Niantic - Denial & Disrespect of Memorials (Solved)

General Discussion
1

A bit of a disappointed and slightly offended statement here.

We have memorials dedicated to many across the area of play in my town.

I had one of my submissions rejected, I tried to appeal, but Niantic determined the family who had suffered a tragic passing, were not “significant enough” to be a true wayspot.

This is beyond disrespectful. It’s a disgrace. We have wayspots of simple park playgrounds, and normal picnic areas - but we cannot bring attention to a memorial park bench dedicated to a family who lost their lives in a tragic accident, recognized by the city, all because Niantic stated they were not “significant”.

It’s a memorial, it’s in a park, it’s in a beautiful walking route. It’s got a dedicated plaque that’s upkept by the city. How absolutely disrespectful to say they basically didn’t matter enough.

“Gone but not forgotten” - But in Niantic’s eyes? They simply didn’t matter and thus should be forgotten and their memory ignored.

Very disappointing Niantic, absolutely disgraceful.

6 Likes
2

It’s very much in line with their criteria clarifications. Sounds like a pretty scenic place though.

3

Welcome to the forum @RogueRahkshi and I am sorry you are upset.

A clarification on memorial benches is here: Seating Benches

I realize that many have made it into game that should not have, and that is very confusing for people who suddenly have their memorial nominations rejected.

Would you like to share the nomination and have us look at it? They have said that they want to know when the appeals team gets it wrong, and occasionally (very rarely) will reverse an appeal decision with more discussion about the nomination here.

2 Likes
4

Hello hello,

Had I just took the picture I had, overlooking the Mississippi River and the forest just across the river, it would actually indeed, be well inline with their requirements, as it would be overlooking some scenic area. Instead I submitted it with the small park area behind it.

Problem being however, the reviewer was disrespectful of the family, and the dead in their response and Niantic seems to approve most memorial areas regardless if they meet the criteria or not, which is contradictory to their guidelines to start with. If they followed many of their own guidelines, hundreds, and I do quite literally mean hundreds, of wayspots would need to be revoked.

Than you for your reply!

5

Hello @cyndiepooh

I know where and why the nomination was rejected and how it could very easily be approved.

It overlooks the Mississippi river as well as a forest area past that, it’s quite the scene to take in. I chose to take a picture of it and the park behind it - this can easily be fixed the next time I venture the path.

The problem being (yes, many wayspots make it in, which means the review team themselves do not hold to the guidelines 100% of the time) that how they choose to address the denial.

Stating that the memorial isn’t signficant is very disrespectful to both the family and the deceased.

The city also does not “mass produce” them as they unknowingly claim. The city reviews each case, brought forth by the family. This case being that the family of four, passed in an accident as both longtime members of/and within the city. Most park benches have a reason as to why the are implemented within this area.

For the reviewer to simply state something they are not fully aware of is beyond negligible, that’s why I and actually quite a few players within the town are slightly offended about the decision.

But in the end, as stated earlier - I’ll take the photos again, but this time showing it’s a scenic area - the fact that I’ve seen hundreds of benches around other towns with no plaques, or even not even being memorials, that were approved to be wayspots is just absolutely baffling though…

Thank you for your reply!

2 Likes
6

First, I’d like to chime in an understanding of the frustrations you share. And memorials have a long history of going back and forth with how Niantic handled them and at one time they did accept all of them. Your statement “If they followed their own guidelines-” is a real frustration many of us can especially relate to.

I’m absolutely positive your intent is not as I follow, but can you understand this perspective? Perhaps it’s sometimes a bit disrespectful to encourage people to share an AR gaming experience at a location intended to be a memorial. The one you describe seems more like a donor bench rather than memorial site, but anything connected to memorials can get into a possible active grieving situation that can make it uncomfortable for some people. To be clear, I’m not suggesting your actions were disrespectful, but perhaps consider that sometimes overdoing it with rejecting memorials prevents awkward experiences.

I (and others) would love to engage more in this topic along with suggestions to either improve your submissions or help better understand the eligibility of the picnic areas and playgrounds (intended to bring people together to socialize & exercise). River towns often have a lot of highly eligible candidates that might have been overlooked - including, as mentioned above, literal overlooks!

9 Likes
7

Hello @Gendgi

Going off what you stated, this would would mean the removal of almost any or all memorial sites. A memorial to a fallen soldier, a memorial to a family, a memorial to anything that could be considered personal to the family, all would have to be immediately removed if this was the case.

We also reach out to the family prior, before any of us in our group submit for a waystop, it’s why some memorials in the area have not been touched for submission. As we are well aware of the possibility of this upsetting an individual or family.

Going off if this, we had already received the go ahead of a relative, and they thought that bringing more attention to the memorial would be amazing, as it would solidify a place for their memory to be shared. This is another way family and individuals see these types of submission, not just malicious intent.

As stated in a previous reply, I’m working to ensure the guidelines are followed to a tee upon resubmission of this spot.

Thank you for your reply!

