Does This Nomination Look Fake To You? (Accountants' Office Marked As Explicit/Inappropriate!)

AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 743 ✭✭✭✭✭

That's the e-mail I received for nominated one of the listed buildings local to me. People can debate whether or not the nomination is Wayspot worthy or not, sure. However, to say a building which has "chartered accountants" written above the door contains "explicit or inappropriate content" above the main entrance is totally wrong!

An accountants' office is one of the most mundane of places, unless of course one appreciates numbers! Plus they claimed it was a "fake nomination that does not exist at the specified location", even though I provided this link for the building:

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1086320  

Plus it has Google Street View.

One could see this is an accountants' office by zooming in on the main photograph:

Yeah, look so fake! I wish reviewers to review properly. I see people on this forum claim to take like 20 seconds per review (then complaining about timeouts) and I know I've never taken that short of an amount of time to complete a review. Must be a real **** to claim this building does not exist because the Google Street View is right there in front of you!

«1

Comments

  • Belahzur-INGBelahzur-ING Posts: 456 ✭✭✭✭✭

    People will pick any reason on the rejection, there's no rhyme or reason to, because equally there's no punishment or deterrent to, anyone can pick any reason and whether it's true or not, Nia doesn't care and they wont change it.

    Resub and move on.

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 743 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The rejection reasons demonstrate the reviewers are not reviewing properly. "Explicit/inappropriate location" is the top reason given, meaning many people will have picked that reason and those people should have their reviewing right taken away from them. I can forgive people who marked this nomination as "private residential property" but far more people claimed this nomination was some kind of a "fake" even though I provided clear links to support my nomination.

    I should not have to put with this. Neither should you. If enough people like myself complain then something might be done.

  • flatmatt-PGOflatmatt-PGO Posts: 1,315 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2021

    First of all, I don't see any reason to believe the order of the rejection reasons in the rejection email has any correlation with the number of reviewers who chose each rejection reason. It very well might be only one or two people who chose the seemingly incorrect rejection reasons. Whether and how submitters should be presented with these rejection reasons is up for debate (personally I think small minority rejection reasons shouldn't be in emails at all), but there doesn't seem to be any evidence to suggest that "far more people" chose any particular rejection reason out of these three over another.

    "Inappropriate location" has been discussed many times. The description given for this rejection reason while reviewing in Wayfarer is very poor. The fault for this lies with Niantic as much as with any particular reviewer. Just take it as someone saying they think this is an ineligible (inappropriate) location for a wayspot and move on.

    Anyone who chose "fake nomination" may have thought you were making up, or at least being misleading about, the accounting office. It certainly took me a bit to notice the accounting office in the lower right of the main photo. The fact that most of the building appears to be unoccupied, or at least in a state of disrepair (boarded up/missing windows, cables hanging over the entrance) does not give the impression that the building as a whole is currently in use as an accountant's office. I think you need to clarify your statement about the building being used as an accounting office to say that only part of the building is being used as such (and point out which part). Some additional explanation of the current state of the rest of the building may also be in order.

  • Maxyme99-PGOMaxyme99-PGO Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭✭

    To tell the truth, there isn't any evidence that order of rejection reasons has any meaning in mail, and there isn't any evidence it means that first rejection reason is the one that most people choosen. Getting rejection in my mail and seeing rejections in mails of other people on this forum I only see that rejections are put in really random way, so I wouldn't think that first one was choosen by the most people who rejected your nomination.

    It's sad when you get something rejected with false reasons, and I also hope something will be done with it soon (or at all, as we didn't hear much about it when there is a lot complains about reviewing process for years now, it's hard to tell if anything will be done with it).

    The only thing we can do now is resubmit and hope for better reviewers. I must say that you have very lucky location looking how fast your nomination was reviewed (2 day without upgrade in UK, it's awesome), so I hope next time you will get better luck.

    I also had to nominate some things several times (and weird thing, some got accepted only when I give them upgrade, it was local reviewes that rejected eligible things, wayfarer might be really surptising sometimes), so I reall understand you, but sadly until Niantic won't do some big changes with Wayfarer, this problem will continue. Niantic's workers mention on forum from time to time that they're working on it, but so far we didn't get any specific information if system will change or when it could happens.

