Found this new Pokestop at the park today.
This is a generic memorial plaque, and the nomination did not have anything convincing in the supporting.
I am really tired of reviewing correctly and getting disagreements.
I am really tired of reviewing correctly and getting disagreements.
I know Niantic is adding more ways for people to know how to put together good nominations (updates to landing page), but I truly think we have a big gap in knowledge on what makes a good nomination. This applies to both reviewers and nominators.
My potentially hot take is to start removing a lot of the things that aren’t eligible (anymore). I know Niantic has already started doing this with graffiti which makes me really happy. But this always comes as an unpleasant surprise to the local community with this occurs.
I have a few thoughts on better ways to implement such things, but I have wandered away from this bench appearing that meets none of the eligibility criteria. And none of the removal criteria.
Adding that memorial benches can be eligible, but the nominators needs to have that in the Description and support.
Why do you think you received a disagreement?
Hmm… I guess that is a possibility that the community correctly rejected and an appeals reviewer incorrectly accepted. I didn’t think of that before I posted. Yikes.
I see many of these in games. Already accepted.
I know I reject on review according to Criteria.
So I always wonder, on seeing how many accepted in game, if my decision is agreed or not
In UK/Australia you can buy the rights to a plaque for x time. So the vast majority of these ““plaques”” fail as the people don’t meet heritage/history/importance (I exclude personal importance)
It would be good to educate more. I think the term plaque does not help. And also saying is it “important” to the local community as some will argue it is important to a section of that local community.
Hmmmm
We can see on the forum that appeals reviewers sometimes get it wrong in rejecting when the person whose appeal is rejected posts here. But the person whose appeal is incorrectly accepted is normally not going to post about it. There needs to be some kind of review of appeal accepts, too.
Quick question: do you only thumbs down social/explore/exercise on these? If so, you might not be fully pulling these from the running.
We have seen people come back here and say their nomination was accepted and then denied. Perhaps this is what’s happening in those cases?
Also, this isn’t categorically ineligible. I’m not saying it should be accepted, but I work in an industry where redundant checks are required. Often times, the person looking a second time on something subjective will notice the defect and actually defend it, because clearly somebody else already looked at it and assessed it was conforming. So why should I challenge it? Perhaps I’m in the wrong? Maybe the other person already sought out help and was affirmed that it was good? I’m not saying this happened, but redundant checks and QA feedback loops is very ineffective on anything that doesn’t have strict definitions.
I think in some areas, Wayfarers aren’t fully aware of the seating bench criteria clarification, so they still get a pass. Yes, the clarification is in Wayfarer help, the help pages, and the forums, but not everyone looks at them, or may even know it’s there. If they’ve approved them in the past and don’t know the current clarification, then they’ll just keep approving them.
I certainly see a good deal of memorial benches in Featured Wayspots when I’m up near the US/Canada border, especially in areas of Canada with not many Wayspots. That could also influence reviewers’ voting, even though the criteria says otherwise.
I also said this at the beginning:
I was just giving an example of where I see them still getting approved, but I do note that some areas may differ.
oh i forgot about that.
Wouldn’t it be helpful if there were, idk, something like a test where explorers had to demonstrate they had at least looked at the clarifications before submitting and reviewing? It could be open book.
I know you did. Just because I didn’t quote it does not mean I didn’t read it.
A test, you say? Oh no, don’t make us put our thinking caps on!
Depends on how badly written Photo. Quality host of things. So work my way down from there. If that makes sense.
These memorial bench seats are tricky. There are heaps and heaps of them, in game, in my area. When reviewing if you vote to not accept, then, the big risk is missing out on an agreement. I vote to accept them based on individual factors (location, view, supporting info, construction etc). When I review one I am not happy with, then I skip. Past experience has shown me that not accepting doesn’t stop them coming online.
Once you get a feel for the reviewers in your pool you can sort of tell what the end result will be.
And of course, they are not definitely ineligible and never seem to get removed.
One could therefore assume that the company are fine with them.
Benches (with or without plaques) can encourage exploration if they are an anchor at a significant point such as a scenic viewpoint
A significant point can be anchor, such as means it dont have to be a scenic view ? If they think its a significant point with a bench
Even if its heritage historical correct it still make it very hard to get them accepted.
Its not as easy as a picknick bench.
And there is in lies the rub @Buddy12875 . We use skip because we don’t want to miss an agreement not because our views have meaning.
For these the Criteria Clarification are very clear. So I don’t have much fear on rejecting them. But I do read the description and text to see what is being claimed and will go out of my way to check if I have doubts.
I have followed the criteria pretty closely since I started and apart from the rating blip recently that impacted many I don’t really see it as an issue.
And frankly the sheer amount of dross coming through it way easy to reject more than accept. Like this beauty “You should accept this because I want an accepted pokestop nomination next to a famous landmark” for a pretty good nomination had they made any effort.
So I am not sure skip on these will have any impact. At the very least you reject for failing the criteria. I generally fail memorial benches on description as neither the description or supporting description show how the object meets any meaningful criteria. .
@Panjadraakj hope you have luck with your bridle paths (shared horse pedestrian paths)…
For clear heritage marker benches. If the supporting evidence proves it then it has a good chance. Which is why I put my noms on hold so I can ensure I can do the right searches. Get the links and put them in. Then if it fails. I appeal and talk to the evidence I have given.
Good luck nailing your village with POIs
Thanks to the help on the forum there are a lot new wayspotđź‘Ť
Lucky there where a lot of other objects to nominate close by that where accepted.
I can still try to add it so it can be used in other games.
En maybe have mine first historical bench accepted