Estão matando o jogo no Brasil

[ThulioSS]

@hankwolfman

You appear to have screenshotted both of the images for the church from Google Lens. You can even see the corners of the area selection tool in the corners of both of your photos.

Não uso google lens, apenas publiquei a foto no meu canal MIP ITAOCARA, já estou cansado de escrever isso, mas ninguém quer perder tempo de ler, é mais fácil rejeitar a indicação sem buscar mais fundamentos que são realmente importantes como localização, se o local existe mesmo, se tem valor histórico e quanto o restaurante que eu nem postei no meu canal e uso pra periodicidade, esse ninguém nem menciona.

[ThulioSS]

I don’t use Google Lens, I just posted the photo on my MIP ITAOCARA channel, I’m already tired of writing this, but nobody wants to waste time reading it, it’s easier to reject the recommendation without looking for more fundamentals that are really important like location, if the place really exists, if it has historical value and as for the restaurant that I didn’t even post on my channel and use for periodicity, nobody even mentions it.

[LetsRollGirl]

Hello @ThulioSS

I realize you are frustrated by this but Niantic/Scopely are pretty strict about copyright infringement. That’s why photos that are used elsewhere are not allowed for nominations.

Please also consider that you are nominating things anonymously. Reviewers should not know who the nomination is from or it could be considered influencing. So if and when reviewers notice that a photo is used elsewhere, they rightly reject the nomination.

As you seem to be local to the area it should not be hard for you to go out and take a new photo for the nomination.

For reference see section 9:

Niantic Wayfarer

[ThulioSS]

@TjoeMi

Even if you take the foto yourself, you cant upload the photo elesewhere before nomination accepted. You can ignore this suggestion but know that using photo that ald shared elsewhere will result in rejection from 3rd party source. Wayfarer cant tell if you pirated the photo or the original owner.

This is the point I raised for debate: isn’t it more important to see whether the place exists, whether it has historical value, whether it matches the location, whether it will add value to the local players? That’s exactly the point: the wrong focus on determining the criteria for selection. I see many people posting recommendations for fake spots that don’t even exist, but they’re listed here and approved by people who don’t even know the place, but who approve just because they see a fake photo.

[ThulioSS]

I understand the decision, but what about the others I didn’t post anywhere and still didn’t accept? The approval criteria are set without considering whether the site exists, has historical value, is public, is safe, and other important factors.

[RoIi112]

@ThulioSS

Instead of checking if the location exists, comparing the location, or checking if the information is accurate, they’re more concerned about whether I posted the photo elsewhere, whether I edited it for better quality, or whether I removed pedestrians from the image to avoid detracting from the focus of the construction.

No, no one is more concerned about one thing or the other, each check is important and just because most checks are okay doesnt mean one can overlook one rejection reason. Each rejection reason is important regardless of the rest of the nomination.

[TjoeMi]

We cant tell without seeing the full detail of nomination in question. If you dont know why it got rejected, you can post it one by one and we can discuss. In my personal experience sometime we need few resubmission before nomination is improved enough to be approved