Why these got rejected???

ShinyDorkar-PGOShinyDorkar-PGO Posts: 117 ✭✭
edited January 2021 in Nomination Improvement

Please provide an explanation for the rejection of my nominations - they were POI and not present on private property and also have pedestrian access. So why they got rejected?


Post edited by NianticGray on
Tagged:

Comments

  • Kroutpiick-PGOKroutpiick-PGO Posts: 370 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2021
    1. Looks like any generic mass-produced objects, therefore fits with this rejection criteria : "The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting." Unless it's a very popular hangout place and that you can provide evidence. Is it a public park/plaza? Can you submit the name sign?
    2. Water tanks that were visually significant/landmark and important for the community could fit former criterias. Now with Wayfarer 3 : is it a nice place to explore? a nice place for exercice? a nice gathering place? Plus there is probably a "safe pedestrian access" issue... You wrote "it is eligible to become a pokestop" --> it's not the purpose of this section, use it to explain why it's important for the community, is it an important landmark? is there safe pedestrian access? etc.
    3. It's on the middle of the road. I'm not sure how pedestrians and cars shares the road in your city but there could be a "safe pedestrian access" issue.
    4. Places of worship are usually eligible. Since I'm not familiar with your culture, I can't tell you if it really looks like a place of worship or not. You may want to provide more information : name of that place, is there any URL/website talking about this, was it visible on Google maps? "Popular among locals" should be in supplemental information, not in the description.

    Don't use the supplemental information field to say : "It's eligible to become pokestop", use this field to help reviewers by convincing them that it meets at least one Eligibility Criteria (exploration, exercice, social) + meets all Acceptance Criteria and doesn't meet any Rejection Criteria .

  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 5,063 ✭✭✭✭✭

    What evidence is there that these set of benches are a popular hangout?

    I never quite understood how water tanks were eligible prior to the 3.1 update, but I think it is safe to say that they are no longer eligable after the update.

    The issue with the first shrine is establishing pedestrian access.

    And finally, don't mention anything about Pokemon, Pokestops, or any of Niantic's other games in the supporting information field. The field is for you to provide information that supports the nomination's eligibility. Mentioning that would "help" Pokemon Go players or players of any other Niantic game is irrelevant and can result in reviewers rejecting it outright.

  • ShinyDorkar-PGOShinyDorkar-PGO Posts: 117 ✭✭
    edited February 2021

    Yes they are clearly visible and how much more pedestrian access do you want. They are perfectly safe. And a religious monument is perfectly eligible for becoming a pokestop. If it didn’t had any pedestrian safe access then how come I was able to stand there or how can other people go there and worship . And I have added more than enough description on that too. A gathering spot is a perfect place to meet up and play pokemon go.

    Post edited by NianticGiffard on
  • ShinyDorkar-PGOShinyDorkar-PGO Posts: 117 ✭✭

    Many of the water tanks have become pokestops and gyms, and are still bieng accepted as POI. The 1st shrine has perfectly safe pedestrian access since I am standing there and taking the picture.As for the hangout place I can take a picture when people actually gather their to enjoy but then it will get rejected due to people bieng included in the photo.

  • Nadiwereb-PGONadiwereb-PGO Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭✭✭

    So do you want feedback at all? Because @WheelTrekker-ING was trying to give you insight and help you with your nominations. And yet, you don't seem to take their feedback into consideration at all. (Not to mention the namecalling.)

    If you want feedback, listen to it. If you don't, you're at the wrong place.

  • ShinyDorkar-PGOShinyDorkar-PGO Posts: 117 ✭✭

    I would rather like to get a feedback from niantic officials than other players.so can you please direct me to the page. That would be really helpful.

  • ShinyDorkar-PGOShinyDorkar-PGO Posts: 117 ✭✭

    And for further feedbacks please come and visit my place for yourself to determine whether or not they have been wrongfully rejected or not.

  • Nadiwereb-PGONadiwereb-PGO Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This is a community forum. If you post here, you will get answers from people. People who are often quite experienced reviewers as well, so the feedback is worth listening to. Also, Niantic won't tell you anything besides "if you're convinced it's eligible, try again".

    And no, I don't have to go there to determine whether they were wrongly rejected. That's not how reviewing works. Reviewers won't visit the place either. You have to convince them using the photos and supporting information that they're eligible.


    As for the nominations themselves:

    1 - benches: that doesn't seem eligible at all. Unless you can provide a very, very strong story, it probably won't pass.

