No words, just mass-production

General Discussion
1

Screenshot_20241021_091925_Chrome
Screenshot_20241021_091925_Chrome1080×816 135 KB

20240817_180318
20240817_1803181920×1440 846 KB

20240816_091217
20240816_0912171920×2560 1.14 MB

20240817_180306
20240817_1803061920×2560 1.26 MB

1000037965

3 Likes
2

I’ve had problems with this kind of submission before, but got them in second time around.

If you know the history of the place then you should definitely include that in the submission, add links to the supporting evidence too.

3 Likes
3

Mate, thanks for looking out for me, but who in their right mind looks at this and goes “yeah that’s mass-produced”

1 Like
4

Mass production circa 1850 or whatever :laughing:
Maybe older

Can we see the rest of the nomination? Not because I think you made a mistake or need to improve or anything, just because Im interested!!

1 Like
5

Yeah sure, I’ll copypaste the text, let me know if you need a translation

Name: Fontanile Ottocentesco

Description: Fontanile di Balsorano Vecchio

Info: Insieme di vasconi con fontanile collegati a un complesso di ruderi del versante sud di Balsorano Vecchio. Era già in uso nel XIX secolo e la recente pulizia dei sentieri di montagna l’ha reso di nuovo accessibile al pubblico. Simpatica meta di esplorazione

1000037993
10000379931080×1619 385 KB

1000037994
10000379941080×1610 459 KB

2 Likes
6

When you resubmit, put WAY more of that interesting history in the description.

Was this originally rejected by the community or by “our team”?

For the supporting text, I would just say that it meets exploration criteria and provide links to back up what you said about the history.

I think the rejection reason was probably trying to say this appeared to be just infrastructure to the appeals reviewer. The stated reasons they can copy/paste don’t always match up exactly to what they are trying to say. But I think this would be an excellent wayspot based on the “Info” you provided.

6 Likes
7

Yeah agree, most of the support info could go into the description

But that isn’t grounds to reject in my opinion as the info was still provided- just means the waypoint if approved would have more detail available to passers by.

I think this is definitely interesting enough to be a PoI, would try again :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

3 Likes
8

If it was community voting, I find that reviewers seem to be more likely to read my information if it is in the description section. I know a lot of reviewers speed through reviews and have made up their minds well before they get to the supporting section at the bottom. I get upset every time there is a challenge and Niantic posts leaderboards, but I digress.

3 Likes
9

I tend to go faster if the initial image and title make me think about accepting… but if I’m minded to reject then Im looking for a reason to change my mind. But I think you’re right that many would do the opposite

1 Like
10

Thanks for the input! It was rejected by “our team”, so I guess Emily took a look at all that greenery and went “not on my life”

4 Likes
11

I have found that it’s the photo more than the text that causes Emily to reject. You could try cropping more or using one of the other photos as the main one. These days I take several photos of the wayspot from different angles in case Emily throws a fit over one of them.

4 Likes
12

Accordo perso peccato!! Io sono abbastanza sicuro di averlo recensito.

3 Likes
13

Usually it’s an automatic yes or no. It’s the stuff in the middle that makes me look really hard and look for reasons to either say yes or no.

14

I got a report some weeks ago for spamming or false information because I renamed a Pokestop with its original name. I thought it was for a statue at the top of the building, but I didn’t understand. Sometimes, the criteria need to be clarified, and English is my second language, so sometimes I might misunderstand. But as I see your photos, it is a ‘waterbody’ and definitely not a ‘water fountain.’