hi @Shilfiell-ING As much as I love what you have done here, can I just make you aware that using bleach, even dilute in the open environment is a Defra fineable offence.
It turned out okay here, but as you had no rights, or permission from the owner (I can only assume, correct me if i am wrong) to "clean" the items up, had it of been damage by accident in the process you could have landed yourself in a lot of trouble.
As well as not digitally altering an items, I would also stronger advise against physically altering an items as well. Even with the best interests at heart. I do wonder if it could have be classed as trespassing or similar, could even be criminal damage - yes damage as they may not have wished for it to be cleaned or changed in any way at all.
Please be careful out there, especially when interacting with property you do not own :)
I never agreed that the signs were eligible, i said the faded signs were there. They were approved by being deceitful, so they need to be re submitted in their true form for reviewers to make their decision based on reality and not deceit.
Agreed! I generally advocate that one works with the owning authorities of any waypoint or potential waypoint, like working with your town to get a Little Free Library on public land, or volunteer to help an eagle scout project - a lot of places do need more points of interest, but could get more actual objects added in real life if they worked cooperatively. In my case, I'm not in the UK so defra fines would not apply, but I took full ownership of any local risk - the honoree was a person for whom I had a lot of respect, and the environment is lovely there. I would not see it harmed.
For those[wondering, this is the allotment sign in question, the writing is so faded that its unreadable, hence why someone photo shopped the writing on in the first place, you can see the sign and read the writing on google maps as its an older image, but this is how it stands now.
Yes, but it sounds like it is too late now, and they are weathered and faded over the years, since they was originally subbed(?).
As stated in the thread they are clear on google, from 2009 and 2012 and since OPR wasn't released till 2016, they was never going to be nominated in a perfect condition... therefore IMO they shouldn't have been complete removed, only updated with the correct photos.
I myself wouldn't call it "deceit" as you can see from all this information, the signs are real... all be it a bit faded, the allotments are visible on google maps - satellite and street view. It was so minuscule, especially as you can see by the mistakenly posted "vicarage wood allotments" that very old faded signs are still acceptable on Wayfarer.
So there was no need remove them, just update them with the correct faded up to date pictures, which we know are fine as the faded vicarage wood allotments was accepted.
I think I read somewhere about 50 portals have been removed(?), now they can't all be allotments (I hope) but this is going to take you hella lot of time to re sub them all, and loads of wasted nomination in the process of getting the correct pictures on the portals.
Let be honest, did we just forget additional photos can be added to a portal?
Ps, I agree with you on the other points, but just this removing acceptable portals just because of we don't agree with the image, when we can much easily just change/edit them is strange to me, and caught my eye.
The wayspots would not have been accepted in the first place had they been submitted with their true, non-altered photos. Ineligible with the real photos - abusive with the photoshopped photos - it seems very clear cut to me.
Updating the photos to show the practically blank signs wouldn't have achieved anything.
If someone really wants these signs to be wayspots, I think the best course of action is to contact whatever organization is responsible for these signs and ask if they could renew the writing. Then resubmit.
it isn’t a debate? The action has been taken already, only a debate as much as the fact it’s on an open public forum. Just like that random guys discord name. - which is wrong and still needs removing as per the T&Cs
”The wayspots would not have been accepted in the first place had they been submitted with their true, non-altered photos.” Not true. You cannot assume that, that would be for wayfarer to agree. And as a faded picture was approved on the other stop then who knows? Anything is possible with wayfarer from what I have seen.
Anyways why I agree with you in part, the submissions seemed to be for the allotments as a whole, not for an allotment sign. So if sign was blank no issue? As long as it is an active community garden/allotment?
All in all this isnt a question of 2 nominations, this is a question of a mass ring of abuse, these 2 part of it... was approved using the same method of abuse and not a question of being eligible or not. It is and was abuse so it's going. I agree that if it's truly important to someone then they can go the rightful way and restore it IN REAL LIFE, not digitally.
As I understand it the abusive elements are clear. Someone used photoshop to forge a POI that contains their club letters: NWC
They hoped other members of the cabal would give favorable reviews, and unknowing others would accept everything at face value.
