Edit: It is evident that I need to choose better submissions and explain them in much further detail. Thank you all for your replies. I am still learning and I’m glad to have had actual human feedback.
Is there a way to find out which criteria was not met when a submission is rejected? I’d like a bit of feedback from the submissions to know what went wrong and how I can improve it. I mean, I feel like a large chunk of my submissions that get denied DO meet the criteria, such as nature signs and artworks. But I will also acknowledge that some of them are long shots not exactly cut out to be wayspots, only just barely grazing the criteria, but it feels like the automatic process is relatively flawed.
Niantic doesn’t tell us what the Machine Learning model that is the “automated process” looks for. That information would be abused.
I usually recommend trying a new photo that is more centered on the point of interest. You could need to get closer to make it clearer, or further away to give context.
Nominations that are rejected by the automated process are still eligible to be appealed. We get two appeals, each on a 15 day counter before we can use them again.
If you would like to post screenshots from a rejection that you feel the automated process rejected incorrectly, we can try to advise on a resubmit or appeal.
I don’t submit anything that is “just barely grazing the criteria” so I can’t help you on those. If I can’t explain how something is a great place for exercise, exploration, or being social, I don’t submit it.
Sounds like it is working as intended, especially based on your own admission that “some of them are long shots not exactly cut out to be wayspots.”
As @cyndiepooh stated, the remedy to a nomination that you feel was rejected unfairly by the automated process is to appeal the rejection.
Unfortunately we will never get a clear reason as to why the automated process rejects a nom. Due in part to the fact that there are many unknown factors that the system looks at.
The first one I would consider a mosaic artwork, and the second a nature sign. After reading specifically through rejection criteria rather than acceptance criteria, I think the second one may have been rejected for including parts of real estate signage in supporting images which had people’s names and faces on them that I didn’t blur out. The first one may have been due to the lack of a footpath in the area, making it seem potentially unsafe for pedestrians.
An example of what I meant by things barely grazing the criteria is a basketball hoop that, while publicly accessible and a place for exercise, is at the start of a long driveway, potentially deeming it as private property. Or a very nice looking garden on the roadside, which likely also was considered private property.
One that I’m kind of unsure about whether or not it’s considered a duplicate is a sign that designates a very convenient walking shortcut between two roads. There is a wayspot of one of the signs on the top end of the shortcut, and I wished to submit the second sign at the bottom end. Roughly 70m apart. The signs ARE different, but as they both point to the same shortcut I think it may have been designated a duplicate. I tried to upload images for those but it seems there may be a limit of 2 uploads per comment? Or my browser is just bugging out.
I have appealed the first two with an explanation of why I believe they meet the criteria. If a human reviews and rejects it, I’ll at least get a bit of feedback which is nice.
Hello,
I am going to move this to nomination support. In that topic area we have lots of experienced wayfinders that are keen to help others make nominations better and find places to nominate.
Start by posting one or two that you would like to understand what is happening with them.
Post the full nomination so that we can read as reviewers would.
Hello and thank you. I replied to one of the replies with two examples of what I think were rejected incorrectly, two examples of things I considered ‘grazing,’ and one I’m unsure about. I only uploaded images of the first two as it seems there’s a limit per reply.
A basketaball hoop is not grazing the criteria. It’s eligible under exercise, but if it is on single-family private residential property (SFPRP), that rules it out on the location.
It would help if you could share more details of the first two you posted, as with just a single picture, it isn’t possible to see the context - is this mosaic temporary? on private property?
The road name sign is not a nature sign unless you can show that that sign is for a nature area. Given the name, it looks like it is real estate signage.