  • BleedBoss-PGOBleedBoss-PGO Posts: 269 ✭✭✭


    So now you admit that there is an issue and Niantic doesn't care? Welp, better late than never i guess x)

  • BleedBoss-PGOBleedBoss-PGO Posts: 269 ✭✭✭
  • cyndiepooh-INGcyndiepooh-ING Posts: 718 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I would have picked Abuse as well to make sure that Niantic did not let this slip through voting without looking at it, and "Fake Nomination" is what I would have probably chosen as the best match based on calling that derelict building with all the windows missing a working accountant's office. Shame on you, not the reviewers. If it looked a little less sketchy, I would have picked the "inappropriate location" and hoped for the best. But that could not be allowed to go live.

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Please remember that there's a disconnect between the text that reviewers select and the text that's shown to submitters.

    When you're reviewing, the text you would select is "Location Inappropriate", and it's the first option under location. When you confirm the selection there's text that says "Use for Nominations whose real-world location appears to be explicit or inappropriate." However, I bet a lot of reviewers don't see that text... they just find the highlighted submit button and move on.

    Submitters are shown the rejection reason "appears to have explicit or inappropriate activity."

    If you're a relatively inexperienced reviewer who has looked at the candidate and decided that it shouldn't be accepted then "Location Inappropriate" seems like a rational choice-- you might be thinking "This isn't an appropriate location for a (stop/portal/wayspot)." To me the text "Location Inappropriate" feels like a generic rejection and it's easy to imagine other reviewers thinking the same thing.

    Obviously I'm only considering the English version because that's the one I use, and it's the only language I read well enough to understand nuance.





  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 2,117 ✭✭✭✭✭

    What doe EMHE have to do with a Sketchy commercial building? More like Ghost Hunters.

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 743 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The building is:

    1. on a main road.
    2. been deemed by the authorities to have historic importance.


    You do realise that plenty of derelict buildings have historic value? I'm thinking things like... the Colosseum in Rome, the Great Pyramid of Giza. What you're saying makes no sense.

  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 2,117 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Except there is no disconnect here... a sketchy building is arguibly an inappropriate location for a waypoint.

  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 2,117 ✭✭✭✭✭

    arguably* (not fixing a typo and getting lost to the mods)

  • BleedBoss-PGOBleedBoss-PGO Posts: 269 ✭✭✭


    Well, @NianticAtlas and the gang, you found one of the "Abuse" abusers here, didn't even have to work for it, he just turned himself in. This is the kind of people that shouldn't be allowed to review on this platform.

  • BleedBoss-PGOBleedBoss-PGO Posts: 269 ✭✭✭


    And who are you to judge that? If the authorities have deemed it important, who are YOU or anyone else to go against that? A quick look at GMaps shows the building is under renovation (Extreme Makeover perhaps). This is the issue with WF: Non-locals thinking they know better than locals.

  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 2,117 ✭✭✭✭✭

    As a reviewer I get to judge that as a safety factor. Its my opinion, and obviously opinion of others, if I and others are mistaken, then they can address those issues when/if resubmitting.

  • BleedBoss-PGOBleedBoss-PGO Posts: 269 ✭✭✭


    No, you don't. You THINK it's a safety factor, but it might not be. If there are people working there (And you, being a non-local, would NEVER know this), and the building isn't gated off by authorities (You know, exactly what authorities do in the case of a possibly collapsing building), then it's safe to walk there until further evidence. This mindset is EXACTLY what the problem with WF is: People who don't know jack, thinking they know more than everyone else.


    "But they can adress this while re-subbing" - Yeah, let the submitter take the punishment because some NON-LOCALS THOUGHT that it's unsafe, while you and the gang get away unscathed with another agreement in your pocket. Seems legit.

  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 2,117 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It might or might not be, as a reviewer i get to make that call when theres red flags, and there's red flags... any time there is red flags its best for the nominator to address them. Anytime they fail to do so, they run the risk of rejections. When it comes to safety, its always best to side with caution.

  • BleedBoss-PGOBleedBoss-PGO Posts: 269 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2021


    You're not going to spin this into a narrative about safety. The sidewalk is not obstructed: fact. The building is not closed off: Fact. People work there: Fact. There is a pedestrian access and a road right next to the building: Fact. Where, from these facts, do you conclude that the building isn't safe? Short answer, you don't.


    Would you also reject submissions as temporary in the event of a missile possibly dropping on them in the future?

