Here’s the kicker. The Sensitive location categorisation could lead to a Niantic investigation, which they should do if it’s genuinely categorised. In this case, I am at a loss as to how it is correctly categorised.
1 Like
Whatever training the Appeals staff received was clearly deficient.
This is not surprising when the official criteria are not clear. They say ‘personal names’ cannot be used in titles or descriptions while also requesting artist’s names and official titles if known.
So, can you nominate the Washington Monument or not? Can you identify Robert Mills as its architect?
They should prohibit us from inserting private-parties’ names or initials without proper context. That way the nominator is free to explain how a person memorialized in the town square was important to the community, but they cannot claim that it is AliceWonder1511’s favorite artwork.
Communication has never been their strong suit.
3 Likes
I’ve posted “art work” here on the forum if you have enough time to surch that 
Yes here it was a failure and was overturned.
Dulait post
I’ve only added it for collection reasons
@TjoeMi you added a good amount in the other post - thank you much 
And they’re all after the new rejection reasons showing?
1 Like
@TjoeMi Do you have any examples that these are new rejection reasons, or are these just suggestions, like what you suggested earlier?
If they’re just suggestions, the post should’ve been made here, as the collection thread is just for confirmed rejection reasons where examples have been provided.
1 Like
I had to log out and back in to see rejection reasons for this nomination of art at a restaurant. I turned off the “Wayfarer Rejections Plus” tool so that I would see the standard reply:
Reviewers provided these top reasons for not accepting this submission:
- The submission lacks uniqueness or historical and cultural meaning
- The photo submitted contains faces or body parts
The faces had to be diners in the supporting photo who clearly weren’t posed 
I didn’t save a screenshot from when I had “Wayfarer Rejections Plus” on but i think it was showing the reasons differently. I have appealed, so I can’t go back and show you what this said before, but was indicating “generic” and “generic business” for the one that reads about lacking uniqueness without that tool on. If we are going to try to get a list of the new reasons, we should show them with the tool off. I had it on in this post:
1 Like
Got tagged here as Dulait post above is mine. Dulait was the most ridiculous rejected out of all. But I’ve got another example of the meaningless reason (in my opinion) to reject:
I really don’t get it how can we say, that dog park is temporary? I mean, all of the items on Earth are somehow temporary 
2 Likes
Thanks for your example. I’ve added numbers on the other post to make more easy to reference 
This example is already listed as 4.
Here’s one from an older rejection (it was from when I started and it actually didn’t meet criteria, but it was rejected most likely for a misspelling in the title):
And here’s one for various rejection reasons/no consensus:
1 Like
The dog park wasn’t rejected for being temporary.
Niantic for whatever reason changed only the result rejection reason display, but not the reviewing rejection reason.
So in your case, reviewers have used the rejection reason “temporary or not distinct”, but due to the change, the result only says temporary. So, we can ignore the temporary part because it could never possibly apply, but focus on the distinctiveness.
It has not gotten to all participants of Wayfarer that dog parks, or in this case it’s more of something like a dog walk path (?), can fulfill socialising criteria, sometimes even excercise too.
But then again, your description only says “For small and big pets”.
I’d recommend to rework your description and supporting information so that it doesn’t just contain an empty saying (this is assuming your supporting inormation is similiar to your description) and retry this nomination.
In other words, present it more distinguishable.
1 Like
Its not suggestion. I received all of it. I literally copy paste it. I can provide all the screen shot. But maybe later. I am working now and its a lot of screenshot.
As you’ve seen, others have provided screenshots from Contribution Management that these are the rejection reasons they’re getting. I think that’s what both Alice and I are wondering about, if you can provide proof.
1 Like
If only we could get this kind of reasoning
at wayfarer. I totally see the issue with this submission after your clarification. It would be nice if we could get a bit more transparency so one doesn’t have to ask the community.
1 Like
Oh wow. Thank you so much
15 and 25 same
Anyway
How do u feel about this? Its musholla inside gas station. I guess gas station is meant for adult service🤣
Thanks. I’ve deleted 25.
This example is already mentioned at 19.
Yeah. I am just saying. I was looking into my old rejection and stumble upon this.
