How Best To Reject?

I am confused about one aspect of reviewing: if something is generic with nothing special about it (e.g. a flagpole, a bird house, a picnic table in a field, etc.) but doesn’t fit into any explicit rejection criteria (e.g. school grounds, unsafe access, generic business specifically, etc.), am I meant to thumb up the first metrics and thumb down the 3 “good wayspot” categories (socialize, exercise, explore)? These should probably not be accepted as wayspots yet I am not outright rejecting them.

Also, how does this factor into agreements? If someone chooses to reject these as “generic business” and I review properly and simply thumb down each of the 3 metrics, then will we both get an agreement if it’s rejected? Will my review qualify as a rejection at all? Seems very ambiguous.

Thanks in advance. I tried to search for this but couldn’t find anything on this specific matter.

The November 2023 AMA said

I really hate this aspect of the new review flow, that we can’t just check off that the nomination does not meet criteria. For these generic things, I have been told by the ambassadors that Tintino recommended to them that a lamp post could be rejected as not “Distinct”, so I use that one a lot.

I can’t answer if thumbs down on the last three questions about the metrics is a rejection. This has not been confirmed either way.

I absolutely hate the ambiguousness of it all, too. I have been doing this since 2019, have done 76800 reviews, and now I am less confident about reviewing than ever.


Thanks, I’ll start using distinctiveness as the new metric, should be generally fine as a catch-all for such cases.

The problem is a lot of the items clearly are distinct, just not really wayspot worthy. I’m extremely unhappy about misusing the review system to reject something for a false reason.


For the REALLY generic things like the examples I listed, I think distinctiveness or lack thereof is a good metric for rejection. Google definition of distinct: recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type. This would be an appropriate litmus for rejection.

Same. Distinct always meant “can you notice it if you’re in the area”, ie pick it out from the surroundings

I just say no to the socialise, exercise and explore if the thing is not meeting criteria but isn’t falling into rejection categories. I dont really know how else to do it honestly and fairly.

I would also say to the OP that picnic tables can be a good place to socialise and so I would actually say thumbs up on that one, unless you can see a reason not to (obviously I cant see the nomination)

1 Like

Most threads about picnic tables I’ve read over the years say to reject them unless they’re under a pavilion, on a designated cement area, etc. otherwise they’re not permanent. It’s been drilled into me. But I feel like others vote in other ways and their justifications are fine too. Very frustrating if I’m trying to align with what is the consensus, when both accept and reject are valid interpretations depending on how you swing it.

1 Like

I’m totally with you on this, its all so vague and confusing now, with no direct way to provide good feeback to submitters and little proper explanation on how any of its supposed to work.
Its all so frustrating and causes people so much stress and confusion. The whole thing was poorly thought out and rushed.
I don’t feel confident reviewing again until things change significantly and proper communication is forthcoming.

1 Like



I think sometimes reviewers want too much from an area, especially if they’re in an affluent area and voting on an area with less to spend on public amenities. Stuff doesn’t have to be the best example of a picnic area to meet criteria. Parks may also be trying to be more eco friendly by forgoing concrete and other big structures.

If the submitter tells me that this is where people socialise, I’m not going to decide they’re lying just because there’s no concrete area or cover. If I cant see a good reason to reject it then I’m going to accept it because I’m using my best judgement and believing what the submitter has told me (within reason).


Thank you for linking that post. I’ll add it to the “yes” pile, which at the moment is still smaller than the “no” pile. Still, recent opinions on this sort of thing are weighted more heavily than older ones.

Please read the entire post. They still have to tell you the story, and there still has to be evidence that this is a destination, not just a picnic table pulled out onto the lawn. I definitely have submitted and accepted single table nominations that do meet criteria, and have rejected plenty that do not.

That part is linked here, but please begin at the beginning: Wayfarer Criteria Challenge - #8 by NianticTintino

1 Like

Thank you for the info

Is that not the only part that mentions picnic tables?

Although this may be dragging @pkmnarchivist 's topic of course and not really what they were asking about.

The preface to all the clarifications is here: Wayfarer Criteria Challenge - #4 by NianticTintino

Then it goes into a “deeper diver” that builds on this.

If you skip this part, you miss the main thought process behind the clarifications.

1 Like

I did say “if the submitter tells me that this is where people socialise” - obviously I apply more scrutiny to something that just says “need more stops” :wink: but if it says “this is where families socialise while the kids play in the park” then personally that’s enough for me.

I thought I was being clear enough that I would accept picnic tables if I couldn’t see any reasons to reject them… as in, nothing bad I can see about the nomination, and I think it meets a criteria…

I guess it comes back again to what people are used to seeing in their local area and judging another area by that standard. What “story” does a bench need to tell other than that people sat on it to have a chat and a sandwich?


One thing I would like to pick up on though, is that question of how do I reject something that I dont think meets a criteria, but isnt unsafe/temporary/inaccurate etc etc so doesnt meet any of the rejection criteria? Because that definitely applies to quite a number of submissions regardless of how much of an arguement we want to go into on the specific submissions OP mentioned. There are definitely cases where its hard to say how to reject.

To me this review process really doesn’t make it obvious how to reject some things other than by thumbs down in the 3 criteria questions. I’m not willing to give people inaccurate rejection reasons by picking just anything or calling it seasonal when it isnt.


That was my first reply here. Tintino told us in the AMA to pick one of the first four to reject. No one has said that thumbs down on the last three would reject. You would be calling it not “Distinct” and they have changed the rejection reason the submitter sees to include that word instead of showing “Temporary or Seasonal” like it did at first.

Agree, I hate reviewing when I can’t just say “this doesn’t meet criteria.” And some of us had been filling in that text box under Accuracy that says “Other Rejection Criteria” but were told on the old forum that we aren’t supposed to use that text box that way.


If the last 3 all thumbs down don’t reject, what do they do? Surely that is voting that something doesnt meet criteria if you answer all 3 criteria questions with a “no”?

I’m interested now as to what it does come out as?

Yeah I’m not saying something isnt distinct if it is. That’s just a lie and it won’t help the submitter learn what was wrong. I would prefer to just not review if there’s no honest and proper way to do this.

That would be the logical assumption but unfortunately as far as I know, Niantic have still not directly said that this is the case, leading to huge amounts of confusion.

They aren’t always known for being logical so the obvious assumptions may not be correct, we really need some proper clarification on this and so many other things.

It would be great to have a definite checkbox for things that don’t meet criteria, along with decent ways to provide useful feedback to the submitters.