The mosaic is stuck into the ground. Concrete cylinder. It could be re/moved, but I don’t think it’s likely unless someone needs to reach something buried beneath. It is on my neighbours lawn but it is not within their property line. It’s part of a buffer zone that is considered council property(is council property considered private? that may create issues for a handful of spots in the area), where piping and powerlines go. It’s been there for the past few owners, I noticed it maybe four years ago? It might actually be a pet burial site now that I’m thinking about the timeline… Maybe better for that not to be accepted if I’m right about it. I can’t really get a good photo right now as it’s nighttime for me. The artwork is relatively small compared to what you may expect. Maybe the size of a large dinner plate.
As for the Kauri Close sign, I don’t understand what you mean about it being real estate signage. There is a for sale sign for a property nearby placed infront of the sign, which I stuck my camera past to get a good photo of the sign. There are properties down this path, but I don’t think the path itself is private property?
The sign is named after a species of tree that is common in the area. I assumed that would qualify as a nature sign, or at least a decorative sign, as it’s a sign which designates a location that is surrounded by the type of tree stated in the name. Maybe I should’ve included that specification in the submission. I assumed that a local human reviewer would understand that, but I didn’t consider how the automatic filter would react.
I’ve had a handful of wayspots accepted in the area that I personally feel are similar to those that have been rejected. Another basketball hoop, a sculpture on the roadside, signage for walkways. Anyway, I have already appealed these two for human review. Regardless of outcome I’ll hopefully have a better understanding of how the criteria is applied by staff rather than how I have understood it.
A road being named after a plant or a person or a country or a town or anything at all does not change that it is just a road name. A road name can never be legitimately described as a nature sign.
The mosaic sounds like it is on private property, which would explain the rejection.
It IS homemade, yes. It was made by a previous neighbour a few years back, and is placed on the roadside. I’ve seen many stops that are artworks on the roadside, as well as had a couple accepted, so I assumed this would be acceptable as well. It is currently under review to see if that is really the case.
The second one, Kauri Close, leads to a scenic walkway/driveway. It is named Kauri Close because of the numerous Kauri trees along the path. For this reason I believed it would be considered a nature sign. Rife with nature. Also under review. Though after reading all these replies I wish I saved the appeals and instead created new and better submissions.
These questions may be due to me looking at it from a UK perspective but…
Mosaic: How can it be that it is on “his lawn” but not “his property”. IMO: If he is expected to maintain the area then it’s part of the SFPRP.
Sign: @salixsorbus just beat me to this If this is the name of the road, it is infrastructure. A sign for “Picasso Road” is not Art. It also looks to be on the wrong side of a wall.
More info including the location will allow us to give better advice.
All of the homes in the area, including my own, have a buffer zone roughly 1m-4m between each property and the road. This is council property used for infrastructure such as powerlines, plumbing, signage and such. We are not expected to maintain these zones, and for some of our homes it’s simply not feasible to do so. Maintaining it is basically just being nice to the council workers. Edit: Maybe during the daytime I could take photos of neighbouring buffer zones to show what I mean. Edit over.
What do you mean by wrong side of a wall? It’s placed on like. A terrace? I think that’s the word I’m looking for. Maybe a bank. It’s like a minecraft stair shaped structure. The base of the sign is placed on the bottom step, and the top step is the ‘wall’ behind it.
I feel like the Picasso example would be more accurate to the actual situation if you went with something like. This is Exercise Road. If you follow the sign and path, you will see Exercise, thus a place for exercise. Because while it is the name of a sign, the name is accurate to what you can see.
I’m finding it hard to visualise.
Can you show us what the exercise road is like?
Is it on streetview? And would you be comfortable sharing that location.
I’m glad to hear that fellow wayfinders have helped. If you wish to check suitability or the best way to make a case for a nomination you are welcome to post in the forum first.
Good luck
Maybe better for that not to be accepted if I’m right about it. I can’t really get a good photo right now as it’s nighttime for me. The artwork is relatively small compared to what you may expect. Maybe the size of a large dinner plate.
If this is the name of the road, it is infrastructure. A sign for “Picasso Road” is not Art. It also looks to be on the wrong side of a wall.