I reported a Wayspot I reviewed and 6 live Wayspots on the nearby that all had a phone camera watermark, see example below.
Intentionally, location will not be provided by me here however I was able to verify none of these were in Ingress despite appearing to meet that game’s proximity rules (meaning, I think these were approved after the split, so relatively recent).
This part should be obvious: I don’t want to shame anyone and I don’t want to know about actions taken against account(s) (submitter and/or reviewer!) but the answer I received in the Help Chat was confusing to me:
We have reviewed the report and have taken action on 3 Wayspots in accordance with our policies. However, we took another look at the Wayspots [Redacted 7 Wayspot names] in question and decided that it does not meet our criteria for removal at this time.
I was then asked to include new photos… unfortunately, the park is over 7 hour drive, so that’s not happening.
So, first, asking to appeal this rejection as these watermark photos meet rejection criteria. This is not a subjective criteria consideration, this is a very clear-cut “contains a watermark” that is listed on several areas of the submission, review, and criteria pages.
Second, can you clarify if the submitter and reviewer(s) were provided direct feedback to ensure they don’t submit & approve watermark photos in the future?
I suspect the reasoning is (1) that the POI are eligible wayspots and therefore don’t meet removal criteria; (2) It is up to the players to add new photos and then get the new ones as the main photos.
Agreeing or disagreeing with this logic is fairly redundant
It makes no sense though. The Wayspot should have been rejected, but instead the submitter gets an accepted Wayspot, and reviewers who wrongly accepted get an agreement. The reviewers who correctly rejected get a disagreement, which negatively affects their rating.
It undermines the core of the Wayfarer process if these are not addressed, removed, and educated about.
I was hoping for staff clarification rather than community speculation but I suspect that’ll never happen.
Wayspots are frequently removed by staff that don’t meet removal criteria. We don’t know what removal criteria they work off of, hence trying with this. I’ll reiterate, this isn’t a subjective “apartment sign,” trail marker, or directional sign. This is a black & white ineligible photo.
Not always possible nor should it be an expectation for a player to add a photo to a Wayspot that may have been created through abuse or ineptitude.
I don’t see how that in any way violates the privacy you acknowledged the Wayspots were reviewed, we can all agree it meets rejection criteria. The behavior will continue if they do not understand wrong-doing.
I have previously noticed an unwillingness to remove invalid photos from otherwise valid wayspots if the invalid photo is the only photo assigned to the wayspot, or to remove the wayspot entirely if this is the only issue it has that would otherwise prevent it from having been accepted.
I do agree with @cyndiepooh that this way of doing things doesn’t really make sense, and inadvertently punishes reviewers who correctly voted to reject the wayspot for the watermark.
Request modification or removal of a PokéStop or Gym
We will remove PokéStops or Gyms from Pokémon GO for a very specific and limited set of reasons:
There’s no longer safe pedestrian access to the location.
The PokéStop or Gym obstructs or interferes with Emergency Services’ ability to perform normal operations. This includes, but isn’t limited to, fire stations, police stations, hospitals, military bases, industrial sites, power plants and air traffic control towers.
The PokéStop or Gym is not a permanent installation. This includes seasonal displays that are only put up during certain times of the year.
They are natural features, including pictures of landscapes as well as submissions where the subject is a lake, river, stream, mountain, volcano, waterfall. Note that photos that include man-made points of interest - plaques, signs, etc. - near natural features are acceptable.
The PokéStop or Gym has been permanently removed or is a duplicate of an existing PokéStop or Gym.
The PokéStop or Gym’s real-world location appears to be within 40 meters of private residential property.
And please also explain to us the removal criteria? It’s a win-win if we know what to report and stop wasting staff time reviewing things and that don’t meet the removal criteria that we’re unaware of.
you acknowledged the Wayspots were reviewed, we can all agree it meets rejection criteria. The behavior will continue if they do not understand wrong-doing.
