Shortly afterwards, I posted seeking advice on how to nominate something more local to me, and suggested Ross Dress for Less or Designer Shoe Warehouse. Unfortunately, before I could get much advice from the community, I was rudely accused of “trolling”, and my thread was removed.
I feel the need to clear my good name - I was not joking, I fully intended to submit these nominations, and I wanted the community’s help making them as good as possible, but NianticAaron unjustly prevented me from receiving the advice I needed to ensure my nomination would meet Niantic’s bar for the types of businesses they add to lightship.
Since I was unable to receive the advice I needed, my nomination was rejected by Niantic, even though it greatly exceeds a very clear eligibility bar. Please reverse this incorrect decision for my awesome nomination which stands for itself as meeting all three eligibility criteria:
These nominations and whether they get added is very subjective. It is just a game though – so not worth getting too worked up about.
The reply you got states the reasons for non acceptance. If it was me I would change the nomination name. Shoe Warehouse sounds very common. Designer Shoe Warehouse sounds a bit more glamorous --.and would definitely warrant a visit from lots of folks — women in particular – women I know anyway. I am not familiar with this shop but it is considered important that it is not part of a chain.
So maybe stress that it is locally owned, much loved and has gathered a wide customer base in a short time. Does it attract customers from other suburbs, places etc?? Do people make a point of meeting there?
If it really is “designer” there might be an art work inside that could be the nomination.
I would suggest going through the objections raised and try to overcome them.
Be positive and try not to get angry or bitter about it. It is just a game and like the games patience is required.
I often wonder that sometimes there seems no rhyme or reason to decisions taken.
And, of course, it is a privately owned business calling the shots.
I actually did use a longer title since there are 642 Designer Shoe Warehouse locations, which is about on par with the 638 Mens Wearhouse locations and I wanted to make sure this location was distinctly identifiable from the other 641. I agree that it warrants a visit! I’d definitely bring a friend from out of town here.
I think Niantic made a bad appeal decision here - they don’t always know the latest guidance from the forums, but NianticAtlas helped me see how great places like this are.
To be fair, that is not at all what @NianticAaron said.
The comment was that the wayspot did not meet removal criteria, which we all know are different from acceptability criteria. The database is full of wayspots that should never have been accepted, but unfortunately at this time do not meet Niantic’s criteria for removal. We also see that they are beginning to take action on some of those wayspots that should never have been there to begin with, but that may take a while.
In any case, it would not appropriate to start submitting things that are clearly not eligible just because Niantic won’t remove existing sites that aren’t eligible. That doesn’t punish Niantic, it only punishes reviewers with even more coal to wade through.
By community standards maybe, but Niantic has demonstrated that this exceeds their standards many times over.
They also remove a ton of trail markers that should still be there. This isn’t a graffiti or a golf hole though, so it’s much more in line with the type of wayspot Niantic is actively adding to the database than with the kinds of wayspots they’re removing.
That’s why I’ve been careful to only submit highly eligible things like this, which meet all three eligibility criteria.
I don’t want to be accused of trolling either, but I read this thread and it seems to boil down to one question: Can you give an example of a large store other than a grocery store, maybe, that would NOT be an eligible waypoint according to you?
NvlblNm is trying to make a point here about the acceptance criteria not equaling removal criteria on one hand, and things being removed by Niantic that do meet acceptance criteria on the other. Please don’t mistake this post for actual confusion.
Somewhere like Trader Joe’s typically isn’t big enough for it to be a great place to exercise (though luckily they tend to have some unique artwork). I find that Safeway, QFC, Whole Foods, and other more “supermarket” style grocery stores are probably big enough that they’d be great places to get in some exercise though!
Just about any grocery seems like it would meet exploration criteria though - there’s so many different choices of foods to explore that I often feel like there’s new things to explore as soon as I’ve tried everything! It’s a never ending cycle of exploration.
If you’re shopping with someone, you’re almost certainly socializing about what to have for your next meal, or maybe even the next week of meals, so even if we’re talking about a store that isn’t big enough for exercise, it seems like a grocery store should still meet 2/3 of the eligibility criteria, which is pretty good given the number of wayspots that meet 0.
I don’t eat steak, so I generally don’t see steakhouses as eligible, since the only socialization I do there is complaining about the lack of options for me, and house salads don’t really feel exploration worthy to me.
Oh! I didn’t realize. I thought I was making a point about how appeal reviewers aren’t kept up-to-date on the latest forum clarifications.
I don’t think you’re serious that a place isn’t eligible because it doesn’t conform to your dietary restrictions. It’s fine if you chose not to submit a nomination because you find it distasteful, but a steakhouse is still eligible… as long as it’s not generic business, like all those stores you’re talking about!
Does that point really need to be made, again? I think it’s well established. And it seems you are just creating more work for reviewers by trying to add coal to make a point. Just saying, I have yet to see any meaningful change come out of these types of posts in the forum. Community members go back and forth and Niantic just steers clear of the conversation.
Criteria discussions would be better suited for my removed thread, but as it is not unexpected that people would want some insight into how I view the criteria, I feel this discussion is close enough to on topic personally. If you’d like to continue to discuss criteria, it might be best for us to open a dedicated topic where the discussion will by fully on-topic though.
I’m glad to hear you agree with me that this meets criteria and the appeal decision should be overturned It seems I’ve misunderstood what you were saying about my understanding of criteria. My apologies.
I just want Niantic to overturn their bad appeal decision.
Bad appeal decisions are the topic of this post.
Imports shouldn’t happen if they don’t meet criteria. Niantic has assured us in the past that they will only perform high quality imports going forward. This thread isn’t about imports though, it’s about getting bad appeal decisions overturned.
Please do not continue to try to derail the post topic. We must remain firmly focused on bad appeal decisions.
Niantic has reversed several bad appeal decisions in the past after they were posted on the forums.
This is what this topic is about.
It’s true that Niantic typically does not acknowledge that they have reversed an appeal decision, but there is often community confirmation when it happens. There’s no need to try to tear down my awesome and highly eligible nomination - I knew posting here would open it up to incorrect opinions from the community, but I thought the risk was worth it to help Niantic better train appeal reviewers and correct their decision here.
This still seems to me like it is within the originally established topic bounds, even if the community feedback was not something explicitly requested by the topic.
This thread is being closed due to disruptive behavior that does not align with our community guidelines.
@NvlblNm, while we appreciate your enthusiasm for contributing to the community, some of your comments have been unproductive and dismissive of others’ feedback. For example, your repeated assertions about the eligibility of your nomination despite contrary feedback, and dismissive remarks such as “I knew posting here would open it up to incorrect opinions from the community,” are not in line with the respectful dialogue we aim to maintain.
I have also changed the thread title to “Concerns About Appeal Decisions and Wayspot Criteria” to better reflect the discussion and avoid any perception of sensationalism. Please pay attention to the titles and content of your future posts, as they should clearly show your genuine concerns and not be misinterpreted as trolling.
Take this opportunity to review our community guidelines and ensure that your future contributions are constructive and respectful.