If a nominator does anything using code or semaphore to persuade colleagues to vote in bloc - instead of individually assessing the merits - it constitutes abuse.
Incredible investigation. Accidentally stumbled upon a submit, decided to check her secrets and came out here. Keep it up, strangers! Greetings from Russia.
Comments
I'm fairly sure the writing on them is quite faded yes, google maps shows images from 2009 and 2012 where the writing is readable
Well altered images are abuse, and these were approved with altered images to deceive reviewers. So you are free to resubmit them in their unaltered state.
Thanks for sharing the document through the DM, @Roli112-PGO! We have reviewed the report and have taken action on the 51 Wayspots and 5 Wayfinders in accordance with our policies. While we are unable to discuss our actions in detail to protect the submitter’s privacy, they may include, but are not limited to, sending a warning message, placing restrictions on their Wayfarer, Pokémon GO, or Ingress account, putting their account on probation, or placing a temporary or permanent suspension on their Wayfarer, Pokémon GO or Ingress account. Thanks for helping us maintain the quality of the Wayspots.
So, I get the altered images should be marked as abuse but if allotment signs that are there, but faded are unacceptable?
Just trying to get my head around it as it seems like you can't nominate anything as most gets rejected these days for petty reasons.
Be intrigued to see what's in this document as well! 😁😁
Can we read them well enough to confirm what they are - that's the test. Have a look at your photos and see if they are easy to read.
In one of my favorite submissions, my original nomination was rejected. My candidate was a memorial site for a local journalist, with the memorial rock having a polished veneer and the inscription quite shallow. It wasn't legible in the original submission, and my candidate was rejected. So did I manipulate my images to enhance the text? Nope - I went back, brought along a backpack, and cleaned the inscription as best I could, using a dilute bleach spray and even toothpaste and toothbrush to brighten up the lettering and improve the waypoint object itself. I brought an umbrella for sun glare if needed. It took about 30 minutes but I left that spot in much better shape than I found it, and my second submission was accepted.
Submission One - submitted as soon as I found it on an exploratory walk:
Submission Two - when I made the trip back knowing the issues involved:
If you're passionate about a candidate, put some work into it if needed so that others can enjoy.
What a strange read all of this was, can I just ask a few questions as I am really I'm baffled about the portals, mainly the "allotments"... that are acceptable, and just really faded, as pointed out by @Huskyyyx-PGO and agreed by @Roli112-PGO
If they are acceptable, why did you report them? When you could've just updated the image on the portal, liking them up etc to change the photo used, and then ask Niantic to remove the out of date image and/or altered image? Instead of removing the whole portal. Seem very over the top when the portal in itself is acceptable, but just the photo that's incorrect - just change the photo?
Would this have not been more appropriate action @NianticGiffard for of course only the acceptable portals? Seems quiet simple.
@Belahzur-ING I would also like to point out in posting this, you have broken Niantic T&C's (Never violate the legal rights (including the rights of privacy and publicity of others.) and Never expose players’ identities without their consent (“dox”). This includes any information about another user’s identity, including their name, phone number, email address or physical address, even if a player discloses that info first.), By posting someones (we can only assume private) discord for the whole world to see.
And we don't even know if said person was involved, or if the portal they are posting has been altered in anyway, which I most say looks to be very faded already. Anyways you might want to remove it, or redacted like the original post. Discord is not Niantic's IP etc. This needed to be redacted before posting. Why has no one at Niantic pick this up? Screams lawsuit to me, I have definitely known people to sue for less, I guess it is lucky you guys are in the UK. @NianticCasey-ING
Anyways great detective work all, agreed with the bulk of whats been said and going on here, was just intrigued by the acceptable portals that have apparently been removed.. which I can safely assume will not get accepted in their weathered faded state.. would it not have been a lot better and a lot faster, just to update the pictures on any exist portal, then to get it approval on wayfarer again?
Hi @Shilfiell-ING As much as I love what you have done here, can I just make you aware that using bleach, even dilute in the open environment is a Defra fineable offence.
It turned out okay here, but as you had no rights, or permission from the owner (I can only assume, correct me if i am wrong) to "clean" the items up, had it of been damage by accident in the process you could have landed yourself in a lot of trouble.
