Niantics Support Mess
Yesterday I got a strange mail:
Now the funny plot twist:
Nothing happened to my ING-Account - I can submit, review, and edit my nominations in wayfarer; especially right before posting this I sent out my 14th submission, 12 of the 14 after receiving this mail.
But my PGO-Acc can't acces wayfarer. Both accounts don't share any login method, ING has gmail (that received this message), and my PGO-Acc is a PTC-Acc, that only because of wayfarer connected to FB, and no other login method.
Now to the mail:
Neither did I use any codewords nor did I provide any "unrelated information". I had only two ideas, what could be meant by the statement with "trying to influence other reviewers to vote on your nomination in a specific way". Further there were no rejection mails with fitting rejection reasons in my mailbox.
1st: I use a very distinctive supporting information for hiking trail markers, example:
Hiking related wayspots encourage players to move and exercise. So Hiking Trails (depicted by their markers) are great wayspots according to wayfarers criteria and are explicitly enumerated as good candidates under the big criterion "A great place for exercise". Trail here: Zwönitzer Bergbau-Rundweg https://www.zwoenitz.de/stadtleben/kultur-freizeit/wandern
There is no abusive aspect in there, it's only a explanation of the criteria for the reviewers, who reject hiking trail markers for example with "no safe pedestrian access" or similar far fetched rejection reasons. That style of supporting information (english instead of German, quoting the criteria, naming a trail like the old criteria wanted, providing a link) I've used for years now. Especially this on both, ING-and PGO-Acc - so that my guess is, that this causes the trouble, since my 2nd idea is ING-only because of the need of gallery access.
2nd: I'm using sometimes very mashed up picture collages with additional English text in it as supporting statements for very complicated candidates, that need a lot of knowledge about the criteria, AMA and/or local knowledge. So here the most tryharded example, that I created after receiving the 4th (?) rejection for a fully eligible 6* candidate with a very long wikipedia article:
Location: 50.619276, 12.680651
My support text:
Other mouth-hole wayspots: 50.622206,12.569206 ; 50.520268,12.777321 ; 50.435742,12.891895 ; wikipedia article about the mineshaft (title a bit different, because the wikipedia article uses the medieval short writing of the name Markus Semmler) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx-Semler-Stolln
Website about the radon baths of Schlema: https://www.bad-schlema.de/radon/
As far as I know there is no official statement, that forbids this style of supporting pictures, otherwise please prove me wrong. Especially all the information, that is given in my MS-Paint-creation, is related to the submission and shall only outdo the concerns of the people, who simply reject because of the radiation warning sign, and I honestly try to prove evry statement there. There is no unjustified lie or anything abusive involved here - it's only tryharded, and that's it.
If I would have approved this wayspot in an abusive way, then I would put off my shoes, climb down the ladder to the mouth hole and remove the radiation warning sign. That would be much easier than submitting this thing 6 or 7 times, waiting for weeks after evry attempt, and finally creating this strange collage, where evry statement is honest and as good as possible proven, at least for thorough reviewers.
Btw, there are news to prove the safe access of that place:
The biking trail Karlsroute got extended, and now the biking trail crosses that point. At the moment a nearby former train bridge is under renovation to serve as biking trail bridge - so what i dashed red is the future trail. The other path is only todays diversion route.
So @NianticGiffard please tell me, what the problem is. I got no answer to my mail (code 13465242). I have no clue, what the problem may be, since I don't see, where I could violate any ToS. So any kind of suspension is totally pointles, unless someone tells me, what the problem may be.
Then there seems to be a lot of chaos, when recieving the suspension mail for my ING-Acc, but the PGO-Acc got suspended instead. So since my PGO-Acc is involved in this chaos, the most likely explanation for me is, that there is a problem with my hiking trail marker supporting statement.
So maybe the abuse in that case is way around: If this mail got triggered by people rejecting with the submitter-identifiable-rejection-reason, then please check, whether there are people from the faker towns involved, where I reported/appealed few hundreds of fake wayspots. (Schwarzenberg, Schneeberg, Scheibenberg, Bärenloh, .....). Maybe they flagged my nominations, because they could identify my supporting texts since I spread this style of trail marker supporting text in this forum as well as un our social media groups, and they know, that these submissions could come from me.
