"This an eligible submission according to Niantic (Geodetic sign). They are permanent objects placed to mark key survey points on the Earth’s surface. They are used in geodetic and land surveying. This state survey mark is located on the footpath on the co… “”
So we can see Niantic saying no. Generic. Mass Produced. Dangerous position..
Is it abuse A) when the submitter is trying to a influence reviewers and B) - does so with information contrary to the criteria clarification. C) further lies saying it is safe and D) potentially be considered if successful of deliberately endangering people.
OF interest is the copy and paste nature of the text. Most of these survey marks follow the same process and style - and can be seen across a wide geographic area. Dedicated effort in my view
Yes. They know that Niantic have said these specific markers are not eligible and are deliberately obscuring this by claiming the opposite. Unfortunately, Niantic have shown little interest in addressing this, which is why these submissions continue.
I imagine it’s extremely difficult to prove that someone KNEW they were ineligible. It may be the person didn’t fully read it, saw that these markers CAN be valid so decided to put that in there. This is why I would love to be able to add a comment as a reviewer that the nominator can see - that way if they were to continue, you’d know for sure it was abuse (well Niantic would as they know who nominated it). The dangerous location is a different matter of course, but I know I made mistakes early on thinking it was fine if you could access it from the footpath without going right up to it (eg something on a roundabout or the opposite side of the road which doesn’t have a footpath). Obviously now I know that rule I avoid things like that - but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I’m too trusting?
In the legal system, criminal cases use “beyond reasonable doubt” while civil cases use “balance of probabilities”. I would expect Niantic to use the latter rather than the former.
Niantic have provided a specific example of these markers to show these are ineligible. The submitter has written a very knowing piece of text. This is not someone who just came across one of these and thought “hey, cool POI”. It is someone who knows what they are doing. A reviewer sending a comment to the submitter would do nothing in this case - that works only when someone is not being deliberately abusive.
You would probably pass the “beyond reasonable doubt” bar if you had their submission history - without it, you easily pass the “balance of probabilities” bar.
I hear where you going. and I think we have all made submissions and gone. hmm not right
But these are different
Most follow the exact same cookie cutter approach shared online on how to get through. You can go through any suburb and nominate these.
It is most likely the same person/group who will hit one area. The text is shared in forums. There are people who want to get the most nominations and these are easy to game. I know two people with at least 6 accounts. They nominate with 1 account and they review their area with the other five and rotate. Or you just want to get a POI outside your house. Just copy all the existing ones in games.
And because the database is not cleaned up you will see them everywhere. So if new to the game. Wanting to get on board then why not do what everyone else seems to do. And if a reviewer. They must be fine right. They are all of the games. Right. And it is highly likely very few people read the criteria eligibility/ineligibilty and or criteria clarifications. So more trash enters games.
Re this nom. I would hazard they have done more than one of these with exactly same approach. One good way is look at all their other nominations. But that is a Niantic thing. Not mine (damn :-))
Thank you for sharing your view @SweetnSassy37 and yes we should still have that thought process around doubt. It helps us evaluate / nominate better
