rejected POI
connylein91-PGO
Posts: 10 ✭✭
Hello everyone, the following POI was rejected with. What nobody can understand at all because this POI is very popular and was specially built by the city of Berlin to bring back to life the place where the former wall (GDR) was once again. Young and old meet here and enjoy the beautiful surroundings. I therefore ask you to include this POI in the game. best regards
Comments
What were the Rejection reasons?
Truthfully, the sign doesn't look overly impressive and being attached to a tree rather than its own post, to me, makes me a little suspicious.
Your proposal was rejected for the following reason: The proposal appears to be a seasonal or non-permanent establishment., Apparently offensive or inappropriate activity is taking place at the proposed location., The proposal does not meet the acceptance criteria ..
Sure, the sign is not special now, but on the photo you can see the route and it is permanently in operation.
The offensive/inappropriate activity rejection is odd, someone (or several someones) definitely picked the wrong rejection reason there - deliberately or accidentally, I can't say for certain.
The temporary/seasonal rejection I get since the sign is attached to a tree, it does look as though someone has just stuck it there.
If you think it's a worthwhile submission, all I can suggest is try again.
@connylein91-PGO Let me see if I can break those down for you:
"... seasonal or non-permanent..." I believe this is reviewers saying that a small sign tacked to the tree like that looks temporary. This is a pretty common sentiment seen in discussions here.
"...apparently offensive or inappropriate activity..." One of the rejection reasons (in English) is "Location inappropriate". I suspect a lot of reviewers use this to mean "This isn't an appropriate wayspot". It's an incorrect use since this reason is supposed to be used for adult like **** clubs but the way Niantic sets up the rejection reasons makes that somewhat ambiguous. (I understand that in German the choices given to reviewers are actually worse, with two reasons sharing the same wording.)
"...does not meet the acceptance criteria..." This one is pretty obvious, I think. Reviewers didn't think this sign was sufficiently interesting.
I used Google Lens to translate your description and supporting information. You've done an excellent job with the supporting info. The translation of the description to English is slightly weak but that could be the translation rather than the original text. I think this will be a difficult candidate to get approved simply because the sign looks like a temporary thing attached to a tree. That's sad because the location itself seems to be an excellent candidate. Is there perhaps another sign for it somewhere in the area?
Suspicious? What are you even talking about? It's a professional sign that's clearly along the trail. Maybe you need to educate yourself on how long a birch tree can live if that's a big problem for you. If we're going to be picky, you're arguing for a pole that could pose a risk of accidents along a bike trail like this. The truth is that reviewers are ignorant.
Many thanks to everyone then I'll try a third time ^^ if it is still not accepted I'll let it be. Because then it just shouldn't be. But unfortunately there is no other sign only this one or another on another tree. When I submitted it for the first time, I tried to use the BMX route as a POI picture. Now let's see what I'll take next. But anyway, many thanks to all the tips.
Work with your local government or whoever runs the park and see if you can organize a fundraiser to install proper signs for the course.
In the UK, there's been several attempts to get fake trail markers through, including ones randomly nailed to trees. Hence why I said it looks suspicious.
I'm aware of how long trees can live, I live in an area with a number of nature reserves surrounding it.
This has nothing to do with me being picky or reviewers being ignorant, as you not-so-kindly put it. Seeing a trail marker or sign attached to a tree would make many suspicious, I'd imagine. At best, it does look temporary.
Having it attached to a pole isn't any more dangerous than cyclists having to look up at trees to see where to go either. Speaking as someone who regularly cycles, I'd rather not be looking up at trees to see if I'm still on the correct cycling route.
I'm not saying it's a bad submission, I was just trying to help OP understand the reasoning behind the rejections.
It's not odd at all. Almost everything that gets rejected in germany gets this reason because of Niantics terrible translation.
As if a POI is worth all this hassle. Submit until it's accepted and skip all this hassle.
Shhh, don't speak the truth or you might end up getting warnings.
go spread your negativity somewhere else
Not biting the bait my dude. Thank you and have a nice day :)
Sometimes, it's not the description or the photo or the supporting detail that needs to be improved: it's the candidate itself. I'm in the middle of contacting a county parks department to see if a sign can be installed near a historic building in a park, as well as suggesting further improvements: I've worked with scout troupes, art clubs, and other entities to get other projects in motion. Maybe it's not worth it to "get a POI" in game, but it's worth it to get more interesting things to see in my community. Change things for the better, don't just hammer medium-interest square pegs into a round hole until they fit.
Let's break this down:
What is being nominated here? The BMX track.
Does it meet eligibility criteria? Yes, it promotes exercise.