The problem in getting such mails is that you don't know why you got it. On my strike, I luckily detected the reason quite fast. But on something like this? I would never know.
Btw .... although I cant access wayfarer with my PGO-Acc I'm able to submit nominations. It seems like nothing works as intended by Niantic ....
And here another reason, why the harsh support texts for hiking trail markers are necessary:
Where did I miss a fire department or a military barracks? 🙈
Got a new idea .....
someone sent me this:
This is a nomination, that I've done with my PGO-Acc. Does Niantic think, that this "Khslsbk" would be the codeword?
this is only a random wipe over the keyboard, and a description should have been edited later with wayfarer. Why that didnt happen here, I don't know. MAybe I forgot it, but maybe it's the description bug. Obviously I edited this wayspot afterwards, since the supporting statement isnt such a keyboard wipe.
So and thanks to that totally stupid suspenseion I neither can edit nor withdraw that nomination.
Quoting the criteria could influence the reviewers in a way that they might actually read it!11!1!! Unacceptable!1!
If you are trying to strech the rules and anyones patience, I guess you succeded somewhat.
Personally I think the art of submitting portals is keeping within the limits. Why even waste space on sentences like "this is a great wayspot" (or "we really need a pokestop here")
Good reviewers should have patience, and the willingness to use google.
My point of view is, that I simply take this part and give all the necessary information in a short version. Noone would read the full wiki-article for example, that would be more than 20 pages, if you would print it. Further it's only accessible in German, but I guess 20-30% of the reviewers in my area are from Czechia - so the information needs to be given in English.
Further noone has to read the full infos from the supporting picture. Therefore there are captions and paragraphs. If a reviewer knows, what a mouth-hole is, skip that part. In our social media I expierienced, that only a few people knew the term mouth-hole .... so that is necessary to explain that. If a reviewer understands, that the radiation warning sign only warns for entering the mineshaft not for standing above it, than the person can skip that paragraph. So what?
Have you ever edited the location of a portal. And edited title/description in which you ask the reviewer to pick the "right" location?
The mail only talks about nominations. That can't be the problem.....
But I did that in the past, but never only the abusive style like "choose the northern spot" and (as far as I remember) there is not a single edit open, that would fit the mails timing. Since Germany has nearly no streetview, you have to tell the people, that they can pull the yellow man on the map to check whether there are spheres. I learned that years ago also from a location edit with additional text edit while reviewing. Since I don't like to create spheres I used the description edit sometimes to give an URL to an uploaded supporting picture.
In a very few cases I only asked for moving an area-covering wayspot to a better place of that area, so that that wayspot can become a gym, what would be impossible at the other location ..... so when I do that, although I know Nia doesnt want that, my actions are at least overt. In cases like that you could achieve the same with randomness and waiting, and if unseccessful try again, but that's far more work for the wayfarer and the reviewers.
Sounds like abuse
Maybe, maybe not - but that can't be the point with that mail 💁♂️
I asked to move that wayspot for the ring of tortoise sculptures (was a pokestop), so that the wayspot of the castle/manor could appear as a pokestop, too. Worked 1st try and evrything happened in one fell swoop.
I could have done it without text edit, but than its simply randomness. Maybe it would have needed lots of attempts. PoGo has now the local most important POI too, and no PoGo-only-player will submit that castle and end up surpriaed because of the duplicate rejection, that they would have received.
So if you want to hide any common sense behind rules, than feel free to call that abuse.
"Attempt to influence reviewers" can be a grey area, especially in the case of new candidate review. Edits such as "move this to Spot X so that a gym can be made" are clearly abuse, while supplemental information instructions are usually entered in a more helpful light. Basically, if I submit a nomination, my whole goal is to influence reviewers....I want that nomination to be accepted, I try to write a winning and engaging description, I supply extra detail to boost confidence. I want to influence reviewers to accept my marvelous thing I have proposed. I'd love more instruction on what reviewers, as well as Niantics, consider abusive influence in original content nominations.
It's not maybe or maybe not, it's been stated by that such attempts are to be reported as abuse.
Nethertheless it's not the topic here since I didnt have any pending location edits with support text edit afaik while receiving this mail.
