Constructive Case Against Niantic’s Current Memorial Bench Criteria

General Discussion
81

Do you think it would help if the order of the clarification was changed? Such that artistic and scenic benches are mentioned first?

82

That part just means memorial benches you’re submitting because theyre a memorial need to be for a notable person

Benches submitted for another reason can be for any person, or no person at all.

I do think you don’t need to worry as much and if you have a bench at a cool spot, you can submit it. We can help you with the nomination too if you like?

83

I’m not accusing anyone of intentionally being disrespectful. I’m simply explaining how the tone of some replies came across from my perspective. It’s possible for something to feel dismissive or overwhelming even if that wasn’t the intention. I’d just like the conversation to stay constructive so everyone can participate comfortably. And if anything I said came across the wrong way, I apologize — that wasn’t my intention either.

1 Like
84

That’s the exact scenario I push for with benches - and as we’ve been over they can be eligible if that’s the focus of the nomination.

And why I was hopeful for examples - the best way to show there is an education problem is proving it with results.

85

Thanks for sharing your perspective. I understand that everyone has their own approach to reviewing, and that’s totally fair. My concern, though, is specifically about how Niantic’s notability wording is interpreted, not about individual review preferences or cell considerations. I’m looking at how the criteria are written and how they could be made clearer or more consistent, especially for memorial benches that add value to their location even if the honoree isn’t widely known.

86

I said in a few posts that I wanted to read things from you and in my first post asked if you were using an AI text generator. I’ve ran a few of your posts through a detector that claim some of your posts are fully AI written and some are “heavily to lightly edited after composition by running through an AI tool.”

Your posts that have not been AI contributed have been the easiest ones for me to read and understand. That’s a compliment - the AI does you disservice.

4 Likes
87

Hi @jocidee
Would you think that
“Memorial benches , if you nominate them as such, can only be eligible under exploration if…" would make it clearer?

1 Like
88

That would work nicely I think :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

1 Like
89

OP whether you use AI or not, it is your prerogative. You are not beholden unto anyone here to explain your use of it (if you use it).

2 Likes
90

Thanks for explaining where you’re coming from. I’d prefer if the focus stayed on the discussion rather than analyzing how my posts were written. Running my comments through detectors feels a bit unnecessary and honestly a little uncomfortable. I’m here to participate in good faith, and I’d like the conversation to stay centered on the topic, not on how my writing is produced. I’ll keep working to express my points as clearly as possible.

And just to add — I understand you were trying to give a compliment, but saying the AI “does me a disservice” still comes across a bit personal. I’m doing my best to contribute thoughtfully, regardless of how I draft or edit my posts, and I’d appreciate if we could keep the focus on the actual discussion.

91

That wording does make the intent a bit clearer, but it still highlights the issue I’m raising. A bench with a memorial plaque is a memorial bench, and it feels strange to have to avoid mentioning that just to work around the notability part of the criteria. My concern is that the original clarification ties memorial benches so strongly to notability that it creates mixed messages about how they should be evaluated. I’d just like to see that portion clarified in a way that reflects the location value without forcing nominators to sidestep the memorial aspect.

92

That’s the nature of criteria… you need to explain how your nomination meets criteria… a submitter focusing on a “memorial” aspect when it doesn’t meet the criteria for a memorial is irrelevant text at worst, and not sufficient information on how it meets criteria at best.

1 Like
93

I understand what you mean, and I agree that nominations have to focus on how something meets criteria. My point is just that the wording of the clarification makes this situation confusing. A bench with a memorial plaque is a memorial bench, so it feels odd to have to ignore that aspect entirely to avoid the notability wording. That’s why I think the guidance could benefit from clearer phrasing — so nominators don’t feel like they have to sidestep reality in order to explain the location value properly.

94

I don’t think that can happen if you don’t want to contribute with your own ideas, examples, or content. Most of your posts that have been AI generated don’t go anywhere and makes the posts feel disingenuous.

I said this early on and stand by it, but it tends to write itself in circles.

Feel free to continue, but I’m tapping out, too. Good luck.

2 Likes
95

Considering the benches we’ve had success with (some shared in the thread by several of us), reviewers do have some understanding of the topic, otherwise we’d have had no success with any of these benches

So I would encourage you to think of the spirit of the clarification, and focus mainly on the core criteria (likely explore, for most benches, social for larger ones like picnic areas)

3 Likes
96

And without examples of that clear phrasing you seek, we will just continue to go around in circles. Seems like most people here seem to understand the intention of the wording, so it’s hard for us to imagine what could make it better.

5 Likes
97

The criteria is fine as is. All memorial benches are benches. Not all benches are memorials.

If I review a nomination and it is titled “Joe Xyz Memorial Bench”, I immediately look for information on Joe Xyz. I will then try to verify the information. If there isn’t any provided and there is but I can’t verify it, I reject. Telling me about the view here is meaningless, you nominated a memorial.

If a bench is nominated as “Bench with a View”, I review it based on the view. If you’re nominating it for it’s view, I don’t care to whom it is or isn’t a memorial and you shouldn’t mention it. It’s irrelevant.

4 Likes
98

Could you use AI to suggest you several versions of such clearer guidance, then pick one example which would make the clarification sound better, and post it here?

100

I’m not trying to rewrite Niantic’s rules myself. I’m pointing out that the current wording creates inconsistent interpretations, and that it might benefit from clearer phrasing from Niantic’s side. My goal isn’t to draft new criteria, but to highlight why the existing wording causes confusion for nominators and reviewers.

The one example I have is a memorial bench I nominated that’s dedicated to the husband of a friend and neighbour. He wasn’t a widely notable person, just a quiet and kind member of our community. It would genuinely mean a lot to be able to tell my friend that her husband’s bench became a special spot in a Niantic game I enjoy — and maybe even encourage her to try the game too. That’s part of why I feel so strongly about how the current wording around memorial benches affects submissions like this.

And I do want to add — my main point hasn’t really been heard in this thread. A lot of the focus has shifted to my writing style and whether I’m using AI, which feels extremely unfair and unrelated to the actual discussion. I’m trying to talk about the criteria itself.

It’s for that reason that I’m tapping out of this thread. I’ve shared my perspective as clearly as I can, and I don’t feel it’s being engaged with in a fair or constructive way.

1 Like
101

I have zero problems using AI, how about this:

Here’s the current clarification text:
Memorial benches can only be eligible under the criteria for exploration if they are dedicated to a notable figure and that notability (…) Benches (with or without plaques) can encourage exploration if they are an anchor at a significant point such as a scenic viewpoint.
Please read the discussion Constructive Case Against Niantic’s Current Memorial Bench Criteria and suggest an updated clarification which would address the “notability” issue discussed there. Keep it short, clean, friendly tone, and stick to the core wayfarer criteria.

AI response:

Updated Memorial Bench Clarification

  • Memorial benches can be eligible if they help people explore a place — either by marking a meaningful spot (like a viewpoint) or by sharing a story about someone who had a real impact on the local community.
  • The person does not need to be famous. A short explanation of why they mattered locally is enough; simply saying “they were important” is not.
  • Simple or mass-produced benches may still qualify if that community connection is clear.
  • Artistically designed benches, or benches that highlight a scenic or significant location, can also be eligible under the usual art or exploration criteria.

Is this what you would like to see? I mean, it’s 100% based on this thread))

1 Like