It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
I think this nomination at least starts fantastic. Maybe get a little better primary picture? I'm curious about your Supporting text looked like. I really liked @Roli112-PGO's suggestion to include the "coffee talk" - something that helps stand out as a place that encourages social interaction really helps. I nominate quite a bit of local restaurants and breweries, and I'll usually begin with something like "A great place to explore local flavor" and sometimes "...is frequently featured as a 'must see' when visiting" (if applicable). Honestly maybe include "favorite" in the description - I know it's a bit buzzwordy, but it might help pump it up a little.
A friend of mine wrote up this guide. It includes examples of nominations I've seen and even a few I've helped helped with (that were accepted). Every now and again I like to re-read it to make sure I'm hitting on the relevant things in my own nominations.
Thanks for sharing your inputs, everyone! Not much to say here as some of you are already aware (pointed out) that cafes/coffee shops and local hot spots should be considered eligible providing the fact the nomination possesses good supporting information with enough evidence.
Just to help with future submissions for people, what could constitute as evidence? Would Google/yelp/just eat reviews count? Cause if it needs to be in a magazine or local guide, the vast majority of suburban cafes would never get in and, speaking from experience for one cafe near me, suburban ones tend to be the only ones in the area, so they would naturally be the local hotspot etc. But would be impossible to prove
Can this be incorporated into the criteria? Because there are those that insist that if it is not mentioned in the criteria, there is no such burden on the nominator and that reviewers are "making up their own rules" for rejecting nominations that don't provide any supporting evidence.
...those that insist that if it is not mentioned in the criteria, there is no such burden on the nominator and that reviewers are "making up their own rules" for rejecting nominations that don't provide any supporting evidence.
Not remotely close to what anyone, arguing either side, has said.
@gazzas89-PGO has the right idea, what constitutes as evidence is at question here, what's the burden of proof. Would have been amazing if @NianticCasey-ING had addressed that specifically. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it anecdotal? Any chance we could get more then a half hearted non answer? It would help both sides.
Well we have been saying all along you need to provide proof(evidence) for any claim in the nomination. Its here now plain and simple
Although I would love to have a more concrete way of what they call evidence, but theres so many different ways of showing evidence that I don’t think niantic will cover it. Could be links to websites, news, could even use the supporting picture to take pictures of news articles that are only on paper, show a massive lineup outside the door, number of local awards if they are displayed.
I would say thats exactly what we have said, we said it needs some proof and shared some examples of it. The only side that it didnt help was yours.
Can we like uhh, have examples of great cafes/coffee shops currently approved?
Considering that the Niantic example in the Criteria of Salads Up in Madison is not currently a wayspot, but the Italian restaurant slightly down the block is, I think it's better to show real examples than just bicker on about subjective eligibility.
Personally, a bad, half-baked description will almost always get a rejection from me, even if I knew it was a Michelin restaurant or was the focus of media on one stage. But most restaurants I submit are still being treated as explicit anyway, so... without a sense or standard to begni with in the first place, as well as real direct information, influence is nada.