What object was used in the main photo? The sign.
Is the sign the object that is nominated or does it just placemark the area? It placemarks the area.
Should reviewers then rate the sign of the track? The track!
The nominator nominated a perfectly eligible candidate and used a man-made object (probably the only one around) as an anchor. People rejecting this should rethink whether they should be wayfarers.
Is it ridiculous to ask nominators to work with the local government to improve the nominated object. If you expect that, then your standards are too high.
Persoanlly I would accept it as its clear that you are submitting the bmx track. Just need to do a photo sphere or something to show that the sign is actually there, might even need to try a picture picture show the sign is permanently there, thats the best advice I can think of
@TWVer-ING I can understand the rejection though. There have been tons of people making fake signs and sticking them to trees just long enough to take photos and then submitting them. This one has all the hallmarks of that.
Again, they are not nominating the sign. There is enough evidence to be found to suggest the track is really there.
No one is disputing that the track is really there. The issue is that there have been people making signs, like @Hosette-ING has pointed out, and sticking them to random trees, hence one of the Rejection reasons being temporary/seasonal.
Yes, the sign is place marker for the track but obviously being attached to a tree has caused reviewers to believe that it is a temporary installation.
With that kind of reasoning, every rejection can be justified. Defending this kind of behavior is one of the biggest problems in this community.
As someone that doesn't live in Germany, it's an odd rejection reason to me.
If I had that as a rejection reason for a submission like the one that was originally posted, I'd still find it odd since cycling is hardly an inappropriate activity.
I'm not defending it, I was explaining why reviewers came to that conclusion.
In the UK, there's a lot of issues with people making fake trail markers and the like and slapping them on random trees to make more wayspots.
Evidently reviewers erred on the side of caution here. I'm not saying they were right or wrong for rejecting it, just that I can see why they picked that rejection reason.
As I said in a previous comment, if @connylein91-PGO feels it's a worthwhile submission, they should try again. I don't think it's a bad submission myself, but I imagine it will struggle for approval due to it being attached to a tree rather than its own post.
Wouldn't have said it better myself.
But it's the track being nominated. The sign is simply an anchor. Should the OP make the original Photo the actual track, and then use the sign as the supporting picture? Would that make an ounce of a difference?
People need to use common sense when reviewing, and as TWVer stated above, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to reject this POI.
I can understand that, if there is no evidence to support that it exists at that location. This track is listed on Google, with photos, videos and reviews from 2 years ago until now. That is plenty of evidence that is easy to find that the track is there and is not temporary. They just didn't bother to look beyond the main photo.
The german translation of this reason is garbage. A lot of reviewers therefore use it equivalent to "does not meet criteria".
I'd say that currently stuff that gets rejected in germany will have this reason included in the rejection mail 50% of the time. (Maybe this reason is even given more weight in the overall decision but that's just speculation. Would be terrible though because almost nobody uses it correctly at the moment)
Yeah, it sounds like reviewers aren't using the correct rejection reasons then.
I think the biggest issue with the nomination in question is that it's attached to a tree - that doesn't necessarily mean, in my opinion, that it doesn't meet criteria, just that reviewers are erring on the side of caution by rejecting it.
If it's any consolation, I've had an independent gym run by a bodybuilder that was Mr Britain 3 times rejected as temporary, so I can definitely relate your frustrations with wrong rejection reasons being used.
Google Maps or any other mapping website might show the track as being there but the sign which is the POI/wayspot nomination in the main photo is attached to a tree, so a lot of reviewers are going to see it and think "nah, this is temporary". It's the same when people submit a banner on a fence as the place marker for a sports field, as example. If it appears to be a temporary fixture, reviewers aren't likely going to vote favourably on it.
That is terrible reviewing. If the nominator had taken a photo of the track itself, those same reviewers would have rejected it for natural feature, and people would have defended that aswell. You just can't win.
People need to start following Niantic's criteria, and stop making up their own. And people should stop defending those that do make up their own criteria.
This shows again how great are reviewers.
If the OP sends a photo of the track, you can bet that it will be rejected as "Natural feature" and the wise people around here will tell him that he needs a sign, something that can work as an anchor for the PoI.
So he sends a photo of a sign stuck on a tree, and then it's rejected as "Non permanent".
And of course, mixed with other really great rejection reasons like inappropriate location and doesn't meet criteria. I would bet that some would also vote for non-existant as well as lack of pedestrian access (it's for bikes, not for persons!!!) and obstruct emergency services (if one biker has an accident then the ambulance wouldn't be able to arrive due to the hundreds of people around the pokestop)