Niantic is so unfair. Nianitc called this saw mill from the 1800’s, thats a nowadays antique shop a “regualr old building”. Like at least people would know what theyre looking at, you go into the city and every “regular old building” that has no description of it at all is a wayspot/pokestop. There is no reason it should get denied, its public, a great place to walk around and plenty of stuff to look at! Its so upsetting people get playgrounds that are in their literally back yards accepted, but this family owned, historical building doesnt. Absoultley over this. Not to metion its always “our team” never the community. let the people decide!!!
Do you have any documentation proving the history of the building? A plaque, a website, newspaper clippings? It would go a long way to establish the site’s history and get it approved.
I have nominated antique shops not in historic buildings, so even that baffles me.
The email for the original rejection, did it say “our team” or “our community?” If it was “our team,” that was the ML, the AI, and the appeals team seems to follow whatever the ML decides on appeal these days.
A quick Google search on the text tells me this description was copied from a Facebook post. If that is correct then that is plagiarism and the rejection is correct. The appeal reason is not.
Oh, here too: History – Augusta Township
In 1887 P.T. Lambkin built a factory to manufacture broom handles, he later added a sawmill. Charcoal kilns were built and poor lumber and stumps pulled from farm fields were burned into charcoal and shipped to Detroit to be used in the blacksmith forges.
The Facebook post had it spelled Lamkin, but the post has apparently been removed or I don’t have permission to access it
1 Like
It’s still there for me
1 Like
It’s in the supporting description. I thought stuff shouldn’t get rejected just because of the supporting description or photo, because in-game, you won’t be able to see the supporting description or supporting pnoto.
okay it is just quoting the other source i found - ty for sharing!
No that is the description.
1 Like
Oh, my bad then
Yep, rejection criteria on the Wayfarer website states the following:
- Ineligible text or description
Title and/or description seems copied and pasted from other sources, includes emojis, tags, or personally identifiable information such as codenames, personal names or initials, or addresses.
When nominating, we are to write our own descriptions, not use a description from another source, such as a Facebook comment, official website, etc; ML picked up on the Facebook comment, and made the right decision to reject it, and the appeals team was also correct.
You certainly can use 3rd party sources to help write a description, but it should be an original description, similar to how 3rd party photos are not allowed. I myself will look up websites to get some information to help in writing my descriptions, but I never pull exactly from the 3rd party source.
You certainly can resubmit the nomination, with a new description written by you and not coming from a 3rd party source.
1 Like
the ai that decided couldnt of saw i got the description from a website, and i did change it a good bit. its basically the same because i didnt know how i was suppose to word it without just taking away information. no real person even saw my submission, it didnt get denied because of copying information
i added a website and facebook in my submission
“quoting” i didnt just steal it, i did change it a bit
i forgot to even say, look at my screenshot i posted, it got rejected because of it being a “regular old building”
I completely agree and understand the frustration with feeling upset when Niantic gets it wrong. All of us have had similar situations and see so many people in here post theirs. I don’t think it’s fair for Niantic to now be able to pivot to “well we meant you had a bad description, that’s why we rejected the appeal” and not accept that they made an error.
But I think you can appreciate that they’re capable of making mistakes when you’re making mistakes, too. We’re all human (except the ML tool, but that’s no better) and we all make goofs. I’ve caught myself accepting and rejecting nominations and immediately doubting my actions. I genuinely feel bad when I reject nominations that I just don’t think make it because I know somebody finds that interesting.
I really hope you can take feedback to improve the chances of this nomination because historic context like this is one of the things I enjoy digging into now that I’ve been exposed to Wayfarer.
2 Likes
I have had this scenario of a rejection by Emily the machine learning program, followed by appeal rejection. And I felt short changed, and deeply frustrated, as I am sure if it had gone to the community it would have been ok- but deep down knowing every submission could fail.
By posting here you can at least get some unbiased eyes to look it over.
First I like the place, I am keen to see interesting buildings in Wayfarer.
I think the title is a little confusing. It is a mashup of what it was and what it is. You need to decide which is key and focus on that with a title that says one of these.
As I’m not from where you are I have little sense as to whether it’s original purpose as a mill and it being a historic building will be better than the fact that it is now an antiques place and as such an interesting place to go.
Then craft a description that really focuses on drawing that out, and back up in the supplementary.
Then try for a different photo again depending on which aspect you go for. If it’s the business a photo that is dominated by a sign for the business so it is clear. If it’s the building then something closer where the building gets a chance to stand out would be key. In your current photo the building is partly obscured and the clear part only takes up about an eighth of the picture. Find a spot where you can see more of that industrial past and fill the picture.with the building.
I do hope this gets in as it is interesting.
4 Likes
Oh, I agree that the appeal rejection reason is wrong, but that description cannot be on a Wayspot. Please resubmit it using your own words.
I think the ML model may look at text, but I think the main issue it rejected for was your photo. Try to take a photo so nice that it that looks like it belongs in that article about the building. I was going to try to take a screen snip of street view to try to show how I would suggest framing the photo, but I couldn’t locate this particular building. In general, I would recommend either turning your phone sideways to take a photo of a horizontal building so there is less other stuff in the photo, too, like grass and road, or cropping your photo to square. If you take your photos before you start your submission, you can pick the best one of those by using the “choose existing” option. Here is the photo I used for a historic building that ML accepted as an example:
It’s there @cyndiepooh
To be honest it looks a lot like a junk yard, but equally I like wandering around such places.
I think the gable ends potentially make a better focus, but with so much stuff it might be better to focus as it really detracts from the building.
2 Likes