4 Likes
8

Stepping back, we have to remember the eligibility criteria are that the site is a great place to explore, to exercise or to socialize. Memorials are usually places to explore. That’s why the explanation is that it needs to be someone famous, important. The memorial site should be something people would come specifically to see.
Locally important people can be memorialized and others would come to see their memorials. But, most of the time, these memorials are really mostly important to family and friends, but not something of which others would be aware.
That doesn’t mean that the individuals were not amazing people, it’s just these types of memorials don’t necessarily fit Niantic’s criteria, not because they aren’t being respectful, but because it isn’t what they want to include in their database.

12 Likes
9

Memorials can be put into different categories, based on Niantic criteria, which I do feel tries its best to respect the family/friends of loved ones, who may not want a Wayspot at the memorial they paid for.

There are public memorials for wars and veterans, that allow us to honor those who have served, and are also historically important. There are memorials to influential people in a community, such as a statue or a mural; think of a statue outside a sports arena dedicated to a former player/coach; there’s a statue of Willie Mays outside where the SF Giants play, and he passed away earlier this year, so it’s now more of a memorial to him.

A bench or tree with a memorial plaque is typically purchased the the family/friends of the deceased, as they are looking for a calm and quiet place they can go to in order to show their respects that’s not at a cemetery or graveyard. Most of the time, submitters don’t provide any context as to why the memorialized were important to the community, as they usually just lived there, or their family/friends wanted some kind of memorial to them where they live.

While memorials like these used to be allowed, Niantic has been getting more requests to remove the Wayspots at them from the family/friends, as they find PoGo players raiding a gym there or Ingress players interacting with a portal for quite a good deal of time to be disrespectful, and not allowing for the area they paid for to be a calm and quiet reflection space. More respectful players have also said they’d not like to see these memorials be game play locations, again, out of respect to the loved ones. Niantic will respect family/friends that request Wayspot removals over the players, as there are always other good game play locations out there.

I could easily go down to the church down the street and submit every memorial tree plaque there. However, I don’t know anything about the people memorialized, other than that they lived in the community and were members of said church. While I have submitted Wayspots for statues and their events center, I feel if I submit the memorial plaques and they get into any of the games, the church may not like players hanging around them as much as the events center there.

I think if family/friends would like a Wayspot at the memorial, they may need to contact Niantic to get that done. Just asking them if you can nominate isn’t enough.

4 Likes
10

Hello @Leedle95

The problem, again, doesn’t necessarily stem from the denial - it’s the basis of Niantic fails to follow their own criteria.

As stated in a previous repy, the memorial does in fact fall under criteria of the exploration, and that the memorial overlooks the Mississippi River, as well as a large forested area on the other side. This would again categorize the memorial as a scenic area.

Unfortunately, Niantic does not follow their own rules when approving many wayspots, this is a problem that they themselves need to focus on, to better ensure criteria isn’t being confused on what can and cannot be submitted. In this case, they have accepted hundreds of memorials just like this one, across the cities and town dedicated to individuals and/or family.

Unfortunately, if Niantic does not follow proper protocols and regulations determined by themselves, it’s abhorrent to then expect their players/consumers to follow them or at the very most understand them, without questioning consistency of contradictory.

Thank you for your response!

1 Like
11

It sounds as if you submitted this as a memorial, and Niantic followed the criteria for what it was submitted as, since you are wanting to resubmit it now as a scenic outlook. A memorial and a scenic outlook are 2 different things when it comes to Wayfarer.

You haven’t provided any info on the submission, so we are assuming it was submitted as a memorial bench.

2 Likes
12

Hello @DTrain2002

Unfortunately this falls solely under Niantics guidelines not being followed.

In a game where the goal is to venture out and explore, you are putting the player in a public space. Memorial’s regardless of being at the behest of the family, is in a public space/setting.

Any suggestion of “there is too many people at the park bench, this church, this pavilion” etc. is a far stretch, and quite frankly, a very strange sounding statement.

The responsibility of “Gym” placement falls unto Niantic, where as if we could stay on topic, we are not discussing gym’s, we are discussing standard wayspots, in which the average interaction is to look, admire quickly, spin the stop, and continue on.

In the case of a gym, this would, yes, have many people around or staying in an area. This howver cannot be an issue, as gym spaces are almost always a large area for the public to access. Misplaced gym locations would fall unto Niantic, not the end user.

Going back to previous statements I made earlier, Niantic is fine with memorials, so long as overlooking a scenic area, in which case, this spot actually is.

The area is too open to interpretation, if Niantic approves many memorials dedicated to individuals, but then expect their players and consumers to not assume these are OK, then Niantic needs to set better examples and explanations, and/or follow the guidelines they themselves are supposed to adhere to.

Thanks for your reply!

1 Like
13

If you truly believe the language used was disrespectful, please post exactly the wording used so we can recommend to Niantic how to alter the reply. I know the appeals team uses prepared answers for appeal rejections.

2 Likes
14

Hello again @DTrain2002

Memorial site, as you stated earlier, said that too many people around the area would upset the owners of said memorial. Yet the it’s an openly public area, where people will consistently visit, regardless of being players or not.

