Misch60-PGO
✭✭✭
Comments
-
Maybe show a couple of your submissions here, so we can see if there is something lacking about them?
-
Uuuuh, it had the Niantic Balloon in the voting phase, and everything. It got through the entire voting process within one day. That doesn't happen with normal nominations, so I have to doubt that it went through the normal process.
-
As adviced by @patsufredo-PGO above, apparently I could ask for a re-review by tagging you, @NianticGiffard , for which a separate pair of eyes could give clarification.
-
I get what you mean, but I don't see how that would get a rejection by a Niantic decision, instead of a normal reviewer system, as it is perfectly visible, just doesn't stand out the best way.
-
Yeah, I also looked through that myself, it's a very helpful website about the artwork.
-
Thank you for your response, that also could work of course. Well, here is the rejection email at least
-
Ah great, you found it! I was looking for something that spoke about it, but couldn't find it yet. Thanks a lot!
-
The new building is not yet visible on Streetview (it opened this September), but the foundations are on the sattelite view. Therefore I showed the buildings that are closeby and on Streetview on the supporting image, together with the artwork, as a verification for the location.
-
It was rejected twice so far, but I will just try something different I guess this time, the input here gives some new ideas.
-
True, but those pins can direct you to the website/description to verify that. But I know that is too much to ask from most reviewers, not meant in a bad way.
-
I was hoping people would use the maps, like Google Maps or OSM or something, which shows it is a church, but I will take your advice in mind! Thank you.
-
The wooden sign on the church says "predikant", which is Dutch for pastor, so I thought that was a good point for it. But no, I don't have too much more signs I think, from the top of my head.
-
Fact is that both are barely playable without stops. No need to fight anyone about this, so let's just stop that argument right there. But coming back to the picnic area. A picnic bench on itself is unfortunately not enough to validate a portal or Stop. These get rejected everytime you try it, due to it not being unique…
-
Definitely improve your second picture. It is supposed to show the object and surroundings differently than the main photo. The way you have used it now is just the same as your main photo.
-
That's pretty impossible to tell without any form of information for us
-
Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with a car. Just bad quality in their eyes
-
The taken from a car is just not what happened. It's part of the blurry, bad photo choice, which also says: might be taken from a car. This has been selected because it was a poor photo in their eyes, not because they thought it was taken from a car.
-
You can take the test twice, if you only failed it once, you could try again. An upgrade will speed up a nomination process, increasing the range of from where reviewers get nominations. If you don't upgrade, more local reviewers will judge the nomination.
-
Start reviewing nominations, earn upgrades
-
What were the reasons given for the rejection?
-
I think a foot bridge in general could qualify, the problem is that these foot bridges are visually not interesting at all. Some of them barely are a bridge, but rather wooden planks. I don't think these would get through. But who knows, you could get lucky if you don't upgrade them
-
Per Cell, there can only be 1 Pokéstop, this to prevent massive clustering of Pokéstops, which would happen and make the game almost unplayable, and prevent abuse in that sense. Always check the Intel Map if you submit one, as there could be a portal there.
-
To show the place with the portals there.
-
It is a duplicate. There already is one at that spot. It seems the duplicate reason is removed, and just says "not accepted".
-
I doubt it would have had anything to do with that to be honest. It seems more a case of people just thinking it's not visually as unique an object, and just that it doesn't meet criteria. It can go through, but it will never get high ratings of people, which could lead more easy to rejections.
-
It can also be for noteworthy for the close environment, however, this needs to be explained, or something needs to be able to be found about said person. That way you can examine if the person has had some value to the local community.
-
Yes, I know. I did not say I thought it was a generic sign, just explained how reviewers may see it. In the end, it depends on local significance. Especially smaller towns have maybe one of these, so they can have some importance.
-
Ah, that's good. Still, I'd zoom a bit more, just for the reviewers that do not do it themselves, to increase your chances.
-
I think the problem with these signs is, that they are not unique enough for many people. For example, my city has one of these signs at every single entrance to the city area, which makes it a very generic sign. That is why people will not think it meets criteria I think.
-
I'd definitely suggest zooming in more on the sign, I can't read it from this distance, thus also not being able to judge what kind of sign it is.