    2 - water tank: yes, those do sometimes pass, basically because they used to be explicitly eligible. In my experience, they generallly have a better chance of passing if the area has very few wayspots, as reviewers tebd to be more lenient in such areas.

    3 - shrine1: it does look unsafe as it's in the middle of the road, but I'm unfamiliar with local road culture and worship traditions. If you can write a good supporting statement explaining how it's used and how vehicles and pedestrians share the road, you could convince reviewers. But this will be a hard sell.

    4 - shrine2: this one looks eligible to me. It would be interesting to see why it got rejected. Could you tell us what the rejection reasons were?

  • ShinyDorkar-PGOShinyDorkar-PGO Posts: 117 ✭✭
  • ShinyDorkar-PGOShinyDorkar-PGO Posts: 117 ✭✭
    edited February 2021

    As for no. 3 bieng in the middle of the road how did this statue got accepted since this one is literally in the middle of the road.


    Post edited by NianticGiffard on
  • ShinyDorkar-PGOShinyDorkar-PGO Posts: 117 ✭✭

    See the above posts. The first shrine getting rejected doesn’t make any sense since this statue got accepted despite bieng literally in the middle of the road with even no pedestrian access. You can see I had to take the photo from a distance.

  • Nadiwereb-PGONadiwereb-PGO Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @ShinyDorkar-PGO the statue shouldn't have been accepted either. It looks like a textbook case of "no safe pedestrian access".

  • Lechu1730-PGOLechu1730-PGO Posts: 537 ✭✭✭✭

    Since you insulted some who was trying to help you I don't feel inclined to do much for you but I'll try to explain how things work nonetheless. You may gain some perspective out of it.

    1) Niantic doesn't review wayspot nominations and doesn't hear appeals on rejected nominations, so there's no one from Niantic we can point you to hear your complaints.

    2) Nominations are reviewed by local reviewers who should be aware of your culture. When your nomination is rejected is because a consensus emerged among local reviewers that your nomination wasn't worthy to add as a wayspot. It's them you've failed to convince.

    3) This forum exist so wayfarers (both reviewers and nominators) can share experiences, learn from each other and sometimes receive guidance directly from Niantic. As such, when you post here we try to tell you what we see, as reviewers, that could be the problems with your nomination, bearing in mind that we may not know some things unique to your culture, but the local reviewers are certainly aware of them and nevertheless rejected your nomination.

    So it's up to you. Try to learn how to present a better submission or just keep arguing with the wrong people.

  • Kroutpiick-PGOKroutpiick-PGO Posts: 370 ✭✭✭✭

    Congratulations, you just won an abuse report. You may disagree with other persons here but insulting a member who is trying to help you because you asked for nomination improvements is just unacceptable.

    So you're telling everyone here that you submitted a non-eligible nomination, knowingly that it doesn't have safe pedestrian access? Maybe @NianticGiffard should take a look at this wayspot?

  • patsufredo-PGOpatsufredo-PGO Posts: 4,217 ✭✭✭✭✭

    IIRC you have posted appeal for the 3rd nomination in this forum, yet others already said it's ineligible due to safe pedestrian access. Won't you listen to others this time?

  • AisforAndis-INGAisforAndis-ING Posts: 1,072 Ambassador

    For the people arguing about whether or not this has acceptable pedestrian access:


    Pedestrian access doesn't inherently mean that it needs to have a sidewalk that leads up to the object - just that pedestrians should be able to safely walk up to it via some type of pathway. Depending on the area, a low speed road may qualify as that pathway if it is safe and intended for pedestrians. The supplemental picture clearly shows three people (two on a bike, one on foot) on the road near the wayspot. The statue has a plaque that presumably isnt intended to be read from a vehicle, but rather by walking up to it. It's likely that despite being in the road, that the roadway may be acceptable enough of a pathway, and it seems local reviewers agreed with that.

  • Hello @ShinyDorkar-PGO! I have taken a look at your account and found that your nominations were rejected by reviewers. You must have also received an email notification regarding the same. New nominations that are deemed ineligible by the player community can't be overturned.

    If you believe your nomination should have been eligible, I suggest re-submitting it after improving the title, description, and photo. You can refer to this article for insights: Wayspot Acceptance Criteria

    Also, I appreciate the inputs shared by everyone, based on the content of the discussion I will be closing it for future comments. Thanks!

This discussion has been closed.