Btw please show me, where your statement is stated nowadays. The help sections says, that this CAN be reported, you don't have to. So the reviewer has to decide, whether there they presume a bad intention behind it, or not. So that's why I do evrything overt and explain my reasons for location edits of area-ish wayspots. So no psycho tricks, lies or else involved. If the reviewer wants to, they can double check in IITC or the like.
That's how it is in the 3.1 criteria, and before that there was an old AMA for that, but that is negated by 3.1
Do not submit and reportable for abuse.
Aside from the abuse reporting you already found (I don't see why you need anything more but.. ) there's also
Screenshots also incoming pending mod approval
That's exactly, where the "can" is.
The sentence above this:
If you encounter any nominations or edits while reviewing that you believe are inappropriate or show signs of abuse, use this form to report the nomination or edit in question.
Where is the sign of abuse, if I present you a reasoning for a location edit? The supporting text edit is nowhere declared as abuse. Abuse would be lies, fakes, harassment, attempts to make the wayspot location inaccurate or somehow worse, etc.pp.
A supporting text edit is not a sign of abuse compulsory. It can be, but it doesnt have to.
There is an example at the that help page, that could be compared to the case of supporting text edits: this edit here is not declared to be abusive in that example. You shall simply reject it:
So in fact an honest supporting text edit with a reasoning or helpful hints or what else in there is only speeding up the process and removing a lot of randomness and spares reviewing capacity.
The other extremum: obscured locations, no chance to determine, what is correct, and then a smple statement "left spot plz", this is most likely abuse.
The only point where „voting requests“ from your second pic are mentioned is the page for nominations, and simply to reject.
Edits are a totally different topic ....
There is this CAN-logic, and that‘s it .... less than SHALL, less than HAVE TO and less than MUST.
So for any sanctions for that pnly because of supporting text edits, there would be need for at least a HAVE TO ....
You can jump through hoops all you want to try and fit you narrative, 3.1 did not change anything in Niantics view on this topic. Pre 3.1 as you stated the AMA said it was abuse, and those two screenshots provided above still back that idea. If you want me to provide evidence that moving waypoints only for them to appear in Pogo, I can do that as well. That example you showed was I the correct position, so 2 cases of abuse in that alone.
****, you are the one collecting statements from unrelated sources 😂
First of all according to the mail the OP got, this is not the problem. If the first to points he mentions in the first post is abuse. I have done that, too. I am doing exactly the same thing when nominating cycling trails.
Moving a POI to another correct location does not seem abuse to me. All in all the move the OP requested would save valueble reviewing time. The hidden POI in pokemon go would not be nominated as a duplicate again.
Giving additional information through a description edit is often just a compromise solution. Niantic does not have an option to give additional information on edits. This can be a huge problem for some edits. Helpful information does not seem an abuse to me. Even telling the reviewers that the location edit would add another pokestop to the game does not seem abuse to me if the POI is still on a correct location.
What do you mean unrelated sources, those sources are from Niantic themselves.
Might not be abuse to you, but its is abuse to Niantic and thats who matters.
and well, we wait until Niantic tells us what we want to hear:
That this is abuse and what else we should not do.
Alot of people think they can bend Niantics rules.
There was a horrible discussion today on the fb wayfarer forums, about something artsy in a roundabout. Niantic is clear that they do not want anything that is in the middle of a motorstreet.
Maybe Niantic will tell us this week what their Idea of Abuse is.
About nominations. Not about edits. Totally different subsections.
@Raachermannl-ING Are you assuming that Niantic will word the email message differently if the abuse report was about an edit rather than about a submission? Without hard evidence I wouldn't trust that to be true.
At least the first paragraph, yes.
and there is a lot of other things strange here. I get a mail for ING, but ING is uneffected. Although in no way linked to my ING-Acc, PGO cant access wayfarer, but PGO can submit nethertheless, although they tell me that my nominations would be abusive. Further they tell me in that mail, that I shall re-review the criteria. The criteria are inside wayfarer, so locked for my PGO-Acc now.
There is so much wrong in here 😂🙈
You are completely mistaken read the header where that text is at... screenshot provided but awaiting mod approval...
Nominations and edit submissions may be entirely rejected if it meets at least one of the following rejection criteria:
"...and edit submissions" in case you missed it.