Can a Niantic employee confirm if giving a low rating to the cultural value causes a rejection?
Euthanasio2-PGO Posts: 272 ✭✭✭
edited June 2021 in Criteria Clarifications
If enough users give a bad score to the cultural value criteria. Does it causes a rejection? I mean there's tons of evidences that it does since many users received an e-mail where it was the only rejection reason. I am extremely confident that it does, but many people on facebook groups keep encouraging less than 3 stars for things like trail markers for example.
So what's the truth?
If you got a valid nomination rejected for low cultural value, please provide a screenshot as well.
Post edited by Euthanasio2-PGO on
Niantic will never officially confirm something like that.
Why wouldn't they? It would massively reduce their amount of complaints. The users have the right to know the consequences of the website they are using.
If you can get a rejection answer that says not culturally or historically significant enough theoretically you can make the connection that it was scored low in that area. Just like how you can make a connection when giving a 1* at the beginning and choosing a rejection reason. I know people will say “oh well its not proven”. But there is no other way to get that rejection so you can probably put it together
Example 1: Soccer/basket field was rejected with "The nomination does not appear to be historically or culturally significant." as its only rejection reason.
Example 2: Trail marker at a parking area for footpaths and ski trails rejected for cultural significance in addition to "not meeting criteria".
Thanks for bringing this topic to light! I have had similar experiences and would appreciate any clarification.
A member of a Wayfarer group on Facebook is encouraging other members to give playgrounds/trail markers etc 1*/2* ratings for Historical/Cultural Value. This is followed by "Don't let anyone tell you that a 1-2* rating for any field is a vote to reject the whole candidate." How can this be true when nominations can be rejected solely for "not appearing to be culturally or historically significant"?
Recreation is an integral part of culture, and it is often intertwined with history. A playground might not seem like the most amazing piece of cultural material, but it's a place where children and families build connections. Trail markers, while "just" a piece of wood or metal, represent a pathway which may have been used by people for hundreds of years. Speaking directly from personal experience, the trails existing where I live literally have been used this way since before there were cars or roads or wide access to boats. Several other trails were built by German forces when they occupied my town in WW2. Is this not historical?
So many worthy candidates are wrongfully declined. It is a waste of everyone's time to let people misinform others on the mechanics of star-ratings. Can Niantic please answer as clear as possible:
Does giving a 1* or 2* rating in categories such as Historical/Cultural/Visual Uniqueness cause the nomination to be overall rejected?
It feels like that segment of the reviewing didn't evolve with the criteria changes. Certainly, there are culturally and/or historically relevant sports areas and walking trails in the world. But they don't *need to be* to satisfy the criterion of "a great place to exercise."
If Niantic is including a POI type of "great place to exercise," then historical/cultural relevance and visual uniqueness should not be requirements. But based on emails like the one @MultigrainLoaf-ING showed, it seems like they are.
I guess I will continue to make 3 stars my lowest rating in these two categories for any eligible nomination. In theory, places to exercise should be able to pass without strong scores in these categories, but that doesn't appear to be what is happening.
Honestly kinda wish niantic would give you your score as just an average out of all the votes to see exactly where you can improve based on the rating other than straight pass or fail
this is an amazing suggestion. Having that baseline would show you were you are missing on out with a submission, much more then a couple of random one line rejection reasons, often out of context, would be.
Thank you for nominating Capital Ring Trail Marker - Oak Lodge to Pen Ponds on May 16, 2020. Upon review by the Niantic community of players, we regret to inform you that this nomination is ineligible.
This nomination has been rejected due to the following reason(s):
Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria, The nomination does not appear to be historically or culturally significant.
That's the only reason coming up.
These rejections appear wrong to me. When you go through the "training test" sports fields and trail markers come up as valid.
The mantra is:
"Is it a good place to exercise? Is it a good place to be social? Is it a great place to explore?
If it is ONE of the above, it is eligible, and culturally significant."
Is the AMA about the 2* review system still valid?
I frequently give 1* to unique sections, even when I set the overall rating high.
Is this the wrong way to review a section?
You are probably rejecting perfectly fine wayspots. Could you give an example?
Because since they don't use the product and don't know how it works, their answer would not only be a waste of time, as it could also potentially be incorrect and generate more complaints.
"Its better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're an idiot, than to open it and prove them right".