  • ftzzghzuhdidu-INGftzzghzuhdidu-ING Posts: 370 ✭✭✭

    Building really doesn't look good and the picture also doesn't help that fact. Would certainly rate it low, maybe even deny it due to bad photo.

  • Kuleisbjorn-PGOKuleisbjorn-PGO Posts: 112 ✭✭✭

    In the picture you submitted, the building looks like a place junkies would hang out. Sorry, but I'm just being honest. In other words, the state of the building makes it look unsafe. Judging by the street view, this will benefit from a re-nomination when the renovations are finished.

  • BleedBoss-PGOBleedBoss-PGO Posts: 269 ✭✭✭


    Not even the best camera equipment in the world could have taken a better photo. Yes, the building looks shady, but so do most historic buildings here.


    The photo isn't blurry, isn't taken from an angle, and it's not pitch black. So why would you reject it for bad photo when it meets none of the criteria for that?

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 1,604 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I have successfully submitted historically important listed buildings that are in a state of disrepair (one was significantly worse). So this is worth resubmitting.

    Your main problem is the state of disrepair, quickly followed by its use. These both need to be addressed in a focussed way.

    As well as the historic building listing, check if it is also featured on any of registers that highlights those at risk of disrepair and anything from a local history group. There can be notices to repair issued.

    Keep the description focussed on the importance of this building. The final last sentence is all general stuff about Regency period and not really relevant. Perhaps something about the history of the property eg built for wealthy families but for the last so many years used as a commercial premise.

    in the supplementary info be upfront about the state that it is in. If there are any known redevelopment plans cover that. Search planning sites to check that it is still marked for commercial use. Your reference to the accountants is confusing as it is very hard to see. Perhaps a weblink instead. Are other properties in this terrace commercial or PRP or converted into flats.

    In the end of the day for me it is a good POI just very unloved at the moment, and you need to sell it to the reviewers.

  • ftzzghzuhdidu-INGftzzghzuhdidu-ING Posts: 370 ✭✭✭

    It's tilted and I don't recognize what is supposed to be exactly the focus of photo. Where does the building start or stop? The focus is not clear enough and all my eyes wander to is something which could be an abandoned building. You got to do better than this.

  • BleedBoss-PGOBleedBoss-PGO Posts: 269 ✭✭✭


    No, it's not. The photo is pretty clear. The building is decently wide, so while he could have crossed the road and taken a wide angle picture, it would most likely catch people's faces/license plates/yada yada. This is nitpicking gone wrong.


    Clarenden Place

    Picture of a building

    Description contains remarks to architecture.

    Supporting info has a link to the historic entry of the building


    What, in your mind, could the focus of the photo be? A dog? A rocket ship? Elon Musk? Reading the description and supporting info is crucial to understand some submissions. And this person detailed it quite nicely. So i'd dare argue that no, this is more than good enough to pass if it meets ACTUAL criteria, not made up criteria.

  • ftzzghzuhdidu-INGftzzghzuhdidu-ING Posts: 370 ✭✭✭

    You are free to be in the wrong. Nothing from what you have said does add any new facts and upon the existing facts I have already drawn my conclusion. I will not even touch the subject that the description is only half good, since it is overblown with irrelevant information which maybe could fit into the additional argument for the poi but not in a good description. You might be the type of person who likes overblown descriptions, as one can predict from your own writings, but luckily you are just an annoying minority. You get 30 seconds if your poi lands in front of me. I will not do your homework, if you cannot convince me you'll receive 2 to 3 stars and that's it. Take it or leave it. Better picture, a better description and a good additional information which proves that this is historic and unique, not just old.

  • Sasomida-INGSasomida-ING Posts: 6 ✭✭

    First impression of photo: generic old building, no different to all the other old buildings in the area, definitely not a POI. After that, the submission will struggle and the actual rejection reasons just mean "bad submission".

  • BleedBoss-PGOBleedBoss-PGO Posts: 269 ✭✭✭


    Take the cup champ. I'll sit on my ability to evaluate a POI past the initial photo and actually read the description/supporting statement.


    Being a part of the solution is always better than being part of the problem.

  • BleedBoss-PGOBleedBoss-PGO Posts: 269 ✭✭✭


    If ONLY there was a field called description/supporting info.... If only...

This discussion has been closed.