Theisman-ING
✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
-
Personally I'd have liked to see the picture of the sign landscape instead of portrait so you had more sign and less wall, but as it is its still a valid picture and the sign itself does meet criteria from what I can ****.
-
@NianticDanbocat , @NianticGiffard Here's yet another example of a Niantic Review decision, being complete tosh. Seriously when are you going to admit you've got people doing reviewes who don't know what they are doing, they reject good candidates and accept candidates that should be flushed away with toilet paper. How…
-
In which case that would be a poor quality photo as what you're suggesting as being the POI is barely 10% of the picture. Its a very poorly done submission and suggesting the back stop in the photo is where the POI should be located is not the way to go.
-
A baseball field ia a valid POI, however your submission is not a good one and has been correctly rejected. You have no tangible object or item to act as place for the POI to located. You have just shown a patch of grass in your submssion not a specific place where a POI can be recognised and located. Unfortunately it has…
-
Contrary to most peoples views on this thread, I like this as a POI and believe its a valid submission, however as seems to be the case with a few submissions recently its been ham strung by a less than stellar nomination. The name of the trail does indeed come from that specific car, I confirmed this with less than 1…
-
Abuse, fake nomination
-
Thats a far more in depth website than the one I found and definitely gives more history and feel for the POWs and the locals. Regarding your post prior to this, submit the sign as an information point POI if it contains all the relevant info on the step building, with the steps as a background support pic. Or vice versa…
-
This is a good candidate but unfortunately its been hamstrung by the way you've submitted it and im not surprised its been rejected. The description doesn't read right, and the support statement is just a retread of the description and doesn't support the nomination. I searched "gull park steps" and various iterations and…
-
Personally I'd go for either numbers 1 or 5 but id say they are all acceptable
-
The church has a good website, give the link to it in the support statement
-
The description was copied directly from google, instantly makes it a invalid submission. Thats before even considering if its a good candidate or not.
-
Personally I'd have accepted that, the webiste is good detailing the history and community feel to the place and its obviously involved with local community projects Only mild criticisms I have of your submission are The main picture is a bit meh and lack luster, any chance you can actually show the shop ? More like your…
-
Frankly you've had a lot of truly trash submissions accepted which shouldn't have been. You should be thankful with what you have got instead of complaining about a valid rejection.
-
Well that was almost entirely pointless AMA, with barely any pertinent answers. Seems like Niantics plan is to just provide fluff answers as long as possible and dither about. What a pathetic waste of time that whole AMA was
-
1* reject. It's visually uninteresting, and not significant. Just because it's named after someone doesn't make it memorial or historical plaque.
-
Previously during the early Ingress days fountains like this were accepted and approved by Niantic which is why you may still find some in game, however the criteria has long since changed and as Luke posted above it doesnt have safe pedestrian access so has been correctly rejected.
-
I like it, the colour is totally different to a standard UK street sign and works in making it stand out and not be normal. Im assuming these are the signs for the Rows in Great Yarmouth ? If so use some of the details from Great Yarmouth preservation society in the description (re worded into your own version) explaining…
-
Poxy autocorrect took it out, good catch
-
Objects on private residential property are not allowed, thats the end of the discussion. There are no ifs, no buts or maybes. It doesn't matter who installed it, why or what fors, Its not allowed. As to your comment "So assuming they will complain about people coming, and the court condemning Niantic for this is just…
-
If you have proof it is what you say it is and there's a good picture and description then I'd probably accept it
-
There are some of those in the surrounding villages to me, if they are anything like the same they are used pretty much all year round as permanent flower displays for the regional and national "In bloom" competitions. @TheFarix-PGO I honestly can't remember when I last saw one of them even slightly empty, local English…
-
The picture shows that its behind the railings of the property, so whilst it may be accessible from the path the LFL itself is on PRP so has been correctly rejected. As to why others arent, not all reviewers do their job correctly and would just accept a POI like this even when its not acceptable.
-
You seriously think the uploading later ability is a "criticaly important functionality" ?
-
Again no Properties that have shared ownership with the National Trust where a family live in the east wing or such, are again an entirely different thing to Private Residential Property. A comparison would be pub landlords that live in the accommodation above the pub. As to your comment regarding site managers living on…
-
Nope. Lets try another example LFL's on PRP are accessible to the public all year round, that doesnt make them valid POI's. Things on PRP are invalid. You're confusing private property access, which is what restricted access at an office is, with private residential property, which accessing things in the grounds of a…
-
Actually no, thats called permissive access, which is at the land / property owners permission. Its not public access and doesn't invalidate any PRP reason.
-
Except im not, re read what i wrote, if you had said it was a friend, then blanked it out it wouldn't be an issue. However you didnt chose to do that, you chose to lie about whos submssion it was instead
-
Nope, could have done that by just saying it was a friends submission, wouldn't make any difference, instead you lied
-
Toxic for asking a question. Lets face facts, Either you lied in your post stating it was your nomination, or your lying now claiming its someone elses, either way you lied. If youd have just said a friend had a submission approved etc and then posted the screen shot with it blanked out then there wouldn't be an issue.…
-
Out of interest, why would you blank out your trainer name ? You're logged into this site which displays your name yet you blanked it out on the email? If someone had a suspicious nature they could assume that the name on the email doesn't match the login name on here, which would be proof of multi accounting.