I’m talking stuff like obvious typos, removing obvious game-specific references, etc.
Like these:
Edit: Translation for second image, the original text is “This is a reservoir [space] no pokestops” and my suggested edit just removes the “no pokestops”
Thanks for raising this as it’s a good question.
So all of these were rejected 
that’s not good .
Do you know if they were rejected by automatic system nickname Emily, or was it the community?
How do you know the difference between two rejections. It probably a stupid question but maybe I have been wrongly venting out if it Emily who reject the nomination
All three by “our team”.
Hello,
All three were rejected by the ML, the AI system, not the community.
The 1st edit is mainly just removing “trainers” from the description, removing a PoGo game term, so I’m puzzled why it wasn’t accepted. This one you may want to consider appealing, and note that you are wanting to remove the reference to PoGo.
The 2nd and 3rd are just not good; give more info about the playground and reservoir space, like where it’s located, that there are nearby benches, or any other features. Here are some of the descriptions I’ve used for various places:
I would not appeal 2 and 3, but resubmit with more description. When I find Wayspots with descriptions like “Public park” or “Local coffee shop,” I jump at the chance to submit more descriptive descriptions.
For example, the ADA playground, I found that info online with the city park district. ADA is the Americans with Disabilities Act, so this playground is accessible to all, including those in wheelchairs. I found the history of the church on their website, along with the architecture style.
With the next challenge starting on Oct 30th and focusing on edit contributions, you may want to submit them during this time. I myself have been taking note of Wayspots that need editing, and even have a list on my phone with the descriptions that I’d like to submit.
Yeah, I’m aware that their “team” is just one underpaid robot. It’s why I think they should give us a different way of appealing obvious changes like these at least until their AI can recognise game-specific terms (without blanket-banning those terms because sometimes they do have valid uses).
Under the current system, none of these edits are worth appealing because I’m not going to appeal any simple edits when I’m better off using appeals for wayspot submissions instead, or at least for more complicated edits where I need to submit additional evidence like links to official sources.
Also, the purpose of the edits isn’t to make them “good”, just to make them “not against the rules”. The second one is on an object that isn’t even eligible as a wayspot, I just didn’t bother trying to get it removed because the submitter was right about the area lacking pokestops. I’m willing to put more effort into descriptions for unique artworks and architectural designs, but not for random pipes and playground #164365327640.
I have had to resubmit many edits that ML has rejected for simple changes, and typically then they get accepted. I’ve also had other issues with the community accepting edits, some for strange reasons, others due to what’s available on the review screen.
I think I had to resubmit the ADA playground description 3 or 4 times, due to the park having the wrong name on Google Maps. I even submitted some title and description edits, as well as new Wayspots, in that park with the correct park name, and most were accepted by ML. It wasn’t until a few months after contacting Google and them correcting the park name on Maps that I was able to get both the title and description updated.
And I disagree with description, especially since the help center does note that we need to tell a good story with our descriptions, give more info about the Wayspot. Ingress also has a play aspect that involves text in titles and descriptions, so they tend not to like short descriptions. Here’s the link to Wayfarer help that notes what makes a good description:
If resubmitting the same edit works, I’ll try that later this week, thanks.
I’m actually slightly against having too much descriptive text in certain wayspot types like playgrounds and fitness corners because they tend to become wrong when a refresh or renovation occurs and its appearance completely changes. It’s a massive pain in the burro trying to update old playgrounds and I’d rather save future me the trouble by keeping the description simple.
The description of a wayspot will naturally vary in the length and the amount of detail it contains. I don’t feel the need to write something very detailed each time.
So a common feature for play in the U.K. is a multi use games area - MUGA. A single area suitable for football, basketball, cricket etc. I’m perfectly happy with a short description as anything else is just writing for the sake of it.
Another common feature that could look simple is a public right of way - PROW. For those I do expect a description that says the details of PROW its number where it goes, what I might see.
So 2 common simple things but very different styles of description.
It should be a simple task to get rid of a couple of words that should not be there.
Yeah, except that PoGo requires close proximity to submit an edit, and they seem to be rejected rather a lot.
So, a thing that seems straightforward like adding/removing/changing a couple of words or punctuation marks isn’t necessarily quick or easy, and there isn’t that much gratification in fighting over extraneous unpaid work, when few people ever bother to read the description in the first place.
It feels like throwing away a scarce resource to use an appeal on a minor edit.
