I’m not confused, as for many private properties, it’s considered trespassing to enter them without permission in many areas of the world. I see the “not publicly accessible” as being similar to trespassing here.
The key word is “not,” as in the public shouldn’t access unless given permission to. Your meme fails to imply this fully.
As an example for duplicate
Yes, you and most of the forum regulars. To the ones that will get this as an introduction to the rejection criteria, those will be impacted.
Trespassing is entering without permission, the nature of the property (public or privately) does not erase that. A private property can be publicly accessible. Entering ticketed private properties without the ticket is trespassing but still publicly accessible. A public property can be not publicly accessible. Entering a park in its off hours is technically trespassing.
You can remove the “private” from the existing rejection statement, that would not be accurate to the rejection reason but it hits the absence of permitted access home. This existing rejection statement is also not accurate to the rejection reason since there may be SFPRP that has permitted public access, yet is still a valid rejection in Wayfarer.
There is a statement in the tooltip that would very much serve its purpose to be shown in the rejection reason. It is the most accurate statement yet to be published that drills that specific rejection reason succinctly.
Like the PPAP meme, you’d understand if you’re deep enough in the niche. If you aren’t, then it doesn’t show any implication of any meaning other than what is stated. The problem is what is stated can be perceived differently.
As an example for ML rejection
When they attempt to combine two completely different concepts into one decision point it makes for an epic failure.
It doesn’t matter that you could parse the words to support previous criteria. The fact that they’re using imprecise wording in an attempt to get double duty from a single codicil is a problem.
Used properly, decision trees can result in a highly refined sort. Add in a few clunkers like this and everything goes to heck.
This is what I meant. I know single family homes, farms are appropriate rejection reasons.
I have had HOA park signs that say “private property” rejected because things like this rejection reason confuse everyone. My neighborhood is allowed to use that park so it should not be rejected even though it’s not publicly accessible. That’s why the tooltip is the best guidance and this rejection reason feels like a change.
Ok, explaining the HOA park with this rejection reason makes some sense now. Explaining how something that meets criteria could be rejected as private property by some makes it more clear.
I’m also not a big meme person, and yes, most these days make no sense to me.
The rejection should just be “This submission is on a Single-family Private Residential Property or Farm” because “private property” and “publicly accessible” are not outright reasons to reject like sfprp is
I feel that’s too lengthy, and that’s some of the issues with these new rejected reasons. Simplier reasons may actually be better, as well as providing a link to info on why it was rejected. That’s what’s really needed: more direction to someplace that tells you why it was rejected, not, in some cases, almost full paragraphs that might not even match up to the actual rejection reason.
It’s almost the same number of words as the current reason and it’s more accurate. I’d choose accuracy over brevity any day. But who knows whether any of this is going to matter in the coming months anyway.
No, it used to just be “Private property,” and nothing else. It used to be “Generic business,” but now it’s “The submission lacks uniqueness or historical and cultural meaning;” this one is also being used for obstructing emergency services. “Mismatched location,” which used to be used for inaccurate location, is now “The text or photo contains abuse, ridicule, or harassment of a specific person or group,” which makes no sense.
Like I’ve said in some other discussions about this, they seem to be going backwards somewhat, using rejection reasons from the old star rating review flow. You used to rate on a 1-5 star rating if something was unique or of historical/cultural value, but that’s not a question we vote on anymore.
The current private property rejection reason is one of the least confusing of them all, TBH. When you look at some of the examples others have given, as well as what’s in the collection list Alice created, you’ll see there are ones that make a lot less sense.
Gonna just agree to disagree with you that simple is better. Thanks for the discussion.
As someone who has worked in phone/email/chat customer service in the past, sometimes simpler is better than more complex. Basically, Wayfarer needs to find a good balance between simple/complex that suits all users the best.
I think it should say “private home or farm” and leave it at that
That still won’t work, as there are some private properties where the owner doesn’t allow the public to access, and these sometimes tend to be the ones POs have to contact Wayfarer about to have Wayspots removed and their property possibly geoblocked.
I would say that is different though - they arent ineligible, just the owner prefers not to have PoIs.
No public access doesnt necessarily mean ineligible either - office buildings, army bases etc can have PoIs but they arent “open to the public” - only to people who have permission to be there
I think this is less about what this rejection reason says, and more about how to educate others on what the meaning is per Wayspot criteria.
Imho…they should make rejection reason the same as per what reviewer click.
Whats with all those complex reason when reviewer dont reject/accept it for those reason
If reviewer reject because temporal or mismatch location, i think thats exactly what should appear in rejection. Not complex word for temporal or mismatch location
As an example of sensitive location
