X0bai-PGO
✭✭✭✭✭
X0bai-PGO ✭✭✭✭✭
Reactions
Comments
-
It’s funny, sometimes commenters around here like to say “Wayfarer isn’t a photography contest” but here we have some “artsy” images that are closer to the kinds of things you’d find in a photography contest and we’re talking about how they don’t meet criteria. Yeah, obvious filters should be rejected as doctored images.…
-
I don’t see a photo rejection there, assuming your nomination is Saint-Jean-Baptiste-De La Salle. I agree that it could be centered a little better and closer in, but I actually think it’s a long way from rejection-worthy.
-
There’s an odd shadow in your primary image (as well as being frustratingly offcenter), and your horizon is crooked. I think any one of things would be manageable, but all together they just leave a lot to be desired.
-
There’s no way of knowing from one image and no supporting information or location data. It would be better to center and straighten out the image, if that’s what you’re asking.
-
In my experience, if the pin is at the sign, then the image should be of the sign. The name should be the name of the church. This is then the POI for the church itself. Then the grounds and building are available for additional POI; religious iconography, architectural features, gardens, and other points of beautification…
-
“I’m going to pretend nobody already addressed this argument, so I’ll rehash the same illogic that’s been countered several times in this thread alone!”
-
Niantic’s refusal to communicate with us
-
Unfortunately it seems there are already a few POIs in the immediate area, which would prevent that bridge plaque from appearing in any games
-
Oh man, I hadn’t even zoomed in on the supporting. Yeah, that’s pretty bad, for a couple of reasons. First, you have to put your frustrations aside; each submission should be fresh, and you should not carry your bitterness of the last one over into the next… you’re probably not even getting the same group of voters, so…
-
If that doesn’t meet the “temporary” rejection criteria then nothing does.
-
FYI, a preschool or day care also falls under the K-12 rejection criteria even thought it is not, strictly speaking, K-12.
-
This should not have gotten a ‘natural feature’ rejection. It’s clearly not. I don’t think I would have rejected this nomination for that image, but I get why reviewers are annoyed by it. This photo is taken from too close and a dark shadow streaks across the center of it. This would be better taken from further back to…
-
Yeah, not too terribly long ago we had a thread about uncovered picnic areas, which might meet criteria but can’t get through voting. The general reviewer lean is away from benches and tables, and towards shelters, pavilions, etc., unless maybe there’s a sign. That makes this a tough approval; you can resubmit to your…
-
A basic trail or path without a marker of some kind is not eligible. You need a sign, info board, statuary, or some other permanent, manmade subject to turn the nomination from ‘a patch of ground where lots of people walk’ into a waypoint worthy of exploration, exercise, and socialization.
-
Basic welcome or place name signs are not eligible as places to explore or exercise or socialize; the “Gateway to Pennsylvania” portion of the nomination falls under this category. This also gets muddled with the picnic sign and a bit about littering laws, which doesn’t serve the nomination well at all.
-
1* for lack of safe pedestrian access.
-
I don’t want any new feature that creates the opportunity for a bug to prevent my nominations from being seen. I actually think this is a really bad idea, and since remote submissions and nomination holds are already available, I don’t think there’s any need for it.
-
The community answered you honestly and, for the most part, politely, and your response is sarcastic, obtuse dismissal. Your rejections are fully your own fault going forward.
-
I also had an older, accepted nomination that was eaten by Ingress inclusion rules. I think you should resubmit with your original photos, just pull straight from Wayfarer if necessary. That first set of images was much better.
-
I might suggest that UK nominators use the supporting fields to point out the acorn and its significance, going forward.
-
Well, creating your own signs for the purpose of creating waypoints is a violation of the Wayfarer terms, so there’s that. Maybe someone at Niantic will be kind enough to read this thread and take some action. That’s pretty bold, to fake a bunch of signs and then come in here to complain about how they were correctly…
-
Those rejection reasons seem incorrect, which is thoroughly frustrating and occasionally suspicious. That said, I tend to agree with the other commenters that these submissions seem like they would need some very persuasive supplementary information to convince reviewers that they meet criteria.
-
Numbers 1, 4, 5, and 6 from your 2016 proposal remain glaring weaknesses in 2022 Wayfarer, as well as the note that criteria could be flexed for high/low density areas (which is a top point of discussion for the ambassador program). That must be awful to know that you called it and they ignored you.
-
I don’t think I have ever seen a single exercise station in a park. There’s always a string of them, and often, a single wayfarer tries to nominate every single one individually. This type of scenario calls for a unique title, and this submission lacks one. The community understanding of what generates the “not…
-
I concur with the above. Niantic criteria allows for phone numbers and web addresses to appear in the images, as long as they are not part of the text. Successfully getting through reviewers often requires reducing your exposure to rejection reasons, even ones that are beyond the criteria.
-
Just about any local business that doesn’t meet rejection criteria could be eligible, but there has to be something remarkable about that business to take it out of the realm of generic submission and bring it up to the level of a worthy waypoint, and it is the nominator’s job to tell that story in their submission.
-
Objects on PRP are ineligible, irrespective of sidewalk accessibility. No amount of “but this is an invitation” mental gymnastics gets through this restriction, which by all accounts has always been in place, has been debated countless times in this forum, and has not varied to this day. Moreover, PRP is not only a…
-
Since “upgrade next” does not work, it will not get the next upgrade. Also, it was already decisioned and so it will not get the next upgrade.
-
Yeah, my last upgrade took 4 days to go into voting as well. Once it went in it was decisioned almost immediately, but it sat in queue at least twice as long as I expected.
-
Niantic is fully aware of this, yes. No, they have not provided any option other than one appeal every 30 days.