What is the family to do? Yes, that overlook is a memorial spot, yet it’s openly accessible to everyone. Niantic is fine with memorials so long as it provides access to a scenic overlook which would fall underneath it’s more adventurous categories.

This fall to far under a grey area, where the guidelines are just that, loose guidelines, in which case there isn’t a set answer to what would or wouldn’t be acceptable. There needs to be clear and consistent instructions. Niantic also cannot approve a spot and ignore their guidelines, then expect players to follow the guidelines without slight confusion.

I digress, those in our group whom are more upset about the issue are already speaking to support about it.

Thanks again for your input!

15

Hello again @cyndiepooh

The users in our group, once close to the deceased of this memorial is already speaking to the support team.

If they wish to create their own post regarding the denial response, once at the proper player level, they can go ahead and do so.

I myself was more or less acting as their vented frustration, my topic mostly is focusing on loosely followed guidelines.

Though after reading feedback amongst you all and speaking to other users of various Discord servers. It fell mostly onto us as we should have submitted under a different terminology with a different set of photos.

Thanks again for your helpful response!

4 Likes
16

I live in a tourist town that is a junction for two highways in Queensland (Australia), and I nominate memorial plaques (always with a planted tree) placed throughout our town by the local council, which are dedicated to WWI servicemen who lost their lives in active duty. These plaques and the planted tree that goes with every plaque attract visitors to them, who may be looking to see some of the past history of the town as they pass through. I have never had any of these historical plaques declined (yet). I also make sure that there is a reasonable distance between any current Pokestops (Waypoints) an the new ones that I nominate. Giving a great detailed description of the nominated Waypoint and the history behind it, will be favourable to the success of a Waypoint being accepted. When nominating a Waypoint, the main things that I have in mind are ‘is this nomination historically important, will it attract people to it or already attract people to it, is it an important place in the local community, is it a place of cultural significance’. When nominating Waypoints, I try to think ‘would I accept this Waypoint if it was nominated by someone else for me to vote on’.

17

Hello @drailoner

A memorial to an individual soldier falls back to a personal memorial donated by the family. Despite being a soldier, there is no significance to that person aside from the fact they served in the military in the past. Serving in the military alone doesn’t garner someone as significantly historical.

My grandfather’s faught in WWI and WWII, despite them fighting in the wars, there wouldn’t be anything inherently “historical” about them, thus, their memorials wouldn’t, or in this case - shouldn’t, be accepted.

Again, falling to the fact these memorials are donated by the persons family, would put into the question that many in the thread have already stated, that “personal” memorials being used as waypoints could negatively impact said family. This then would make this no difference for these individual soldiers memorials.

I won’t get into the fact that these memorials are willingly placed by the families, typically on public property where anyone can access, making many of the points mentioned by some in the thread to be fairly moot as far as “too many people around” or “too much attention to the memorial area”.

There are guidelines to wayspots, but they are loosely followed, and are left too open for interpretation. Not to mention Niantic approves many wayspots that don’t follow the guidelines at all, making the guidelines even more redundant.

Please note this thread states it was solved, and didn’t need to be revitalized. The discussion has been done for near 5 days now. Necroing the thread wasn’t really necessary.

Regardless, your take on the discussion of wayspot criteria is appreciated, and will further help discussions we may bring up further down the line.

Thanks again!

18

For information:
We try not to close topics on this forum. We leave them open so that if a fellow wayfinder finds a topic that they would like to add to they can.
Asynchronous comments are a feature of this forum and are welcome.
Moderators will take action to close or split a topic if we judge it to be appropriate.

19

Hello @elijustrying

Closing a thread vs locking a thread are two very different things. I stated that necroing the discussion wasn’t necessary, as it wasn’t. The discussion is labeled solved, meaning there isn’t a need to further comment, as the answer to the original post can already be found.

An asynchronous comment on a topic with an already provided answer is equal of comparison to providing a teacher with an answer to a question that another student answered multiple classes ago. The answer has now been unreasonably provided and no longer relevant to the current time. Asynchronous communication would be viewed as fine, so long as the statement would fall within a reasonable timeframe, such as if a student provided a different take regarding the discussion at a different time, but within the same class period. This is not the case.

Moderators in the literal sense moderate. Focusing on making sure forums do not revive comments that are no longer relative and ensuring users end up finding what they need within the forums. Topics revived typically are less likely to be seen or utilized by users looking for an answer, as typically ongoing threads are less likely to provide an answer, due to the discussion still receiving the posts and be ongoing.

It’s typically well known that closed discussions amongst various forums and discussion threads amongst many sites immediately tell users that the question of the original thread has an answer. This is common knowledge amongst many internet users.

Necrothreading and posting to solved answers would definitely not constitute to any developer or website coder to be a “feature” but an oversight. As again, there’s no reason to it aside from reviving a post and quite literally continuing a discussion that already has an answer, it’s not helpful, it’s redundant.

20

This forum has a feature where a comment can be marked as a solution, and you can see that the thread has a solution before tapping/clicking it. This effectively functions as what you’re saying a closed thread should function as, without the need to actually close it, meaning that further discussion can still occur, which isn’t a bad thing.

4 Likes