As well as not digitally altering an items, I would also stronger advise against physically altering an items as well. Even with the best interests at heart. I do wonder if it could have be classed as trespassing or similar, could even be criminal damage - yes damage as they may not have wished for it to be cleaned or changed in any way at all.
Please be careful out there, especially when interacting with property you do not own :)
I never agreed that the signs were eligible, i said the faded signs were there. They were approved by being deceitful, so they need to be re submitted in their true form for reviewers to make their decision based on reality and not deceit.
Agreed! I generally advocate that one works with the owning authorities of any waypoint or potential waypoint, like working with your town to get a Little Free Library on public land, or volunteer to help an eagle scout project - a lot of places do need more points of interest, but could get more actual objects added in real life if they worked cooperatively. In my case, I'm not in the UK so defra fines would not apply, but I took full ownership of any local risk - the honoree was a person for whom I had a lot of respect, and the environment is lovely there. I would not see it harmed.
For those[wondering, this is the allotment sign in question, the writing is so faded that its unreadable, hence why someone photo shopped the writing on in the first place, you can see the sign and read the writing on google maps as its an older image, but this is how it stands now.
Yes, but it sounds like it is too late now, and they are weathered and faded over the years, since they was originally subbed(?).
As stated in the thread they are clear on google, from 2009 and 2012 and since OPR wasn't released till 2016, they was never going to be nominated in a perfect condition... therefore IMO they shouldn't have been complete removed, only updated with the correct photos.
I myself wouldn't call it "deceit" as you can see from all this information, the signs are real... all be it a bit faded, the allotments are visible on google maps - satellite and street view. It was so minuscule, especially as you can see by the mistakenly posted "vicarage wood allotments" that very old faded signs are still acceptable on Wayfarer.
So there was no need remove them, just update them with the correct faded up to date pictures, which we know are fine as the faded vicarage wood allotments was accepted.
I think I read somewhere about 50 portals have been removed(?), now they can't all be allotments (I hope) but this is going to take you hella lot of time to re sub them all, and loads of wasted nomination in the process of getting the correct pictures on the portals.
Let be honest, did we just forget additional photos can be added to a portal?
Ps, I agree with you on the other points, but just this removing acceptable portals just because of we don't agree with the image, when we can much easily just change/edit them is strange to me, and caught my eye.
I really don't understand why this is a debate.
The wayspots would not have been accepted in the first place had they been submitted with their true, non-altered photos. Ineligible with the real photos - abusive with the photoshopped photos - it seems very clear cut to me.
Updating the photos to show the practically blank signs wouldn't have achieved anything.
If someone really wants these signs to be wayspots, I think the best course of action is to contact whatever organization is responsible for these signs and ask if they could renew the writing. Then resubmit.
it isn’t a debate? The action has been taken already, only a debate as much as the fact it’s on an open public forum. Just like that random guys discord name. - which is wrong and still needs removing as per the T&Cs
”The wayspots would not have been accepted in the first place had they been submitted with their true, non-altered photos.” Not true. You cannot assume that, that would be for wayfarer to agree. And as a faded picture was approved on the other stop then who knows? Anything is possible with wayfarer from what I have seen.
Anyways why I agree with you in part, the submissions seemed to be for the allotments as a whole, not for an allotment sign. So if sign was blank no issue? As long as it is an active community garden/allotment?
All in all this isnt a question of 2 nominations, this is a question of a mass ring of abuse, these 2 part of it... was approved using the same method of abuse and not a question of being eligible or not. It is and was abuse so it's going. I agree that if it's truly important to someone then they can go the rightful way and restore it IN REAL LIFE, not digitally.
As I understand it the abusive elements are clear. Someone used photoshop to forge a POI that contains their club letters: NWC
They hoped other members of the cabal would give favorable reviews, and unknowing others would accept everything at face value.
If a nominator does anything using code or semaphore to persuade colleagues to vote in bloc - instead of individually assessing the merits - it constitutes abuse.
Incredible investigation. Accidentally stumbled upon a submit, decided to check her secrets and came out here. Keep it up, strangers! Greetings from Russia.